Leadership Advisory Panel

10.00am, Tuesday, 31 March 2020

Edinburgh City Centre Transformation: Meadows to George Street, Developed Design and Commencement of Statutory Procedures for Traffic Regulation Order and Redetermination Order

Executive/routine Executive Wards City Centre, Southside/Newington Council Commitments 16, 17, 18, 19

1. Recommendations

1.1. It is recommended that the Panel: 1.1.1 notes the developed design for the Meadows to George Street project; 1.1.2 notes that, in addition to measures discussed in previous reports on this project, it is proposed to introduce ‘filtered permeability’ on Market Street. This will permit through journeys for buses, taxis and cycles only, with provision retained for drop off and pick up at Waverley Station, particularly by blue badge holders. This is part of a package of measures, detailed in this report, that were set out by the Edinburgh City Centre Transformation to achieve better streets for people and reduce car dominance; and 1.1.3 approves commencing the statutory procedures for the necessary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and Redetermination Order (RO).

Paul Lawrence Executive Director of Place Contact: Ewan Kennedy, Service Manager – Transport Networks E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3575

Report

Edinburgh City Centre Transformation: Meadows to George Street, Developed Design and Commencement of Statutory Procedures for Traffic Regulation Order and Redetermination Order

2. Executive Summary

2.1 The Edinburgh City Centre Transformation strategy (ECCT), as approved at the October 2019 Transport and Environment Committee, has set out an ambitious but achievable strategy of street changes which will re-prioritise the city centre as pedestrian and cycle friendly rather than traffic dominated. Meadows to George Street will be one of the first major schemes within the ECCT to be delivered. 2.2 Building on high levels of support from public consultation, the Meadows to George Street project has completed its developed design stage and it is now proposed to commence the statutory procedures for the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and Redetermination Orders (RO) necessary to make the changes proposed to streets along the route. 2.3 This report sets out the key findings from the public consultation, summarises the developed design, including the addition of filtered permeability at Market Street, and recommends commencing the statutory procedures.

3. Background

3.1 In 2017 the City of Edinburgh Council was one of four local authorities that were successful in the Scottish Government’s Community Links PLUS, now called Places for Everyone, funding competition. The Council had two successful projects: Meadows to George Street (MGS) and the West Edinburgh Link. 3.2 The MGS project aims to maximise the quality of walking, cycling and public spaces along some of Edinburgh’s most iconic streets. The project area, as defined in Appendix 1, includes; Forrest Road, Teviot Place, Bristo Place, Candlemaker Row, George IV Bridge, Bank Street, the Mound and Hanover Street.

3.3 MGS is a key element of ECCT and will be one of the first parts of that strategy to be delivered. 3.4 Located within, or closely connected to, the MGS project area are many of Edinburgh’s key visitor attractions; such as the National Gallery, National Museum, National Library, Greyfriars Bobby, The Royal Mile, Princes Street, George Street and the Meadows. The grand and varied architecture, built form and vistas make the streets themselves destinations and are important aspects of the Old and New Town’s UNESCO’s World Heritage Site inscription. The value therefore of these streets as linear public spaces, which can gather significant crowds at sites such as at Greyfriars Bobby, is significant. 3.5 In addition to the above attractions and characteristics, these streets serve as key commuter and visitor walking routes to and from the city centre. Due to their popularity for both local people and visitors, they carry very high footfall levels throughout the year and especially during the festivals. This results in the pavements being often over-capacity and people having to stray onto the road. 3.6 The corridor is well served by public transport that links to the city centre. This is an important aspect of the multi-modal sustainable transport package that these streets offer. 3.7 MGS will provide a key cycling connection linking existing routes to and from the south, west and east, which culminate at the Meadows, with the city centre. To the north, MGS links to the George Street and First New Town project and its planned cycle facilities that will, in turn, link to the City Centre West East Cycle Link, heading west and north east. As such, MGS will connect the majority of the city-wide cycling network and deliver a step change in strategic cycle connectivity in Edinburgh.

4. Main report

The Developed Design 4.1 The project has now reached the completion of its developed design stage. Plans showing the design are provided in Appendix 2 and a high level operations plan is set out in Appendix 1. 4.2 These plans have been developed on the back of high levels of public support for the concept design, see section 7. 4.3 As part of the wider ECCT strategy, the MGS design has been refined through close cross-departmental working, including key inputs from planning, public transport, city centre locality, public safety, roads renewals, waste, traffic management/signals, parks and greenspaces and estates. This is underpinned through internal governance structures of the City Centre Programme Delivery Board and Traffic Management Review Panel, which oversee interactions with all major city centre projects.

4.4 The MGS design proposes only permitting the use of Bank Street by buses, licensed black cab taxis and cycles. Loading provision for businesses on the street will be provided and access will be maintained for residents of properties on/from the street. The project also proposes to pedestrianise Forrest Road, with access maintained for businesses and residents of the street. Candlemaker Row, from Merchant Street to George IV Bridge, will only be accessible for local bus services and business loading. 4.5 In order to make the improvements on the Mound it is necessary to slightly widen out the footprint of the street. To achieve this the project team is engaged in positive dialogue with the National Galleries of Scotland. 4.6 The above changes are vital to both the MGS project and the wider ECCT strategy. For ECCT, it is central to the creation of a people friendly city centre where through traffic by private cars is reduced. For MGS, the closure of Bank Street to most traffic enables the street changes that are proposed by the project, in the following ways: 4.6.1 Segregated cycleways – the design provides for continuous segregated cycleways, including separation of cyclists from traffic at all junctions. The narrow road width of Bank Street, at the corner by the High Court, means is it only possible to fit segregated cycleways into the available space if traffic is restricted to an alternating one-way shuttle operation and this can only operate effectively if general through traffic is removed. Continuing to allow this traffic would result in very significant congestion along the whole corridor, with severe consequent impacts on bus services. 4.6.2 Wider footways - reducing general traffic along the route, due to the proposed restrictions at Bank Street, makes it possible to remove two traffic lanes on George IV Bridge and greatly widen the footways. There are also wider footways proposed for other streets along the route which are made possible by this reduction in traffic. 4.6.3 People friendly streets - more crossings, new public spaces, seating and greening. By restricting traffic, new public spaces can be created outside the Bedlam Theatre and Greyfriars Bobby, as well as a new publicly accessible greenspace at Mound Place. Throughout the project there will be more space available for seating and greening. Reduced traffic creates a less car-dominated and more people friendly street environment, with new formalised crossings on desire lines. 4.6.4 Public transport corridor - reducing general traffic along the route, due to the proposed restrictions at Bank Street, enables the project to make all the above gains whilst still retaining the high-quality public transport service. 4.6.5 Loading, servicing and parking - loading and servicing will be provided for all streets, however the locations and timings will be changed to best balance supporting the businesses and optimising use for walking and

social activities (relaxing, sitting and meeting). Details of these times are being refined prior to advertising the TRO. There will be provision for blue badge parking and for residents’ parking bays at Mound Place. Market Street Filtered Permeability 4.7 The ECCT strategy included the introduction, under an experimental TRO, of ‘filtered permeability’ on Market Street in order to better deliver improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists in the city centre. This would involve restricting through motorised access via Market Street to buses and taxis, whilst allowing access to Waverley Station for pick-up and drop-off. The subsequent detailed traffic modelling undertaken as part of the MGS project (see para 4.6) has demonstrated that, to ensure an effective bus service and prevent delays, it is vital to prevent through traffic using Market Street. It was not possible to undertake this detailed level of modelling prior to the approval of the ECCT strategy. 4.8 Based on the outcome of the modelling, it is now proposed to pursue a permanent closure of Market Street, between Cockburn Street and Jeffrey Street, to through traffic (exempting buses, taxis and cycles) as part of the MGS TRO. This closure/filter would continue to allow drop-off and pick up at the Market Street entrance of Waverley Station for Blue Badge holders. Making these changes permits significant widening of the footways and creation of a quieter, more pedestrian friendly street. 4.9 Closing this section of Market Street will have a number of benefits in addressing key existing issues on the street: 4.9.1 Footway overcrowding. The volume of people trying to move along the street outweighs the available width. This leads to it being difficult and uncomfortable to walk or spend time on the street, particularly during festival periods. Data from Waverley Station indicates that patronage levels at the station are to increase by 10% per year. The design we are proposing ensures excellent functioning of the street for pedestrians, both now and in the future. 4.9.2 Pedestrian and cycle safety. Feedback, particularly via the summer streets study, is that the level of traffic movements and narrow footways leads to a street environment that feels less safe for walking and cycling. Restricting general traffic, simplifying the street layout and widening footways will alleviate these problems. 4.9.3 Creating a welcoming people-friendly gateway to Edinburgh. The proposed street changes, wider footways and lower traffic, will make for a significantly better first impression for people entering Edinburgh’s historic core from the station. There are a number of attractions along the street, including cafes, bars, hotels and the Edinburgh Dungeon. Our proposals will support these attractions through further developing the street as place enjoy spending time within rather than just passing through.

4.9.4 Station access. The changes will create better access to the station, for those on foot, bike and blue badge holders, whilst maintaining access for pick up and drop off by taxi. Drop off by private car is controlled so that it is still possible, either directly at Calton Road, or from slightly further away on Market Street, without compromising the above gains for the street as a whole. 4.9.5 Complementing the Waverley Station Masterplan. The recent Masterplan for Waverley Station highlights creating a more people friendly environment with improved active travel access. Our design compliments this view, takes the first step towards it and future proofs the street for the potential changes set out in the masterplan. 4.10 Based on these factors the MGS project will incorporate the design and delivery of this section of Market Street. A concept design for it is shown in Appendix 4. This design has been developed cross-departmentally. Its development is informed by ECCT traffic modelling and surveys of how the street functions in terms of loading and the interactions of vehicles and pedestrians. Further design work is underway to complete it to the same developed design stage as the rest of the project so that it can be part of the TRO/RO promotion. 4.11 The section of Market Street between The Mound and Waverley Bridge, is being considered to improve cycle connectivity to the station. This piece of work is part of a wider ECCT study on active travel connections across the Waverley Valley, including Waverley Bridge, East Princes Street, North Bridge and the proposed active travel bridge over Waverley Station. It is required to incorporate these elements together as one package as the interplay between them in terms of overall traffic movements has to be considered and modelled collectively. Surveys and Traffic Modelling 4.12 Surveys undertaken as part of developing the design have included detailed analysis of; parking and loading, pedestrian flows and desire lines, public life (the use of streets for social activities), cycle flows, traffic flows, utilities, heritage, drainage and structures. 4.13 The traffic modelling work undertaken comprised of two elements: 4.13.1 Firstly, strategic modelling of the key traffic routeing changes set out in ECCT was undertaken, this comprised the Meadows to George Street proposed changes, including the traffic filters on Market Street and Bank Street. The results from the modelling showed that general traffic flows can still be maintained, without causing significant congestion issues, along all the key city centre routes where traffic is permitted under the strategy. 4.13.2 Secondly, outputs from this model were then incorporated into detailed modelling analysis of the MGS corridor. This detailed modelling helped to refine the design for buses, cyclist, pedestrian and general traffic movements, taking into account impacts on local delays and flows.

Traffic Regulation Order and Redetermination Order 4.14 The next stage of the project is to advertise the TRO and RO that are required to make the changes proposed. A delegated powers report setting out the proposed traffic restrictions in greater detail will be prepared for approval by the Director of Place. 4.15 The statutory procedures for the Traffic Orders include a further public consultation. This will be publicised using the following measures, to ensure awareness of the planned changes and how to comment or formally object to them: 4.15.1 online publication of the Orders via the Council’s Traffic Orders webpage; 4.15.2 advertisement in local newspapers; 4.15.3 notification to people on the project’s mailing list; 4.15.4 notification of the consultation on the project’s website; 4.15.5 leafleting of all local residents and businesses along the route, notifying them of when and how to respond; and 4.15.6 several public drop-in sessions, where people can view the proposed changes and find out how to submit their views in response.

5. Next Steps

5.1 Details of proposed loading, servicing and blue badge access arrangements will be refined, prior to planned commencement of the statutory procedures for the TRO and RSO later in 2020. 5.2 Details of the landscape design proposals for the streetscape and public spaces of the streets will be developed throughout 2020, in parallel to the ongoing Traffic Orders process. The detailed technical design, including elements such as materials, drainage, structures and lighting, will also be completed in preparation for construction. 5.3 Depending on the duration and outcomes of the Traffic Orders process, construction is expected to commence in 2022.

6. Financial impact

6.1 The current estimated overall project cost for construction is £15.9 million, however this does not yet include the re-development of Market Street. Costs for Market Street will be added once the design is completed to the developed design stage. This will be carried out in next two months. Funding for this is spilt with: 6.1.1 the Council’s, Committee approved, Active Travel Capital Budget providing 45%; and

6.1.2 Transport Scotland, via Sustrans Places for Everyone funding, providing 55%. 6.2 A further breakdown of this budget calculation is provided in Appendix 3. 7. Stakeholder/Community Impact

7.1 The developed design has been informed by two rounds of public engagement and consultation, as well as detailed surveys and modelling. 7.2 The latest public consultation, carried out in Summer 2019, showed a very high level of overall public support (75% in favour) for the designs. Based on feedback from over 1,400 responses, the key findings include: 7.2.1 79% support for improvements for walking (wider pavements, planters, seating and crossings); 7.2.2 81% support for introduction of segregated cycleways; 7.2.3 76% support for improving the streets as places for people and restricting general traffic on certain streets; 7.2.4 high levels of support for the concept design for each specific street (between 79% and 75%); 7.2.5 overall support to retain general traffic on Hanover street and The Mound (between Princes Street and Market Street); 7.2.6 the majority of residents in or near the area are supportive of the project, welcoming the improvement of conditions for walking and cycling; 7.2.7 of the business owners who responded, there was a broadly even level of support and opposition to the various elements of the concept design. There is, however, a greater level of support for the concept of improving walking and cycling. There are some key concerns regarding loading, accessibility, retention of bus services and general accessibility to support local businesses. The project has been addressing these through further business engagement and surveys of loading patterns; and 7.2.8 young people show very high levels of support for the project. 7.2.9 of the 25% who were opposed to the proposals the most common reason for opposition was to retain access for general traffic along the corridor. Retaining general traffic access was felt to be beneficial for driving to work and accessing the city centre, preventing congestion on other streets, not increasing journey times and supporting local businesses. 7.3 A link to the full consultation report is provided in point 8.4. 7.4 The positive impacts for sustainability relate to the principle that places are for people rather than motor traffic. Increased levels of walking and cycling are expected through the project, which is likely to result in fewer private car trips and a reduction in carbon emissions. Sustainable urban drainage options are being

considered along the route, alongside planting of pollinator wildflower species and trees which will have positive environmental benefits. 7.5 An Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) has been carried out and then updated at each stage of the project. The IIA identifies a majority of positive impacts for people with protected characteristics.

8. Background reading/external references

8.1 Transport 2030 Vision 8.2 Edinburgh’s City Centre Transformation Project 8.3 Meadows to George Street website 8.4 MGS public consultation report 8.5 MGS Transport and Environment Committee Business Bulletin October 2019 8.6 City Centre Transformation Strategy 8.7 Active Travel Action Plan

9. Appendices

9.1 Appendix 1 – Project Area and Operations Plan 9.2 Appendix 2 – Developed Design Drawings 9.3 Appendix 3 – Construction Cost Estimate Summary 9.4 Appendix 4 – Market Street Concept Design 9.5 Appendix 5 – MGS Integrated Impact Assessment Report

This drawin g has been prepared for the us e of AECOM’s c lien t. It m ay n ot be us ed, m odified, reproduc ed or relied upon by third parties , exc ept as agreed by AECOM or as req uired by law. AECOM ac c epts n o res pon s ibility, an d den ies an y liability whats oever, to an y party that us es or relies on this drawin g without AECOM’s expres s written c on s en t. Do n ot s c ale this doc um en t. All m eas urem en ts m us t be obtain ed from the s tated dim en s ion s .

KEY H A ADVANCED DIRECTIONAL SIGN TO Potential Closure to be Delivered by CCT N WARN DRIVERS OF BUS GATE . O One-way Traffic Flow (Bus, Taxi and Blue Badge Holders

. V Only) M

O E C

E R Existing Traffic Restrictions (Pedestrian Zone Except for A

f o

Loading 06:30 - 10:30)

t S n

e T m

e R Bus Gate (Public Transport, Taxi, Cycles Only) e r g E a T

n . E Two-way Traffic Flow, No Restrictions t e E E t n

t R

i T e r i S l T

w S

C E

s C Loading and Local Access Only (Times to be Agreed); e s IN h e

t R r

p Permitted Access Enforced via Bollards All Other Times d x n e a

d n M Loading and Local Buses Only a O

r C o i E r p A

e n e h t e

t w u T t o e h b

t H

i ANPR ENFORCED BUS GATE d w e

t E e n r e g a m M u e c c o n O d e r s i e f

h U t e r T

n f E

o N o E

p R COC s KBU u T RN S S TREET D m y r l T e e E t r

K d y AR a n M a m

s y t e r e f a

p r o d f r

i t h e t g o d u N b .

t e n h e t

, m s u e c l o p i d c e n i h r

t T

p E

n K i y

R c A d n ANPR ENFORCED BUS GATE M e t

a N t a l W t A u

s L s (BUS AND TAXI ONLY) y n l o s c s LEFT TURN FROM BANK STREET

e d r e p t x p T TO HIGH STREET BANNED e e E

c E e

c G

s R

i T a

S w y r l A E l I e

a R h r t O O e o T n IC s e V s g R LEFT TURN BANNED FROM e

l h n t i

u G w

, GEORGE IV BRIDGE TO e

M E c n O a

C CHAMBERS STREET d

E I r

o V A c y c

b a

B d n i e

f T i d R

r E n E e a R v

) I r " S t D o

S n

d R e i E e l G B k C

c M "

e E A e H h

h C c t

( n t e n e e i b l

t C o r n u s o

a f h o

ADVANCED DIRECTIONAL SIGN TO

n e i LOCAL BUSES AND s e r u

e WARN DRIVERS OF BUS GATE e h l LOADING ONLY SIGNAGE o o t s

d e e h r t r r e f o f e

M d O n a C

s E e A

i LOCAL BUSES AND

t r y a b

p d LOADING ONLY SIGNAGE d e r r i a h t p e y r

b P p

d n e O e d i e v b

o TRAFFIC SIGNAGE TO T r s p a

T h n t o ENFORCE RESTRICTIONS i n E t e a

m R m r u o c f

o R n i d

y s

i O n h A T E W PLAC ISTON LAUR

Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2019 PROJECT MEADOWS TO GEORGE STREET PROJECT NUMBER 60579473 SHEET TITLE PROPOSED TRAFFIC OPERATIONS CLIENT CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL CTV

RS MH CL 67.06

67.11

RS GV GV GV HANOVER STREET

67.30

IC SC P P SC CTV

DR IC 67.57

Paving SC Paving 68.27

67.95

IC TL Cycles BT

68.08 SC SC N IC T/P

DR DK CTV Pedestrian Crosing Pedestrian Crosing T/P DK

CTV TL Concrete IC RS GV GV CTV Tarmac TL TL Parking 68.52 SC Paving IC T/P AG16B IC TL SC DK CTV 69.12 EB

IC DK Concrete IC

T/P IC TL T/P Paving IC IC GY MH CL IC 68.87 DK IC Bin TL PedestrianBT Crosing GEORGE STREET Paving IC SC SC SV EB RP PROJECT SC BT RS IC FH BT RS SC

Bin

68.99 MH CL DK TL Paviors 68.94 T/P SC SC 69.11 TL IC CTV IC Concrete 69.12 69.10 EB IC 69.08 Tarmac CTV SC RP MH CL IC CTV 69.29 EB T/P Paving

DK 69.30 ISO A1 594mm x 841mm IC SC FH 69.12 IC TL SC SC CTV 68.86 Pedestrian Crosing DK GV Cycle Lane BT CTV IC LDR TL BT SV 69.09 68.85 BT SC IC TL T/P TEL DK

MH CL NO ENTRY CTV 68.83 IC GV SC Cycles 68.94 AG17 69.14 GV MH CL SC IC Statue 69.12 IC Pedestrian Crosing IC 68.81 AG16 RS DK MH CL 69.13 MH CL 69.01 T/P TL 69.13 GEORGE STREET Tarmac SC BT MH CL F/B TL IC 69.22 CTV IC IC Paving

GEORGE STREET 69.12 IC IC EB DK 69.03 RP Tarmac BT TL

68.98 T/P SHEET 0001 CTV IC IC 69.02 EB GY IC IC IC 69.01 RS TL 68.93 SC Cobbles 68.96 CTV T/P Bin Parking TL 68.99 68.88 IC MEADOWS TO GEORGE DK BT

RS Pedestrian Crosing 69.02 FH BT IC 69.02 BT RP IC 69.01 IC EB IC

AG15 HANOVER STREET

IC TL DK IC Cycle Lane MH CL TL IC 68.79 SC Concrete T/P IC DK Loading GV T/P TEL GV SV

DK SC GV T/P IC IC Pedestrian Crosing SCRS Paving TL

68.49 IC IC GV GV GEORGE STREET GV CTV TL GV 68.88 9.00 TL GV 68.86 IC SC 2.00 Tarmac GV TL

T/P PE GV STREET 4.27 CTV DK

CTV DK CTV T/P IC SC Pedestrian Crosing IC TEL PM

P TL

68.27

IC 9.00 IC

RS GV Concrete SC P CTV SC 5.66 SV 2.50 P 2.50 IC 4.46

Paving Paving

SC IC

CTV

SC MH CL SC 67.43 SC GV BS CTV IC 2.50 67.75 IC SC Bin EB SC BUS 13.00 STOP

Bus Shelter CTV

Concrete

Bus Shelter

SV 67.38 BUS STOP CTV EB IC IC IC SC

Concrete GV CTV

Bin DISABLED PARKING TO MATCH EXISTING

IC CTV 2.00 3.00 2.50 SC 5.52 3.25 4.40IC

3.25 Disabled CTV Approved:

RS SC

CTV GY CTV

66.91 ROSE STREET 66.65 FH IC DP VP CTV SC SC SC DR SC RS SC EB GV 67.10 GY 8.81 SC SP IC Paviors 2.00 IC 66.92 SC SC CTV GY SV CTV IC IC ROSE STREET 66.71 EB SV CTV SC 66.62 2.80 4.23 RS CTV 66.45 GV IC IC GY 66.34 Bin SV IC 5.00 RS TL DK SC 13.77 SP DK MK IC IC

T/P NO LEFT TURN OUT Paviors OF ROSE STREET IC TO BE MAINTAINED 2.80 IC SC BT SC Pedestrian Crossing IC BT FH BT Tarmac RS IC GY BT PE T/P Paviors 66.25 AG14 SP MK IC IC 2.00 66.32 DK Bin IC TL

66.39 IC GV SC ROSE STREET GY 66.47 IC IC Cycle Racks TEL

PM 66.54 EB IC EB 66.60 IC RS Paving BT DK 6.50 IC 4.10 Paving 2.50 IC ROSE STREET 2.00 HANOVER STREET IC3.00

MH CL 10.00 65.37 Bin

IC 65.34

CTV GV5.48 RS IC CLIENT

4.01 IC Bus Shelter

Bin BUS 13.00 BT STOP CTV EB

CTV SC

IC SC PE TEL IC

Taxis 3.25 SP 3.25 SC

TEL Paving

SC SC SC CTV

HANOVER STREET GV BT 5.61

RS Checked:

SC 9.00 64.54

GV 2.00 3.00 GY CTV 4.32 SC GY EB SV

SV GV 64.34 IC Concrete GV SC SV 3.25AV SC 5.26 SV IC SV SV IC IC SV MH CL FH 6.39 Site Hoarding 63.69 SV SV Tarmac 63.86 RS CTV PB LDR 63.79 MH CL 63.63 Paving RS 63.74 SC FH FH Paving SV IC STOP BUS IC 63.69SC SV

Basement Access SC IC 63.64 SV FH SV 63.59 SC

SC SV IC 63.56 E GY SC RS BT BT 63.95 GY E Tarmac Bin IC IC 63.96 MH CL LDR Concrete 63.42 IC MH CL EP

GY IC SC 63.45 63.75

TL E Tram Line

GY 63.82

IC T/P TL SC 63.38 MH Concrete IC E Paving IC PRINCES STREET 63.83 GY DK

DK IC IC 63.92 MH CL IC IC IC

Pedestrian 63.91

SC GY Cobbles 63.92 Crossing

MR RS E

Pedestrian Crossing 63.67 TL 63.68 E T/P AG13 GY MH CL Tram Line 63.52 EP FH SV GY BUS DK SV 63.78

Tarmac STOP E IC 63.78 MH CL MH CL 63.56 63.75 KO

IC SV 63.33 63.57

TL SV PRINCES STREET E BT SV 63.72 CTV Tarmac TL GY B TL

IC IC 63.69 GY SV SV IC

MH AV Cycle Lane SV E 63.46 WM 63.05 EB Tarmac EP SV GV 63.46 Concrete Pedestrian

63.62 Crossing

63.00 Cobbles SV E SC 63.62 EB LP

FH RP

Tram Line Concrete 62.92 GY DK IC Paving E 63.34 TL 63.37 BT SC LDR 62.85 AG12 SV

IC SP Canopy SV Cycle Lane SV E IC IC IC SV IC 62.81 SV 63.27 IC

Paving SV 63.46 SV IC

KO Tarmac RS

SV 63.27 63.48 IC 63.93 TEL E TL SV E IC SP SHEET 0002 63.90 SV AG12B 63.70 IC IC 62.70 TL T/P FH 63.88 EB

IC Cycle Lane IC

Tram Line IC MH CL 63.63 BT LDR DK 62.93 MH CL E 62.64 63.24 IC 63.84

SC 63.13 Pedestrian

Crossing 63.14 MH CL E 63.91 IC 62.85 63.31 63.80

62.52 63.64 IC E GY

63.33 BT

RS Concrete Cycle Lane Tarmac Concrete E B 63.65

IC TL 63.24

FH Concrete E EP 63.27 IC 63.80 IC MH DK

TL IC

62.81 Tram Line TL T/P 62.81 IC GY E Paviors IC TL TL T/P SV 63.71 63.14 Paving Paviors DK 62.65 63.15 SV MHCL 63.35

62.65 IC BT Concrete EP SV E

MH CL

63.14 SV IC IC E Pedestrian SV Crossing 63.69 Paving FH WO 62.95

DK 62.96 BT Tram Line TL IC DK Pedestrian Crossing LDR Designer: TL P PRINCES STREET IC DK Paviors T/P MH CL IC 62.70 12.14 63.38 62.70 Tarmac SV SV LP Concrete MH CL RS GV MH CL 62.79 SV 63.38 GY MH CL SV SV RS 63.11 T/P SV SV MH CL TL SV Cycle Lane IC 63.01 SV IC GV MH CL IC GY 63.01 IC Paving IC GY IC IC SV IC GV IC IC FH SP SV GY SV LDR CONSULTANT EB LDR IC MH CL EB 63.37 DK SV BT SV SV FH SV RS

MH CL 63.36 GV

Cycle Lane BT 6.71 THE MOUND IC IC

LDR

IC SC BT AECOM IC

Cycle Lane P

64.05

LP IC

LP 2.50 LDR 6.72 IC 1 Tanfield Bin IC IC 3.12 3.00 SP

BS BS

Cycle Lane

Bus Shelter IC EB 2.50 BUS EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA RE 3.65 STOP 3.25

CTV BT

GV GV

EB Bus Shelter 2.50 B BUS B STOP 6.95 GY B BT B +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel RS DK LDR B BS GY

64.52 B AM7

64.52 Paviors B BRIDGE WAVERLEY IC FH

64.78 LP B

LDR B Paviors 64.74 B +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax 65.01 B SV SV FH B Paving SV

64.99 Paviors

65.34

Paving

WAVERLEY BRIDGE BT www.aecom.com 65.30

IC Stone Wall 1.5m

AG11

IC GY

IC 7.02

Paving Slabs

SHEET 0003 Stone Wall

Cycle Lane 1.8m SV IC BT BT 60.01

IC GY TL Cycle Lane

LP EB EB Paving Slabs GV

THE MOUND

and I/R 1.6m

Stone Wall IC Beacon

B T/P GY GV IC IC WM

Project Management Initials: Zebra T/P Zebra Crossing Crossing IC Bike IC T/P GY IC SC T/P Rack GV IC NOTES Beacon GY PS 58.97 IC Paving Slabs B Beacon LP MARKET STREET Concrete SC Tarmac TL CC IC IC Beacon T/P IC Paving Slabs

FH LP IC MH CL 58.92 60.56 MH CL CC IC IC 59.16 Crossing GY Zebra MH CL IC GV IC

THE MOUND Stone Wall and I/R 1.6m MH CL

Mini Roundabout CTV IC 59.29 (Painted) TL FH Paving Slabs Cabin GV GY T/P Beacon CTV MH CL 61.03 T/P Stone Wall SV IC and I/R 1.2m 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN BT Street IC CC BT Lighting B 62.15 Scottish IC Power GY 62.20 IC IC SV IC GV T/P AM6

BT 62.31 B 61.41 RS Scottish BS Power IC GV Cobbles Speed CC Bump Plant Pots CC ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR LP T/P

T/P GV

62.47 IC BT 20 DP CTV 61.78 62.76 62.51 RS MH CL B STOP BUS CYCLE BT IC 61.86 SYMBOL BT IC Speed Paving Slabs MH CL Bump SC IC GY 64.35 DP GY T/P 62.38 62.13 61.87 FH

GY IC 62.03 DP SC IC

BUS 62.17 Cobbles Paving Slabs STAND IC PE Paving Slabs Concrete 62.31 HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF Stone Wall GY SC and I/R 1.6m Loading COCKBURN STREET Bay DP B 64.44 IC MH CL STAND BUS

GY BT BT CYCLE GY SYMBOL

IC Parking IC 64.92 GY 65.16 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY

Cycle Lane Paving Slabs 65.62 CC

Cycle Lane MARKET STREET 66.11 LP 20 GY 66.59 GY Stone and CYCLE BT I/R 1m SYMBOL 67.07 MH CL LP AM4 68.35 WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND

MH CL IC 70.07

64.0

67.5 IC

Loading Parking GY Bay

67.0 IC

BT IC CYCLE Stone R/W GY BT SYMBOL Paving

66.5 BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL PM SHEET 0004

66.0 B Paving Slabs

IC Paving Slabs

IC LP MARKET STREET

65.5 7.07 GY Bench 3.00 CYCLE Stone Wall SYMBOL and I/R 1.6m BT COUNCIL GUIDELINES.

IC 64.5

B 65.0

Paving GV LP MH CL

73.29 70.0 73.84

I/R

Top of Wall 69.5 1m Stone R?W CYCLE SYMBOL Parking

B 69.0 GY IC 2.20 AG9B

8.86 68.5 69.88 71.09 MH CL BT BT 76.34 SP Bin IC 3.02

B RS Cycle Lane Stone and I/R 2.1m 68.0 Paving CTV Paving IC

STOP LP

BUS

AM2 Cycle Lane 67.5

71.39 Cycle Lane CYCLE AM3 LP

71.88 3.00 Paving 68.52 GV CLEAR SYMBOL 2.

GY ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS 2.50

IC Bin LP KEEP

SY 9.21 MARKET STREET 67.0 76.42 AG10 BT LP

69.0 B BT CC 9.72 76.77 T/P T/P

THE MOUND 77.71 DK 69.5 DK 71.60 MH CL EB 7.44 TL

66.5 Channel BT Cobbled Drainage B 71.13 DK Cycle Lane IC 8.58

70.0 SP 2.50 BT RS

72.11

67.10 Stone R/W SY LP Pedestrian Crossing 66.0 3.00 TEL 70.5 Paving CTV 71.0 CycleTHE Lane MOUND MH CL

78.13 71.5 STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN 10.89 IC BT RS

72.12 IC IC Cycle Lane ER GV

72.46 72.0

65.5 IC BT Paving 85 60 DOUB BT 4.29 LP IC TL

IC Stone Wall IC 72.5 DK ER SY and I/R 1.3m Pedestrian Crossing IC LP LP LP T/P IC Parking

72.73 73.0 SY SY Tarmac Footpath P SY Paving 6.25 Statue

64.5 Paving SING

65.87 65.0

73.5 75.5 BT ER RS 73.31 IC 85.74 IC

AM1 LP GY 74.0 ER

DK 76.0 RS SY GV DK ST GILES STREET

MH CL ER SC SV 74.5

76.5 79.37 BT SV METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. 73.62 78.0 T/P TL SC

TL T/P B AG8

75.0 77.0 SV IC SV B

AG9A SV 75.5 GY SV

64.92 MH CL T/P 78.5 IC 77.5 GY

DK 66.0 IC IC 78.31 3.00 B

64.24 LP IC FH 76.0 SV 75.15 BT DK

66.5 SY

78.0 81.16 2.50 64.92 IC

75.01 Paving MH CL MH CL Parking

76.5 CTV Flower 79.0 IC 85.67 Cycle Lane Paving

IC 2.70 Cycle Lane 2.50 Cycle Lane 85.54

67.0 78.5 Bed AG9 MH CL

84.03 Marker 77.0 SV Stone SP SV ER

Maintained 2.59

67.5 BT 79.0

77.5 2.58 5.58

2.67 Grass 79.5 T/P SC GY

68.0 FH MH CL MH CL

78.0 DK BT 79.5 SY TL 80.56 82.21

76.54 TL 2.64

68.5 3.25

Pedestrian Crossing 5.69 78.5 DK

77.16 LP SC DK Flower 80.0 T/P 4.00 T/P IC 6.35 ER

Bed SV 79.0

69.0 GY IC NEW BANK STREET

80.5 SY P GY

69.5 DK SV SV 6.50 79.5 2.06 GY LP IC

Uplight IC T/P 6.50 FH

70.0 Cycle Lane

80.0 SC 81.0 MH CL IC LDR 79.66 TL

79.91 B Cycle Lane LDR IC 70.5 MH CL

B 85.40

78.48

80.5 SC 71.0 3. SY DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK B IC SC CTV IC SC SC IC CTV DR Paving 79.09 Paving

Paving Cycle Lane

81.5 LP B 71.5 10.00 80.10 BT CTV

IC B BUS SC IC DR

81.0 20.87 72.0 IC IC STOP Concrete 80.44 B 81.70 SC ER P MH CL SC

Rough B 80.99 BS 72.5 SC

Grass B EB IC

81.5 81.02 Stone Wall 73.0 B DK 81.84 SY EB IC CTV

P GV PE 73.5 EB B

LP DK

82.0 MOUND PLACE Parking Paving 74.0 LP P IC B 1.79

81.44 B IC 74.5 GY B Barrier B 82.93 Stone Wall B 82.00 3.60

SY 75.0 80.89 82.5 81.62

EB 81.87 B SC 75.5 LP 81.09 GV 3.01

81.58 81.82 76.0 Paving PE GY

IC Paviors 76.5 81.82 IC TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY B GV SC RS RS

LP 81.71

77.0 B B 77.5 B B SC

Stone Wall RS Parking 81.77 IC 78.0 Bin 81.68 SY LP

LP Bench 78.5 BT GV B B

79.0 RS Private Car park 81.75 DR BT I/R Fence 1.4m

79.5 SC GV SC 83.36 83.60 Stone Wall

80.0 PE

81.71 80.5 P

DK 81.0 IC Ramp 83.75 81.82

IC 81.5

GV 82.32 BANK STREET DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE 82.0 IC 81.90 Paving SC

82.5 Stone Wall IC

83.0 Stone Wall IC LDR and I/R 1.3m DR

Area of 83.5 DR

Small Trees 84.0

Paving 84.5 Grit Bin 9.22 Ramp CTV

IC GV IC GV ER Paving SV 82.42 REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK SV 2.47 SV

Cycle Lane BANK STREET IS PUT TO HAND. 3.06

RS IC ER

Cycle Lane ER RS EB Bin Tarmac BT 3.00 ER TL IC Paving

6.50 Statue Barriers

T/P TL 4. SV ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE FH Paving IC GY SC Pedestrian Crossing B T/P IC BT TL

4.00 VP AG7 IC GV IC IC FH T/P ROYAL MILE IC IC WM SC SV SC GY SV B MH CL ROYAL MILE SC CTV SV 91.19 TEL SV TEL B SC EB Paving Cobbles B CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR EB IC EB SP IC MH CL SV 89.27 90.19 SV EB 89.40 Paving IC SV B AV B SV SV 4.00 SC 13.00 Bin B Barriers SC TL SV T/P IC FH T/P BS GY TL SC CTV SC BT Paving Tarmac IC GY IC

SC Pedestrian Crossing SC BUS BT SV CTV IC STOP 4.00 Paviors GY PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING SC SC FH IC IC Cobbles GY GV GY ROYAL MILE GV T/P SV IC RS TL DK IC T/P AV RP CTV SC DK LAWNMARKET TEL IC Pedestrian Crossing IC IC GY TL Kiosk T/P DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE.

BUS Pedestrian Crossing IC IC WO 89.28 IC T/P TL STOP IC RP BT Paving Tarmac IC IC Paving BS IC SC TL RS SC 89.10 89.08 IC SC 6.50 88.84 Bin

IC 6.16

88.87 88.81 88.63 6.19 5. ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE 3.00

88.39 SC

88.57

Paving SHEET 0005 IC CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL IC 88.22 Cycle Lane

88.24

88.25

GEORGE IV BRIDGE

87.92 87.94 REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND

87.91

DUAL USE TAXI RANK Cobbles RS

87.74 AT CERTAIN TIMES

IC BUS

EB LANE EB SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED. SC SV IC Cobbles SV SV Paving IC 87.28 6.13 87.29 FH 3.00 GV SV IC 26.00 IC SV SV 6.50 IC

87.22 SV FH 6.30 RS SC

86.99 86.93 IC

RS 86.91 BUS STOP IC 4.51 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN T/P RP 2.50 DK

86.80 2.50 RS CTV DK 86.64 6.50 T/P BT DK BT

DK T/P IC 6.08 RP CTV IC SV BT AG6

86.48 Cycle Lane BS GY COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF GV

BT Bin BT BUS Bus Shelter CTV IC BT EB STOP

BT BT IC CTV RS T/P IC SC VICTORIA STREET Paving DK 86.11 SV BT

86.07 RS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND Bin

MH CL 85.99 TEL MH CL 4.94 GY TEL 84.19 Cobbles Tarmac Tarmac SC 2.50 SV SC VICTORIA STREET MH CL SC 85.44 DK Paving

T/P SC RS 85.91 85.89 DR 2.50 RS RS CTV CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT RS 6.50 DR GV Paving CTV ER 4.90 Bin WM BT CTV

IC 85.70 Paving 85.68 ER GEORGE IV BRIDGE CTV 5.16 3.00 Cobbles 2.00 Cycle Lane REGULATIONS. 6.50 B IC 4.91 GEORGE85.58 85.58 IV BRIDGE BUS LANE

B B

CTV IC

B B

Bin

85.38 85.39 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS, Shelter Bus IC B SV SC

SV SV BUS SC

STOP T/P DK BS RP

B DK

T/P DK B SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM 85.27 DK RS

T/P RP Paving

B B

RS 85.23 2.00 85.21 4.36 Paving

BT 2.50 B CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY. B Taxis SV BT

RS 2.50 85.17 85.16 B B

GV FH Stone Wall CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS RS DP B B LDR 85.06 85.04 GV CTV CTV

6.50 Cobbles IC B B

GV5.44 SC SC MH CL SC 84.96

84.99

85.00 TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION.

B B

BAY AT CERTAIN TIMES WM DUAL USE DISABLED SC SV SC CTV SC

B B GV

3.99 Paving

GV 84.87 3.00 84.86 2.00 B B 6.50 SC CTV 5.66 T/P DK RP PE GV B DK

T/P DK B 13.00 DP

LDR

DK GEORGE IV BRIDGE GV T/P RP Paving AG5

B B

84.74 84.76 IC BUS SC GV LANE SHEET 0006 2.50 GV B B CTV 19.00 3.87 GV 84.68 CTV 84.70 GV GV BUS LANE SC B 2.50 B GV FH 3.03 GV

84.61

84.62

B B

Cobbles 10.72 GEORGE IV BRIDGE CTV

CTV RS

84.56 84.55 B B 2.50 2.50

GV 5.83

B B

84.48 84.49 Paving

1.62 CTV B B

84.45

84.44

Stone Wall

5.88 CTV 3.54 B B 5.37

BT SV 4.89 T/P RP DK 5.42

B FH DK

T/P DK

5.69 1.64 DK T/P RP SC SC

GV 5.94 GV 5.84 CTV 3.59CTV 84.16 3.00 84.15 2.00

6.50 GV LDR BUS BT 19.00 BT IC STOP BT Paving

84.08

84.08 BS CTV 6.66 SV

BUS STOP

Paving

Cobbles

83.91 GEORGE83.93 IV BRIDGE B 6.14 2.50

GEORGE IV BRIDGE

GV ISSUE/REVISION Bin PE LDR CTV SV SC 83.81 2.50 EB 3.30 IC 83.81 IC CTV PE 6.50 SC RS BT SC SV Paving GV GV SC RS WM SC PE GV GY DR SC IC SC SC GY SC SC SC IC BUS EB TEL LANE EB EB BT SC DK T/P Paving BT IC RP EB DR IC SC IC SP BT DK GY T/P CHAMBER STREET 6.22 DK 2.36 SV IC Paving LP SV

DK T/P CHAMBERS STREET 3.30 SV RP SC 79.78 Paving AG4 FH 4.00 T/P MH CL IC 83.38 PE GY SC BT GV IC 4.18 CrossingPelican RS BT 3.25 80.16 RS 80.48 FH

SC 83.01 GV 4.00 LP DR T/P GY DR 80.55 WM SY GV 2.35

3.30 Paving IC WM IC GY 2.80 5.88 SC SC 80.92 SV SV FH CTV SV EB SC GY RS DR 2.48 EB SV LP

81.25 Bin 4.00 SC SV SC SVSV SC 4.12 SC MH CL SV DR 81.54 SC 81.54 IC

32.00 2.45RS IC SC National Museum Of Scotland GV 3.30 Paving 5.04 DP IC

81.80 CTV 2.80 CANDLEMAKER ROW DR GY 2.96 Bin GY 2.75 4.10 LP CTV IC SC GY SC 4.58 Paving Paving 82.19 5.09 GV LP DR DR SC IC 2.12 Greyfriars GY Bobby

DR 2.80 IC IC 82.49 SC AG3A GV DK GV MH CL 1.50 83.37 82.66 3.25 MH CL 83.16 FH 82.82 6.50 83.33 Paving 83.09 IC BT GV

BT CTV

SC 82.93 GV DK 5.77

83.24 83.17 LP

GREYFRIARS GY IC

Bin IC GV

CTV SC SC IC

CTV Paving 84.07 Cycle Lane 3.00 Cycle Lane RP 8.00

CTV

2.69 3.25

84.31 GY

SC GV 10.30 Paving

84.51 FH TL IC FH T/P DK Paviors SC SC IC CTV - 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT Paving 85.89 84.69 84.94 SC Pedestrian B AG3 Crossing B

85.45 EB IC BT DK EB IC 84.93 TL 85.75 IC T/P WM CTV BT Cycle Lane 85.43 MH Pedestrian BT 85.83 DK GY T/P Crossing TL BT T/P SC

DK 85.77 DK Paving IC 85.21 TL 85.24 GV IC 85.79

Paving T/P

CTV TL DK IC

85.23 GY Pedestrian GV Crossing FH 85.41 I/R DATE DESCRIPTION FH 3.32Paving SC TL GV RP Cobbles DK CTV RS BRISTO PLACE GY T/P GY GY SC GV PE RS IC 6.50

85.10 IC IC BT

85.59 CTV

SUDS SV SV 4.00 IC Cycle Lane RS 3.58 RS CTV RS BT WO

85.21 IC Paving SV SC SC 85.65 SV CTV PE IC IC Stone Wall SV 1.50 Cobbles IC GV Bin Cobbles GV BRISTO PLACEWO IC 85.72 MHCL 4.85 Paving 85.66 RS SV SV CTV IC 1.50 AV GAS CTV SC DR SC SC SC CTV 85.66 RS FORREST ROAD GY PE 85.34 LDR BT IC

8.00 SC GV

CTV GY 85.62 Concrete

GV IC EB Bin Stone Wall LOADING SC 19.50 SC KEY PLAN GV 3.35 CTV SV GY GV PE SC Bus Shelter BUS LP BUS STOP IC DR BT 6.50 IC BS STOP DR SC GV Cycle Lane GV BIN IC IC BT Paving Bus DP 4.14 Shelter EB

IC 4.00 Paving IC SC IC IC BT GY SV SC DP DK IC

85.07 SUDS GY SC IC MH CL GV MH CL 85.39 Cobbles CTV SC 85.54 Tarmac BT RS Paving MH CL Concrete IC CTV 84.93 84.98 IC BRISTO PLACE SC GV Bin BIN Paving GV CTV IC SC WM SC SC PB 24.00 IC BUSTAMD SC IC SC Parking Cobbles SC 84.94 DK Cycle LaneRS IC

85.63

Cycle Lane 85.65 Cycle Lane 85.05 GY IC SC MH CL RS SC IC Tarmac 84.91 BUSSTAND Cycle Lane GV

Cobbles SC 85.63 84.89 SC Tarmac SV SC 2.12FH 2.50 GV FH RS LP CTV DB BT Cycle Lane MH CL Cobbles Paving 84.94 Paving BT Cobbles Paving MK IC 19.50 Paving 85.65 IC GY GV LOTHIAN STREET SC IC GY 84.84 84.97 SC Bin Store P IC CTV GY RS SC 3.34 GV SC Concrete CTV Paving Concrete Bus Stand SV IC IC SV SC SV IC P SC SC LOTHIAN STREET 5.89 84.92 Bin SV SC TL GY GY SP CTV Bin 6.50 Tarmac GY GV FORREST ROAD SC DP GY 84.80 AG2A Bus Stand CTV P PE 2.50 SC DK Cobbles SC GY SV 84.88 GY Tarmac IC 84.82 SC Pedestrian Crossing SC GY P SC DP MH CL 84.82 PE CTV BT 84.82 RS SC IC GY SC Bin 4.00 84.85 SC CTV Pedestrian Crossing 84.87 MH CL5.08 P 85.05 B TL PB IC Cycle Lane CTV Concrete P 1.50 DK SC SC TL GY 84.88 DK SC FH B TL P MH CL 84.81 Pedestrian Crossing IC Bin BT P IC DK SUDS RAIN GARDEN LP IC 3.67 GY TL DK SC TL Pedestrian Crossing P

Paving GV Stmp 4.50 SC IC AG1 85.04 TL SC DP Paving NEW DISABLED CTV B PARKING SPACE DK T/P EB GY 85 96 4.85Paving 85.11 B SC 2.50 Paving DP GY GY LP IC B Cobbles CTV 3.77 3.96 4.00 RS BT IC CTV 85.13 RS 2.50 Cycle Lane SC SC 3.25 85.07 IC NEW TAXI RANK SV 3.00 3.00 SC RS SC Paving DK SC MH CL 85.26 Stmp 3.25 BT 85.98 SC FH 6.00

19.50 CTV 1.50 SV GY DP 1.50 SC LOADING 85.35 1.00 85.11 GV 4.25 SC 3.03 GY Tarmac SC 85.09 Cycle Lane 6.50 SC Bin 85.44 BINS 2.70SC 13.00 SC DP CTV 1.50 RS CTV MH CL 3.03 Paving 2.50 86.02 85.51 SC 85.13 IC SC LP SC GY DP PE IC CTV LDR 85.57 CTV FORREST ROAD

LDR 2.98 2020-02-17 2.50 TREVIOT PLACE Cycle Lane GY Tarmac 85.62 GY SC 85.12 Cobbles SC SC

Cobbles IC 1.50 IC 85.69 2.48 GV IC 30.09 3.25 RS SC DP SC IC Bin 3.00 Tarmac GV IC SC GY 2.50 3.25 2.36 3.00 Parking SUDS SV Cycle Lane Cycle Lane IC 2.50 2.50 RS MH CL TL IC 86.19 DP 2.75

SC SC 3.75 Taxis Cycle Lane SC2.80 LP T/P SC SC 4.09 MH CL Paving IC 5.00 86.22 MH CL 2.50 TEVIOT PLACE DK 86.02 TL 2.50 5.25 2.50 Paving Cobbles 3.66 Cobbles 3.25 SC 86.39 Pedestrian Crossing Concrete T/P SV 2.50 IC DK Stone Wall SC 3.00 FH T/P 2.75 GV DK 3.25 29.95 GY Cobbles 3.31Bin Pedestrian Crossing IC IC T/P SHEET 0007 TL TL WSV Parking Paving 2.50 WM SC LP Cycle Lane T/P DK TL 3.42 IC GV Paving Cycle Lane BT 86.41 RP DK DK T/P SV Cobbles 3.25 IC DK Concrete 3.51 AG2 AG2 DR IC SV TL DR PE WSV LP GY 3.65 SC GV 86.44 IC IC T/P 4.00 SC 3.25 IC DK CTV IC SC Cycle Lane Cobbles PE 3.23 8.00 Cycle Lane IC RS IC Pedestrian Crossing RP Stone Wall Concrete SC IC Cycle Lane Stone Wall 5.0M SV FH

Paving Tarmac GY 3.25 5.00 Paving IC PROJECT NUMBER TL Statue BT Cycle Lane TL DK B B 1.50 3.25 T/P LAURISTON PLACE LP GY CTV SC Spot Light IC IC B IC B B B Bike Racks

DK LP Statue Cycle SC EB Path T/P EB SC GY BT BT IC SC DK IC Kiosk 86.10 Tarmac T/P SC MH CL MK EB 85.5 Paving Paving GV IC TEL NP

DB CTV 86.08 86.0 86.07

85.5 LP Stone Wall Grass Grass LP 85.0 60579473

85.18

85.0 Stone Wall 84.35 Last Plotted: Stmp Pond

84.5

84.59

Site Hoarding Grass

SC Tarmac

EB FFL Concrete 82.82

CTV 84.0 EB Grass LP SHEET TITLE

Grass Cycle 83.99 Site Hoarding Path DESIGN PROPOSALS JANUARY 2020 ROBERTSONM Scale OVERVIEW

F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 0 20 40 80 160m SHEET NUMBER Original Size (A1) 1:2000 @ A1 1:4000 @ A3 0000 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220. KEY

SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY

IC FOOTWAY N

BUS STOP PROJECT Site Hoarding Site ISO A1 594mm x 841mm PROPOSED LOADING BAY / AREA

LDR MEADOWS TO GEORGE TAXI RANK STREET PM

Paving

Approved: ROSE STREET ROSE PM CLIENT

IC Parking Checked: RS

67.10 SC

BT IC

CTV MR

IC CTV

IC Paviors 66.92 Designer:

Cycle Lane Cycle MH CL GEORGE STREET GEORGE 69.01 CONSULTANT SC SC

SC SC

AG16B EB AECOM

SC SC 1 Tanfield SC EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA IC CTV

66.71 +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax

BT www.aecom.com

Paving

TL 66.62 GY 0001

Paviors 0002 DR

ROSE STREET Tarmac VP Project Management Initials: NOTES

GV SC GV

SC T/P

IC T/P

IC IC BT EB EB DK DK Pedestrian Crosing SC 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN

IC SC

Bin IC

BT ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR CTV

TL TL TL

66.45 HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF TL CTV

IC IC EB 69.29 IC MH CL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY

SV GEORGE STREET GEORGE SP CTV SC CTV WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND DK

T/P NO LEFT TURN OUT DK

IC CTV BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL T/P E CTV DISABLED PARKING OF ROSE STREET SC Pedestrian Crosing COUNCIL GUIDELINES.

TO MATCH EXISTING 66.34 TO BE MAINTAINED GY

SV Paving TL

GY 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS SC

RP SC

IC STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN IC Paving IC 65.34 Concrete 64.54 64.34 SC METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. SV Bin 66.65 IC 68.49 CTV CTV IC IC CTV IC CTV CTV CTV GV BT IC

IC GV IC Paving SP 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK Paving Bin IC Bin IC Bus Shelter IC IC PB IC SC FH Concrete Paving IC SC TEL EB Bus Shelter SP IC IC RS Concrete SC SC

5.61 TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY IC SC IC FH IC EB IC BS 6.39 TEL P RS

RS GV 5.48 SC SC SC Tarmac TL P SV IC SC EB IC

T/P SC SC 5.52

5.66 GV SC GV IC DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE DK SC 69.12 69.12 DK SC T/P TL IC IC SC GY REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK Disabled SC T/P IC SV

IC 68.98 IC IC 67.43 DK MH CL 69.10 SC BUS IS PUT TO HAND. GV DK STOP GY

BUS GY STOP SV

69.11 69.14 IC SV

AV SC MH CL SV MH CL

3.25 63.42

IC SV

2.50 2.50

3.25 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE SC BT SV FH SC 2.00 SV SV 68.93 HANOVER STREET SV CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR

Pedestrian Crosing SV 13.00 6.50

GV PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING SV IC SV

DK 9.00

3.25

3.25 8.81 9.00 9.00 T/P DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE. TL HANOVER STREET TL

IC SC BT AG17

RP Tarmac

5.26 68.96 RP TL 69.12 CTV HANOVER STREET Tarmac 5.

DK ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE IC 2.00 Statue T/P TL

10.00 13.00 BT CTV

13.77

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian 3.25 DK 2.50 CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND GV 2.80 5.00 2.80 Crossing Pedestrian AG16

IC 69.08 IC 68.88 2.00 SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED.

MH CL 65.37 2.00

CTV 2.00

2.00 CTV 2.50 MH CL 63.63 BT GV BT 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN 68.99 BT

DK SV

CTV Taxis 69.30 GY GY IC 3.00 Pedestrian Crosing Pedestrian GV SC 63.69

SV MH CL 3.00 IC COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF

TL SC

3.00 GY BUS T/P IC DK 69.12 GV 2.50

SC STOP SC SV DK BT MH CL 69.13 TL SC THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND TEL RS TEL GV RS RS RS SC IC 69.13 SC RS BT RS

69.09 T/P GV RS

SC IC

SC DK CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT EB

SC IC EB IC T/P IC Paving TL EB Bus Shelter IC Bin IC Bin SC IC Paving IC IC

IC 4.32

4.01 REGULATIONS. IC IC

4.10 CTV IC

Paving 4.23

IC Concrete 4.27 4.40 IC

4.46 Basement Access PE CTV AG14 CTV CTV GV CTV 67.38 CTV BT CTV CTV 66.91 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS, P 67.75 PE 68.27 AG15 Concrete SC

IC SC SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM 68.94 ENTRY NO IC SC IC IC MK EXISTING NON CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY. SC

FH F/B GY EB FH STANDARD CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS RS TL IC

IC 66.25 TACTILE PAVING TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. FH

69.22

MH CL Paviors ARRANGEMENT DK

DK IC IC

10m LONG TAXI RANK CTV T/P Pedestrian Crosing SP

IC T/P

BT IC

IC MK Bin

TL IC IC IC

MH CL 68.94 66.32

CTV

BT IC IC

BT GV

IC TL TL

GV EB

IC SC Tarmac

DK Pedestrian Crosing

T/P

68.86

66.39 T/P

Tarmac ISSUE/REVISION

BT Cycle Racks Cycle TL

Cycles

LDR TEL

IC RP RS

66.47

TEL 68.85

69.02 GY 69.03

68.79 MH CL Paviors 0001 0002

Paving

Cobbles

68.83 66.54

69.02 CTV

Loading 69.02

PE - 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT 68.88

CTV RS Cycle Lane Cycle

GV SC GV I/R DATE DESCRIPTION GV

GEORGE STREET GEORGE ROSE STREET ROSE

Parking IC

69.01

66.60 69.01 IC

68.86 KEY PLAN 68.81

Paving

2020-02-17 Canopy PROJECT NUMBER 60579473 Last Plotted:

SHEET TITLE GEORGE STREET GEORGE DESIGN PROPOSALS

ROSE STREET ROSE JANUARY 2020 ROBERTSONM Scale SHEET 1 OF 7

F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 0 2.5 5 10 20m SHEET NUMBER Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 0001 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220. KEY 63.93 RS

IC SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY63.56

IC 63.90

FOOTWAY N 63.67

E E 63.68

IC 63.72

PRINCES STREET

BUS STOP Bin 63.88

63.69 PROJECT

SC SC ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

IC IC IC GY MEADOWS TO GEORGE GY GY

TL 63.84

GY IC LDR

63.45 STREET

PM DK Pedestrian Pedestrian Crossing IC Crossing

Tarmac IC

SV DK 0001 0002

IC IC

IC 63.62 BT

SC 63.80

Approved: IC

IC 0002

63.80 0003

63.38 63.56

63.57 AG12B GY

63.62 IC

IC E E

GY MH FH 63.52 IC

MH CL IC

IC EP PM E CLIENT E

IC Checked:

RS Cobbles

IC GY

IC Concrete

IC SV Concrete 63.91 Paving SC

IC MR

FH 63.70

GY LP

63.46

63.46 PRINCES STREET PRINCES

RS IC

AG13 IC SV Designer: SC

E E T/P TL IC IC 63.63 CONSULTANT DK

MH CL AECOM

63.42 63.48

63.33 63.46 MH CL 1 Tanfield EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel Tram Line Tram +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax

63.64 www.aecom.com

Cycle Lane Cycle

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian

63.37 63.34

Project Management Initials: BT NOTES

Tarmac Tram Line Tram

Tarmac SV

E GY E GY 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN

BT TL ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR SV

DK HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF T/P

B B B B B B B CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY B B 63.65 B B B

Basement Access IC Lane Cycle 63.71 63.69 WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND

IC BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL

IC LDR

63.27 COUNCIL GUIDELINES.

Paviors Paviors Paving Paviors SV E SV E EXISTING NON 63.27

B 63.33 63.31 TL STANDARD LDR 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS BT

GY 65.34 64.52 64.78 65.01 IC RS STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN TACTILE PAVING AG11 BT

Paving

ARRANGEMENT 64.05 EB METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. EB Cycle Lane Cycle BT BT 64.99 65.30 Bin GY GV CTV DK 64.74 Cycle Lane FH Bus Shelter GY IC 64.52 BT BS

LDR LDR

LDR IC IC SV

LDR BS FH

3.12 B 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK IC P CTV B GV MH CL IC

63.05 63.24 LP BT IC IC WM P LP SV TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY

E E GV GY DK BT Cycle Lane DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE SV Cycle Lane BT THE MOUND GY

BUS 3.00

63.24 BT REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK 63.27 BT STOP THE MOUND IS PUT TO HAND.

63.00 MHCL 63.35

MH CL 63.38

SV Cycle Lane Cycle

2.50

SV 2.50 7.02

2.50 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE SV MH CL 63.38

FH SV CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR SV SV SV SV THE MOUND Cycle Lane SV

SV PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING SV

SV 12.14

WO SV 3.65 FH DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE.

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian FH 63.14 SV SV SV 63.13 SV

SV IC IC 6.95 SV IC SV SV SV 6.72 IC

6.71 EB IC SV IC 5. ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE SV B SC SV SV SV

SV MH CL

62.92 63.36 CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL 3.25

Cycle Lane BUS GV

STOP BT TL GV GV Cycle Lane FH

GY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND GY

FH DK

DK BS LP SC 0001 0002 BS AG12 RE SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED. LP Bus Shelter IC GV TL IC IC IC Paving E IC E IC TL 63.37 MH CL RS IC SP GY EB 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN IC

SV EP IC

62.85 IC

0002 0003

63.15 63.14

T/P COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF

MH CL TL IC 63.14 TL THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND

IC LDR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

KO LDR

Concrete Pedestrian Concrete REGULATIONS. Concrete IC EB

Crossing DK

T/P DK EB

MH CL62.93

IC T/P

62.81 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS,

MH CL 62.85

TL Paving SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM TL SC TL SP CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY.

63.11 MH CL

RS MH CL CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS

63.01 IC DK

DK Pedestrian T/P T/P Crossing TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION.

63.01 MH CL

TL GY

TL IC

E E

PRINCES STREET

IC 62.95 62.96

62.70 IC Tram Line Tram Paving

Tarmac

62.81 62.81

Tram Line Tram Canopy Tarmac

IC 62.64

MH CL MH IC ISSUE/REVISION

62.79 LDR

IC Paviors

FH Paviors

Concrete

Paviors Concrete

Paving

RS 62.70 62.70

SC 62.65

62.65 62.52

- 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

KEY PLAN 2020-02-17

PROJECT NUMBER 60579473 Last Plotted: SHEET TITLE DESIGN PROPOSALS JANUARY 2020 ROBERTSONM Scale SHEET 2 OF 7

F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 0 2.5 5 10 20m SHEET NUMBER Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 0002 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220. KEY 2.1m I/R and Stone

SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY

PE Stone Wall Stone FOOTWAY 1.6m I/R and N IC GV

MH CL 2.59 82.21 BUS STOP 6.50 CTV PROJECT

IC ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

PROPOSED LOADING BAY / AREA 82.93

LP Cycle Lane Cycle MEADOWS TO GEORGE SC 0004 2.58 0004 AM3 STREET PM 0003 0003

Paving

NEW BANK STREET IC

Paving

Parking

2.64 Approved: DK

PE GV 3.02

CYCLE BT SYMBOL

81.70

81.84

PM GY

MH CL GY STOP 76.34 81.16 BUS AG9

SC CLIENT

82.00

76.42

DK SC CLEAR DK B B

Checked:

81.87

IC KEEP 76.77 SV

Paving

BS MR

DR 2.67 B B

B B AG9B 81.82 2.50 IC Stone Wall

MH CL

80.56 SC 6.50

BT Designer:

MARKET STREET TO BE CLOSED TO Cycle Lane 81.82 CONSULTANT MARKET STREET MARKET EB

THROUGH-TRAFFIC, WITH ACCESS TO STATION BT Cycle Lane PE GV

MAINTAINED. BUSES, TAXIS AND BLUE BADGE BT Paving AECOM Cycle Lane Cycle

80.99 B 81.71 HOLDERS PERMITTED VIA BUS GATE WITH MH CL LP

9.72 IC

B POSITION STILL BE TO BE DETERMINED. P 1 Tanfield

GY 3.25 IC

Ramp EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA Paviors Paving 2.70

Paving B

81.77 +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel DK T/P 4.00 B +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax

2.50 TL IC www.aecom.com 81.68 79.37 GY

MH CL GY Stone Wall Stone B SC

Statue

GY Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian

TL DK IC

BT 2.06

LP 3.00 B Project Management Initials: NOTES DK

BT T/P TL T/P Parking Paving

B 81.75 82.32

DK 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN

IC ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR

LP HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF B

B B

20.87 park Car Private

Pedestrian Crossing CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY Bin

SC WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND

IC 81.71 B BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL

78.13 B

MH CL COUNCIL GUIDELINES. T/P

DK LP

B TL B 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS

81.82 STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN IC

CC METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. Ramp

77.71 MH CL P B

T/P 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK

DK TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY

T/P

DK 81.90 DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE 3.00

LP RS REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK

FH Parking IS PUT TO HAND. Stone Wall Stone

MH CL

78.31

4.29 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE DK BT 79.66 CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR

GV IC

BT TL Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING IC T/P

IC GY 79.91 IC MH CL IC DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE.

RS 82.42

IC GV Stone Wall LP 5. ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE Paving TL

AG9A SY CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL

SP 6.25 T/P DK 81.09 REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND

SY 80.10

Cycle Lane 10.89 LP

IC SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED.

RS 79.5 79.0

78.5 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN 78.0

80.44 LAYOUT STILL TO BE DETERMINED, COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF IC

0002 0003 EXISTING ARRANGEMENT SHOWN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND

SY Bin LP CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS.

Cycle Lane

Paving Paving 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS,

IC 2x RELOCATED PERMIT 81.02 SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM LP

SY SP HOLDER PARKING BAYS CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY. 10.00 CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS BT TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION.

LP PLACE MOUND

Uplight

IC BUS Stone Wall

STOP THE MOUND 81.44 IC

Bed Flower RS 7.44 Paving

Bench

IC 3.00 LP IC SY BT

81.62

RS ISSUE/REVISION 81.5

81.0 80.5

SY 80.0

79.5

79.0

78.5 78.0

Stone Wall 77.0

and I/R 1.3m 77.5 76.5

Barrier 76.0 THE MOUND IS TO BE WIDENED 75.5 NEW PUBLIC SPACE TO

LP SY IN TO EXISTING GREEN SPACE, BE CREATED IN EXISTING IC

RETAINING STRUCTURE OR THE MOUND GREENSPACE - 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT CTV

Cycle Lane

EARTHWORKS REQUIRED Cycle Lane

IC LP I/R DATE DESCRIPTION 8.58 P SY Grass

Maintained

P 2.20 KEY PLAN

IC P Paving

Cycle Lane IC BT LP

SY LP IC BT 3.00 9.21

2020-02-17

8.86 82.0

Bed

Flower 82.5 IC 81.5

7.07

LP PROJECT NUMBER

81.0 80.5 B EB

Cycle Lane 80.0 SY

GV IC AG10 B Bin SC 79.5 B 79.0 60579473 B B

Last Plotted: IC IC B IC 78.5 IC IC IC IC BT LP SP

78.0

IC IC IC

Bench IC Paving 77.5 SHEET TITLE

SY 77.0

76.5 67.5 71.09 Stone R/W SY 76.0

70.0 75.5 1m

I/R DESIGN PROPOSALS

67.0 71.88 71.39 75.0

74.0 74.5 69.5 72.11 73.5 69.88 JANUARY 2020 66.5

ROBERTSONM 72.46 71.60 73.0

0002 69.0 0003 Scale SHEET 3 OF 7

66.0 73.31 71.13 72.5 75.15 F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 0 2.5 5 10 20m 64.0 77.16 68.5 72.1272.0 79.09 AM2 72.73 81.58 65.5 71.5 71.0 83.60 SHEET NUMBER 73.62 69.0 75.01 69.5 70.0 70.5 76.54 68.52 68.0 78.48 P 80.89 AM1 83.36 65.0 Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 83.75 0003 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220. KEY

SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY

FOOTWAY N

BUS STOP PROJECT ISO A1 594mm x 841mm PROPOSED LOADING BAY / AREA MEADOWS TO GEORGE STREET PM Approved: PM TEL CLIENT

Checked: CTV

CTV

85 60 DOUB MR

Paving

GV IC

B IC Designer: GY CONSULTANT CTV Parking GY Bin

Paving ER B AECOM

Paving

ST GILES STREET Paving 1 Tanfield

B EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA

Parking +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel

SV BT +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax B ER

ROYAL MILE 0004 0005 www.aecom.com

SING Project Management Initials:

Barriers NOTES

Barriers 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN

RS ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR IC HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF

Paving B

ER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY

ROYAL MILE

ER SV WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND IC

TL BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL GY TL COUNCIL GUIDELINES. Paving

Statue IC

89.27 2. T/P ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS GY RS T/P STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN

T/P

DK Cobbles ER

T/P ER METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. DK

IC 89.40 RS Paving BT IC 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK IC GY DK

SC RS SC 3.01 ER IC TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY

B Paving ER IC Paving IC FH DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE SV EB

SV RS IC IC B ER AG7 BT 4.00 REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK IC AG8 Cycle Lane IC Paving IC Paving Paving 3.06 GV SC RS RS SC IC FH IS PUT TO HAND. TL SV RS B RS

IC SC CTV 4.51

FH TL T/P SV Cycle Lane

SC 6.13 85.74 T/P SV 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE SV FH SC 6.19 SV

SV GV CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR BUS

STOP

SV BUS SV 3.00 BT IC

SV LANE PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING 2.50

SV SV 88.84 SV FH SV DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE. SV IC MH CL DK 88.63 GEORGE IV BRIDGE 85.67 IC 88.39 SV

Tarmac 3.00

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian 3.00 BANK STREET 2.50 5. ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE Tarmac

SV 4.00 3.60 9.22 89.28 86.93 CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL SV 87.28 88.22 87.92 89.08 88.81 Cobbles RS REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND RP RS 86.99 RP 85.54 GY 87.29 TL 87.91 MH CL T/P 88.24 SC Cycle Lane RP IC 89.10 88.87 BANK STREET 6.50 86.80 SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED. SC Pedestrian Crossing

MH CL SC

85.40 FH GV SV I/R Fence 1.4m 6.50

SV 6.50 86.64 GV 88.57 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ER IC 87.22 86.91 BT 6.50 88.25 87.94 IC 87.74

LDR Cycle Lane DK SV COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF

AV IC SV Paviors SV

DR CTV DR WO DR THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND Paving SC 2.47 SV

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Cycle Lane RS CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT T/P SV

TL Cobbles REGULATIONS. SC 1.79 5.58 SC T/P IC IC ER 6.08

6.30 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS, TL SC

CTV CTV 6.16 IC IC IC IC SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM FH IC RS IC

Bin IC IC IC

IC EB EB IC LDR IC 4.00 CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY. 90.19 DR MH CL IC CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS

GY TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. IC 26.00 Paving

IC IC SC

SC GY

T/P EB IC T/P WM IC

TEL

GV Pedestrian Crossing

IC DUAL USE TAXI RANK CTV

DR VP TEL EB LDR AT CERTAIN TIMES

TEL IC TL

TL SP FH

IC EB EB IC Bin

Kiosk

MH CL84.03 SV Cobbles

SC SC ISSUE/REVISION CTV

2.50 SV 5.69 GV

FH GV IC B

IC MH CL BT 91.19 BT 0004 0005

B GY

Cycle Lane Concrete

Cycle Lane Tarmac

Paving Bin CTV

ROYAL MILE

13.00 2.50 - 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT

SC 6.35 BUS SC STOP

SC I/R DATE DESCRIPTION SC SC

SC BUS BT

STOP IC

BS IC IC KEY PLAN

BS SC SC

SC SC

LAWNMARKET

IC GV 2020-02-17

MH CL 2.59 82.21 6.50 CTV

IC 82.93 PROJECT NUMBER

SC 0004 2.58 0004 60579473 Last Plotted: 0003 0003 SHEET TITLE

NEW BANK STREET IC

Paving DESIGN PROPOSALS 2.64

DK JANUARY 2020 PE GV ROBERTSONM Scale SHEET 4 OF 7

F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 0 2.5 5 10 20m

81.70

81.84

STOP SHEET NUMBER 81.16 BUS AG9 SC 82.00 Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 0004 SC Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220.

VICTORIA STREET KEY

SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY

FOOTWAY N

BUS STOP PROJECT ISO A1 594mm x 841mm PROPOSED LOADING BAY / AREA MEADOWS TO GEORGE STREET PM Approved: PM CLIENT Checked: MR Designer: CONSULTANT

AECOM 1 Tanfield EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax 10.72 0004 0005 0006 0005 www.aecom.com

Project Management Initials: NOTES

1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL COUNCIL GUIDELINES.

2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN DUAL USE DISABLED METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. BAY AT CERTAIN TIMES 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK

CTV TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY DP CTV CTV RS GV Paving CTV GV SV CTV DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE GV GV

Paving CTV CTV B B LDR WM B T/P GV SC LDR B B SC B B

TEL GV B RS 3.54 IC TEL B B GV B B SV Paving Bin REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK IC Paving

T/P 3.87 IC Bus Shelter B SC B B SC SC B B

B B RS 3.99 B IC CTV Paving BS B B IC T/P SC DK

GV 4.36 RS RS RS 5.16 SC

4.94 IS PUT TO HAND.

T/P RS DK 4.51 FH DK Taxis DK SC FH 6.13 GY 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE SV FH

SV 2.50

BT GV BUS

SV BT LANE

SV BUS BUS

3.00 CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR

BUS SC LANE GEORGE IV BRIDGE

STOP 2.50

STOP

BUS

BT 2.50

LANE 3.00 PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING 2.50

BT 2.50

SV DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE. 84.16 2.00 DK BT 85.99 MH CL 2.50 DK BT

BT 2.00 3.00

2.50 DK 84.48 84.45

2.00 85.27 84.55 84.74 84.68 84.61 RP 2.50 AG5 84.86 RP 5. CTV T/P ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE DK 85.06 84.99 Cobbles 85.58 85.38 85.23 85.17

85.70 T/P13.00 2.50 86.11 85.89 RP RP Cobbles 84.62 84.56 84.49 84.44 86.93 86.48 RP 84.76 84.70 CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL 87.28 Cobbles T/P RS 85.00 84.87 RP 84.15 85.21 85.16 85.04 DK T/P 85.58 85.39 AG6 86.07 85.68 DK RS 85.91 REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND 87.29 86.99 RP RP GEORGE IV BRIDGEDK

86.80 DK 6.50 SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED.

6.50 6.50

6.50 MH CL 84.96

FH 6.50

6.50 GEORGE IV BRIDGE GEORGE IV BRIDGE 86.64 6. 87.22 86.91 SV ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN

SV COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF

SV FH

SV BUS

LANE DK Cycle Lane SC

DK 2.50 THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND BUS Cycle Lane SC DK SC STOP DK B B T/P B B B B B B 5.94 CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT B T/P B B B B B

B 5.83 B B RS B T/P B SC B RS T/P B SC GV SC 5.66

GV CTV LDR

Cobbles SC BS IC REGULATIONS. 5.44 GV GV GV 4.91 Bus GV SC CTV

SV SV CTV SC 4.90

CTV GV 3.03 Shelter IC Bin Stone Wall SV Paving CTV Paving GV

6.08 Paving DK BT IC GV

IC DK

6.30 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS, Stone Wall PE

T/P T/P

IC Tarmac IC BT SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM IC BT 19.00

IC CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY. RS RS DR ER CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS

26.00 BT SV TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION.

RS Paving

EB 5.88 Paving

85.44 MH CL

CTV 1.64 VICTORIA STREET VICTORIA

Bin ISSUE/REVISION Cobbles 1.62

IC IC

CTV CTV

IC ER

IC 0004 0005 4.89 0005 0006 BT

BT CTV

Bin DR Tarmac

CTV

- 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

MH CL 84.19 6.66

GY KEY PLAN

2020-02-17 5.84 PROJECT NUMBER 60579473 Last Plotted: SHEET TITLE

5.69 DESIGN PROPOSALS JANUARY 2020 ROBERTSONM Scale SHEET 5 OF 7

F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 5.42 0 2.5 5 10 20m SHEET NUMBER

Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 0005 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename: 5.37 BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220.

VICTORIA STREET KEY

SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY

FOOTWAY N

BUS STOP PROJECT ISO A1 594mm x 841mm PROPOSED LOADING BAY / AREA MEADOWS TO GEORGE RAISED TABLE STREET PM SUDS

NEW TREE Approved: PM CLIENT

SV Checked:

SV CTV RS BT

EB SC MR

FH CHAMBER STREET CHAMBER Designer:

Paving CONSULTANT CHAMBERS STREET CHAMBERS

SC SC AECOM

GY 1 Tanfield PE BT GV GY SC

WM EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA 0006 0007 RS

WO CTV +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel IC

RS DR +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax 10.72 PE

Paving GV 0006 0005 www.aecom.com

CTV

IC 85.83

TEL 85.89

GY 85.77 Project Management Initials: NOTES Paving

85.75 85.65

GV WM 3.32 GV PE MH

SC 85.79 IC GY B DK 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN SC LP SC DR 3.25 WM IC FH

Paving 83.01 ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR

EB 85.59 85.43 SC FH HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF SC

B 85.45

BT BT Pelican T/P SC 6.50 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY Crossing EB T/P WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND EB BRISTO PLACE

EB IC Stone Wall BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL Cycle Lane Paving

85.41 RS

National Museum Of Scotland COUNCIL GUIDELINES. SP IC

LP IC 3.58 GY AG3A 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS

IC Paving BT RS

T/P 2.69 LP TL STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN Paving 85.21 DK SC IC GV METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. FH

IC IC 84.93

LP SC

2.96 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK 4.00 Cycle Lane SV GV Paving FH CTV TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY

CTV GV SC

IC Crossing BUS STOP 3.00 Bin IC Paving IC

Paving SC Pedestrian SC T/P DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE SV

SV B 3.30 BS SC RS

B CTV CTV 3.59 B B

B T/P RS 3.54 LP REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK DK SC DK GY GY SC

IC 3.25 TL IS PUT TO HAND.

IC GY 85.24 SV DK

GY IC 2.50 GV

BUS T/P STOP SV SV 3.00 TL 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE

SV BT 2.50

83.38

MH CL WM

SV T/P CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR SV DK

GEORGE IV BRIDGE AG3 BT DK SV IC

2.50 BT

BT SC 8.00 IC BT 6.50 Pedestrian PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING IC

2.00 Crossing 4.10 DK

2.50 4.00 BT T/P 83.81 DK RP Paviors DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE. 83.91 GY

84.16 84.94 DK IC IC AG44.00 BT 3.25 5.04 EB 84.08 IC 84.55 84.48 84.45 T/P EB RP Cobbles Paving 84.07 84.31 RP 5. ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE T/P RP RP TL TL FH IC 84.49 84.44 DK 84.51

83.81 CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL 83.93 2.75 83.37

84.15 84.08 6.50 MH CL DK T/P

6.50 84.69

GV Cycle Lane DK REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND GY GY 85.23

Paving SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED. 19.00 GEORGE IV BRIDGE GV GY GY

GEORGE IV BRIDGE RP

1.50 5.77 FH 5.09 83.33 Cobbles 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN GY Bin

IC PedestrianCrossing

MH CL83.16 10.30 BUS

LANE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AV DK CTV DK DK SV FH

DK FH RS RS DK T/P LP BT THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND SC

T/P 5.88 SC IC Bobby

6.22 LP IC Greyfriars Paving B T/P SC B 6.14 Paving IC B B CTV Bin SC 5.94 BT CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT CTV

CTV 5.83 GV TL GY 1.50 CTV LDR 4.00

SC Paving GV GV

GV CTV LDR 83.09 SC 1.50 Paving SUDS REGULATIONS. GV GY

PE IC LP 2.12 SC SC EB RS

CTV CTV Paving Lane Cycle

Stone Wall IC SC

EB 85.10

Paving 82.82 ROAD FORREST RS 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS,

82.66 CTV 82.93 SC

BT SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM

2.45 GV Cobbles 82.49 CTV CTV

SC CTV 85.21 CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY.

82.19 8.00

2.48 CANDLEMAKER ROW SV 19.50 CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS SY 4.85

81.54 IC

81.80 BT

MH CL 3.30 SV

80.48 Cobbles TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. 2.80 2.35 CTV LOADING

PE 81.54 83.17 DR IC IC

SV CTV 83.24 85.34 Paving Paving 81.25 Bin SC

80.92 4.58 CTV 2.80 IC

IC GV 3.30

DR IC SC 2.36 SC

80.55 EB GV SC 5.88 GY SC

DR 4.12

80.16 GREYFRIARS GV Bin DR

SC 2.80 SC

DR 3.30 SC 79.78 SC IC DP SC CTV SV

SC DR GV

1.64 CTV GY BT DR 32.00

GV GV 4.18 DR DR

IC SC ISSUE/REVISION 1.62 0006 0007

4.89 0005 0006

- 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

6.66 KEY PLAN

2020-02-17 5.84 PROJECT NUMBER 60579473 Last Plotted: SHEET TITLE

5.69 DESIGN PROPOSALS JANUARY 2020 ROBERTSONM Scale SHEET 6 OF 7

F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 0 2.5 5 10 20m SHEET NUMBER Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 0006 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220. 84.93 B GV Paving TL GV B 85.89 KEY 85.45

SC IC

IC 85.24

SEGREGATED CYCLEWAY Cobbles 85.23 TL T/P BT Cycle Lane 85.75 RS DK GY 85.43 FH 85.21 FOOTWAY GY Pedestrian RP Crossing MH IC SC N

BT 85.10 GY 85.83 DK BUS STOP SV SV 85.77 PROJECT DK TL ISO A1 594mm x 841mm PROPOSED LOADING BAY / AREA CTV SUDS4.00 T/P 85.79 Cycle Lane 85.41 IC SV MEADOWS TO GEORGE CTV FH 85.21 IC TAXI RANK 0006 PE 0006 IC SC IC GY IC 3.32 STREET BRISTO PLACE Paving PM RAISED TABLE 0007 GV 0007 GV Bin Cobbles IC 6.50 GY SUDS IC 4.85 1.50 CTV SC RS GV SC RS PE 85.59 Approved: NEW TREE Cobbles 3.58 IC RS 85.34 1.50 Paving RS AV FORREST ROAD SC CTV CTV GY Paving PM

GV GY IC 8.00 RS Stone Wall CLIENT SC EB 85.65 CTV SV WO BT GV LOADING PE IC SV

Checked: 19.50

Bus Shelter SC SV BUS Stone Wall BRISTO PLACE IC BT STOP GY BS MR MHCL GV SC 85.66 SC SV Paving WO GAS IC SV 85.72

IC BT

85.66 Designer: CTV CTV SC 4.00 BIN CONSULTANT SC DR GY GV RS CTV

GV PE LDR AECOM Cobbles SUDS IC MH CL 85.54 IC 1 Tanfield IC 85.62 GV SC GY EDINBURGH, EH3 5DA

Bin +44 (0) 131 301 8600 tel CTV CTV IC Concrete BT LP +44 (0) 131 301 8699 fax Cobbles Bin

85.63 www.aecom.com SC IC 3.35SC GV SC 85.63 IC SC Project Management Initials: NOTES Tarmac IC 6.50 BUS

Cobbles Cycle Lane 85.65 IC SV STOP Cycle Lane 1. ALL WORKS TO BE EXECUTED IN FH DP GY IC 4.14 DR ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION FOR RS BT GV DR HIGHWAY WORKS - THE MANUAL OF SC 85.65 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR HIGHWAY WORKS, DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND Paving GV IC Cobbles GY BT Paving BRIDGES, TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL AND LOCAL ShelterBus DP Bin IC SV COUNCIL GUIDELINES. SV RS DK GV GY SV MH CL 2. PE CTV SV 85.39 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS IC SC STATED OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN IC Cobbles FORREST ROAD METRES AND RELATE TO ORDNANCE DATUM. SC Paving SC Bin GY SC SC 3. DO NOT SCALE FROM ANY DRAWING. WORK

AG2A TO FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. ANY RS BIN DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSION ARE TO BE BRISTO PLACE 4.00 RS B WM REFERRED TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE WORK CTV PB IS PUT TO HAND. PE CTV SC SC SC 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE DK Paving CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR IC PRIOR TO PREPARING ANY WORKING GY IC DRAWINGS OR COMMENCING ON SITE.

SUDS RAIN GARDEN Cycle Lane IC 2.12 RS GV FH 5. ALL WORKS BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE SC 2.50 IC CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL CTV REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HEALTH AND IC Concrete IC SAFETY AT WORK ACT ARE SATISFIED. SC Stmp GY Cycle Lane GV MH CL SC 84.93 Paving 6. ALL WORK IS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN SC IC 19.50 SC SC MH CL GV SC 85 96 PB COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SC 84.94 SC SC

IC Cobbles SC IC 24.00 THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND 4.85 Concrete SC Paving IC Paving CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT SC SV GY SC SV SC Parking REGULATIONS. SC Tarmac SC IC RS CTV IC BT SP 3.34SC 7. DRAWING BASE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS, DP Paving Cycle Lane SC Cobbles RS SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY OTHERS. AECOM MH CL CTV 85.98 DB CANNOT GUARANTEE THEIR ACCURACY. GY CTV Paving GV Concrete 84.89 Stmp 6.50 19.50 SC 2.50 IC CONTRACTOR TO SATISFY THEMSELVES AS IC GV LOADING 1.50 GY GY TO THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. GY CTV TL SC IC GY Bin Store Bin SCSC SC IC DP GY 84.84 BINS SC CTV Tarmac CTV 6.50 GY SC IC SC RS DK SC SC CTV LOTHIAN STREET GY MH CL PE IC 85.05 5.08

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian SV 84.80 TL Pedestrian Crossing 5.89

84.87 84.82 MH CL 1.50 84.82 86.02 Cobbles FORREST ROAD IC BT GV

DK IC SC MH CL 84.82 ISSUE/REVISION FH DK Cobbles NEW DISABLED IC Pedestrian Crossing SC B 3.67 TL SC Concrete IC PARKING SPACE SC IC TL Paving GY DP SUDS GY DK Bin CTV BT IC Cycle Lane Cycle Lane SV NEW TAXI RANK 4.50 TL TL DP SC 85.04 MH CL 86.19 3.77 TL P 5.00 CTV 2.50 DK T/P TL RS Paving MH CL SC 85.11 Pedestrian Crossing P 86.22 MH CL 84.88 SC 84.81 Cobbles P DK T/P 3.96 86.39 CTV EB DK 85.13 WM TL DP Bin Pedestrian Crossing SC IC SC Paving P DP 2.50 LP - 14/02/2020 TEC REPORT GV SC 3.03 2.80 DP SC LDR PE Concrete IC IC SC LDR DP IC Pedestrian 3.00 SC IC 3.00 DP 2.70

SC IC SC 2.98 CTV SC CTV 3.03

Crossing IC SC SC SC Tarmac 85.26 TL 3.00 SC IC SC GV DK RS I/R DATE DESCRIPTION SC IC SC Paving 3.25 T/P DK IC FH SC Tarmac IC Tarmac CTV 1.50 AG1 DK 4.00 GY SV SC T/P TL WSV Cobbles 6.00 B

2.50 SC 3.00 SC SC 85.35 MH CL SC 2.50 DK GY Cycle Lane LP 2.50 GV SV Paving 86.02 Parking LP T/P Cycle Lane 3.00 B KEY PLAN SC TL 3.25 1.50 Cycle Lane 85.44 B DK

DK BT

1.50 2.50

2.50 13.00 BT 2.50

86.44 IC Cycle Lane Cobbles WSV 86.41 85.51 SC

TL 85.07 2.50 3.25 RP 2.50 TREVIOT PLACE SC T/P AG2 Cobbles 85.62 85.57 Paving AG2 30.0985.69 FH 2.75 Cycle Lane Cycle Lane 2.75 4.25 1.00 DK RP

IC SV

Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian

8.00 5.25

3.25

Cycle Lane Cycle 3.75 3.25 5.00

4.00 2.50 2.50 SV 29.95 85.11 GY TEVIOT PLACE 85.09

Cycle Lane 3.25 GV GY

FH 3.25

2020-02-17 Cycle Lane Cycle Lane

3.25 IC 3.25 LP IC DK SV 3.25 Parking Taxis GY RS GY LP TL 85.13

CTV TL IC 2.36 2.48 Tarmac GY GY BT T/P Statue Cobbles Concrete RS

LP LP IC 3.23 B B B Paving IC 4.09 PROJECT NUMBER

Statue B 3.66 Paving 3.65

CTV 3.42 BT 3.51 Spot Light 3.31 Bin 85.12

Paving T/P

SC B T/P Kiosk LP BT B EB EB TEL Stone Wall 60579473

Last Plotted: EB IC Stone Wall DK DR Cycle Path DR SHEET TITLE

86.0 SC Bike Racks

IC IC SC DESIGN PROPOSALS GV 85.5 Stone Wall JANUARY 2020

85.5 ROBERTSONM IC SHEET 7 OF 7 Grass Scale LP CTV NP F:\PROJECTS\TRAFFIC – CL+ MEADOWS TO GEORGE ST\900_CAD_GIS [DEVELOPED DESIGN]\910_CAD\25-SKETCHES\60579473-MOD-C-SKE-TEC_REPORT.DWG 85.18 0 2.5 5 10 20m SHEET NUMBER 84.35 85.0 Pond Original Size (A1) 1:250 @ A1 1:500 @ A3 0007 Last saved by: This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed AECOM required law. accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to party that uses relies on this without express written consent. Do scale document. All measurements must obtained from stated dimensions. Filename:

BASED UPON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPPING WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE (C) CROWN COPYRIGHT. LICENCE NO. AL 100005220.

Appendix 3: Meadows to George Street: Construction Cost Estimate Summary

Update February 2020

Background In January 2019 the Meadows to George Street project completed its Concept Design proposals which included creation of new segregated cycle tracks, widened footways, new public spaces, pedestrianised streets and a number of new signalised junctions and crossings across the project area. At this time a construction cost estimate was developed and agreed which amounted to a total cost of £13.8m ex. VAT. Over the past 12 months the project has completed wide reaching public consultation, business engagement and further technical design feasibility. The general concept of the scheme and its design proposals were widely supported, and further technical design and investigations are ongoing. With the project now at Developed Design stage a new construction cost estimate has been developed. For this latest cost estimate, the project team have been working closely with other design teams on similar projects in Edinburgh to ensure lessons are being learned and a consistency in approach. The latest construction cost estimate has increased to £15.9m ex. VAT. The detail of the changes to the cost estimates and approach are discussed below. Change in Costs • It should be noted the base cost estimate of the works – plant, labour, materials – is generally consistent across both stages with minimal change – circa £8m. This reflects the fact the general scope has remained unchanged and the design team have worked to maintain this. • Based on the current market conditions, and prices being received by other similar projects, it is noted the costs are generally proving higher than previously anticipated. Recent projects have seen an increase in prices up to 25% higher than budget estimates. The updated MGS cost estimate includes for a high level of preliminary costs to account for this. • In January 2019 optimism bias was applied at 44% in accordance with national guidance given the early stage of development. This previous allowance of optimism bias included for the unknowns relative to the stage of development including utilities. • Given the latest stage of design, and information available on utilities within the project area, an increased allowance has been made for potential impacts to public utility apparatus and this is being treated separate to general optimism bias/budget contingency. Further investigation works are ongoing to better define these impacts and consultation with affected providers. An allowance of 25% has been applied and is in line with similar city centre projects. • In the latest updated cost estimate, it has been recommended to provide an allowance for price inflation. The project programme is proposing construction 2022-23 and inflation has been applied at 3% per year in accordance with industry trends, totalling a 9% increase come completion of construction.

1/2 Error! Reference source not found. Funding The project is currently match funded by City of Edinburgh Council and Transport Scotland, via Sustrans’ Places for Everyone funding. In summary the current split of the capital construction budget is: • City of Edinburgh Council, Active Travel Budget: 45% • Transport Scotland, via Sustrans Places for Everyone funding: 55%

2/2

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

Section 1 What is Integrated Impact Assessment

1.1 Introduction

Chief Executives, Elected Members, Directors, Heads of Service, managers and staff should recognise that the decisions they make every day profoundly influence the health and wellbeing of our diverse community in Lothian.

Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) aims to enable the partners to meet the legal duties to consider equality, human rights, sustainability and the environment in planning decisions. It also creates an opportunity to identify and tackle unanticipated impacts on wider causes of poor outcomes in our communities, such as inadequate housing, low educational achievement, low income, transport and pollution, poverty, stigma and social inequality. This guidance to completing the Integrated Impact Assessment has been developed in collaboration between the four local Lothian authorities and NHS Lothian. It takes you through the process of undertaking an IIA. The supporting information document contains additional information on the policy and legal context, recent case law, how to test for relevance, population groups and social and environmental issues and examples of positive and negative impacts.

1.2 Why is Integrated Impact Assessment required?

Assessing impact is an important part of the public sector’s decision making process. It is important in developing any proposal to understand how the needs of different groups in the population may differ. IIA is a mechanism which enables you to consider the needs of different groups. It enables us to:

• Develop better policies and practices, based on evidence • Prevent or mitigate negative impacts on determinants of social and health inequality • Take joint action on key social policy areas including equality and human rights, poverty and the economy • Meet legal requirements in relation to equality, climate change, sustainability, the environment and the need to promote human rights, including the rights of children and young people Consider the potential to advance/hinder the wellbeing of children and young people • Be more transparent and accountable.

We have a legal requirement to assess our proposals for equality impact to ensure that we do not unlawfully discriminate. As partners we have agreed that all new policies, plans or strategies should have an integrated impact assessment which can be used by all partners in Lothian thus reducing duplication of effort and enhancing the assessment process through joint working. 1

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

In addition, we are committed to 3 core objectives in relation to equality and rights:

• To plan services and policies which promote equality of opportunity; eliminate discrimination and harassment; and promote good relations between those with protected characteristics and those with none.

• To address broader inequalities. This means we want to ensure that policies meet the needs of all people including children and young people , especially those from population groups that are known to have poorer outcomes.

• To identify and address wider impacts on poverty, health and health inequalities in our policies, plans and strategies. For example employment, education, transport, the built environment, purchasing policies, public safety, waste disposal all have wider impacts on people’s health, wellbeing and life experience.

We are also committed to 3 core objectives in relation to climate change:

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

• Adapting to the impacts of a changing climate.

• Acting sustainably.

Once the IIA has been completed, the proposal revised to mitigate any negative impacts which were identified, the IIA has been signed and made available to the public on the internet you will have met your legal requirements to:

• Undertake an Impact Assessment on equality, human rights including the rights of children and young people, the environment and climate change. • Consider sustainability as part of the decision making process. • Identify whether a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is required. • Ensure that public services and economic decisions promote human dignity for all1. • Identify and mitigate against some of the socio-economic factors that have the largest impact on the health and well-being of the local community.

1 A human rights based approach emphasises participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality. This has several benefits: upholding the rights of everyone, supporting person-centred services, helping good decision making, improving institutional culture and relationships, ensuring legal compliance and promoting best practice. For children and young people’s rights include participation, provision and protection.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

1.3 Completing an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA)

Guidance on the process is given in Section 2. In summary, it involves the following:

1. Gather relevant data and evidence about the needs and experiences of people with protected characteristics and those vulnerable to experiencing poverty and ill health in the context of the work you are undertaking.

2. As a group exercise, go through the IIA checklist at Section 3 to think critically about how your proposal will meet the needs of and impact on different groups of people including those with protected characteristics2 and impact on human rights, sustainability and the environment. Consider whether further evidence is needed before making recommendations. This group process should take no longer than two hours.

3. Review and record the results of your assessment and plan, take action and set review dates to address any issues identified. This helps towards meeting the specific duty in equalities legislation to mainstream equalities in all the work the public sector is involved in.

4. Publish the finalised IIA on your public internet site to comply with equalities legislation.

1.4 Terminology

This guidance uses the term ‘proposal’ as shorthand for any activity that you undertake as part of the work you do. It should be understood broadly to embrace the full range of your plans, programmes, strategies, policies, criteria, functions, practices and activities, including the delivery of services.

2 Protected characteristics under the Equality Act include: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race , religion or belief, sexual orientation and sex.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

Section 2 Undertaking an Integrated Impact Assessment

2.1 What should I impact assess?

The first stage is to consider whether a full assessment is required. If you answer yes to any question in the high relevance category, then an IIA is required. If you identify that an IIA is not required then you need to explain why/how you have reached this decision.

High Relevance Yes/no

The proposal has consequences for or affects people Yes

The proposal has potential to make a significant impact on equality Yes even when this only affects a relatively small number of people

The proposal has the potential to make a significant impact on the Yes economy and the delivery of economic outcomes

The proposal is likely to have a significant environmental impact Yes

Low Relevance

The proposal has little relevance to equality No

The proposal has negligible impact on the economy No

The proposal has no/minimal impact on the environment No

If you have identified low relevance please give a brief statement of your reasoning and report this to your Head of Service. Please then attach this paragraph to the section in the relevant management or committee report where Impact on Equality is considered.

NB You should always consider the cumulative impact on your services or service reviews. E.g. what is the impact if you make a number of changes across different proposal areas?

For further advice on checking relevance see Section 3 in the Supporting Information.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

2.2 When should I do an impact assessment?

Assessing the impact is not an end in itself but should be an integral part of proposal development and decision making. The regulations emphasise that it is the impact of applying a new or revised proposal that must be impact assessed.

This means that the assessment process must happen before a proposal is finalised, preferably early in its development but when the proposal is clear enough to be able to make a reasonable assessment. If the proposal then changes significantly the IIA may need to be repeated. The assessment cannot be retrospective, or undertaken only near the end of the process, but instead should be seen as integral to the development process and able to inform the consultation process.

For existing policies or strategies, impact assessment should be undertaken when they are being reviewed or amended. The IIA should be undertaken before any changes are agreed.

2.3 Who is responsible for doing an Integrated Impact Assessment?

The people responsible for developing a new proposal, or delivering a service are responsible for undertaking the assessment. Recent legal cases highlight that the duty cannot be delegated – it must be considered by the person with the ultimate responsibility for the proposal or the service and for the decision to implement the proposal. Therefore the relevant Head of Service or NHS Project Lead needs to be aware that the IIA is being undertaken and must sign off the final document.

2.4 Participation/Involvement and Evidence

Gather existing evidence on the policy, plan or strategy and how it may affect different groups. Use Table 6 in Section 4 to summarise what it tells you. Circulate the completed table to all participants in the group exercise in advance of the IIA meeting so that it can inform the discussion and be reviewed.

During the meeting the group should consider whether further evidence is needed to understand impacts and inform recommendations. In this case you should identify how this evidence can be collected.

2.5 How to do an Integrated Impact Assessment

Carrying out an IIA is a group exercise. The IIA group should include those involved in developing the policy, plan or strategy and bring together different perspectives on the topic being discussed. A sound understanding of what is proposed is essential to allow the IIA to be completed successfully. At least one member of the group should 5

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie have undertaken training on how to undertake an Integrated Impact Assessment. Ideally the group should include:

• the person who wrote the plan, proposal or strategy

• the person who has strategic responsibility for it

• a person who will implement it

• a person with an operational or front line perspective plus

• it is good practice to invite an employee representative and/or HR colleague particularly where the proposal will have an impact on service delivery or will impact on staffing arrangements or other workforce issues

• unless in exceptional circumstances the group should consist of at least four people to bring a broad perspective, and include people with protected characteristics where there are gaps in evidence

2.6 Identifying impacts

The group should get together to go through the checklist systematically. The checklist is given in Section 3 of this document. It is intended to help you to critically consider the possible impacts on different groups in the community. Your comments should focus on how the policy may impact on different groups in different ways – this is called ‘differential impacts’ in the checklist.

The checklist asks you to critically consider the impact of the policy on equality, human rights, social, environmental and economic objectives.

IIA is not a way of gathering new evidence or a part of the consultation process. These are separate activities which may help to inform the impact assessment as well as the development of the proposal.

NB A service provided to all people will not necessarily address inequality. It is important to remember that some people will fall into multiple groups e.g. many people will have more than one protected characteristic e.g. age, disability, ethnicity and sex. Some other groups will share the same concerns or barriers to services or participation.

The checklist includes factors that influence people’s health, wellbeing and human rights. Health and wellbeing are not only affected by people’s individual lifestyles but also by their families, social circumstances and the environment in which they live and work and the amount of control they have over decision making.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie The check list is not exhaustive. If you can identify other populations who will be impacted or other kinds of impact, they should be considered here also.

Think about:

• Who is likely to be directly affected by the proposal?

• Who is likely to be indirectly affected by the proposal?

• Is it likely that some people might be excluded from the proposal?

• Are there any unintended consequences for children and young people in a proposal designed for adults?

• How will you communicate with people about what is being proposed?

The Supporting Information document contains information on the legal context and some issues to consider relating to the population groups and issues in the checklist.

2.6.1 Positive Impact

An impact that could improve or support work towards the objectives listed. The positive impact may be different for people with one or more protected characteristic. This is permissible but you must always be able to demonstrate that positive impacts are justifiable in law and do not amount to discrimination, direct or indirect. You can also identify how the work will contribute to advancing equality.

For example: A targeted health improvement campaign for young men between the ages 16 to 24 would have a positive impact on this age group, compared with its impact on other age groups. It would not however have a negative impact on other age groups or women, so long as there is evidence that young men in that age group are disadvantaged (an example of positive action to address a current inequality).

2.6.2 Negative Impact

An impact that does not support or hinders the achievement against the objectives identified.

For example: Holding a public meeting as part of a consultation exercise in a building that is not accessible and does not contain an induction loop system will have a negative impact on attendees with poor mobility and those who use hearing aids.

2.7 Services delivered on behalf of the Public Bodies

Public bodies cannot abdicate or delegate their responsibility for meeting the public sector equality duty by ‘contracting out’ functions. Where a partner’s functions will be carried out by an external supplier, both the partner and the contractor have joint responsibility for meeting the duty. If an external organisation is carrying out

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie functions on behalf of the partnership, then you need to make sure that equality is given due regard 3. As part of the impact assessment, identify if any part of the service will be delivered externally and if so, consider how equality and human rights have been considered as part of the procurement process.

2.8 Summary of Impacts

Having considered the evidence and critically considered the potential impacts, the group should decide whether it needs further evidence to determine likely impacts or make recommendations. If further evidence is to be gathered this could be marked as an interim IIA and be finalised when this evidence has been gathered. If the evidence is considered to be sufficient the group should discuss and agree a summary of the positive and negative impacts identified and recommendations. This summary will be used to populate the summary report template at Section 4.

In times of financial constraint, public sector partners will have to make difficult and often unpopular decisions regarding funding and service provision. The Public Sector Equality Duties do not prevent the partners making these decisions. The impact assessment process aims to identify potential adverse impacts or missed opportunities to address any inequitable loss of service. In this instance the Equality and Human Rights Commission4 will be looking for steps you have taken or considered to mitigate any adverse impacts. Some useful questions to consider:

• What actions are required to improve the proposal as a result of the IIA?

• How will the proposal be monitored after full implementation and how will you ensure that the recommendations made in the IIA are effective?

• Have you planned reviews of the proposal? If so, how often and who will be responsible?

If the proposal shows actual or potential unlawful discrimination you will only be able to meet your legal obligations under the duties by stopping, removing or changing the policy.

3 Those organisations subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty must have due regard to its three general duties in all aspects of carrying out business decisions and day-to-day activities i.e: eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.

4 The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland has a mandate from the Government to challenge discrimination, and to protect and promote human rights. It has responsibilities to hold the public sector to account on its actions to meet its general and specific duties under equalities legislation

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

2.9 Communicating Information

The checklist asks you to consider communication issues relating to the proposal. This may include consultation and engagement about the proposal and/or about the service once it is in place. Consider ways to ensure this is inclusive for all members of the community including children and young people, people with sensory impairment, people with low literacy and for whom English is not their first language.

2.10 Action Plan

Following the group exercise, the person responsible for the proposal should use the recommendations to prepare a detailed action plan and build these into the implementation of the proposal.

2.11 Follow up

Integrated Impact Assessment should inform future monitoring of the policy. The true impact of a proposal may only become clear once it is implemented or operating in practice. Existing and normal monitoring practices may need to be adapted to include the monitoring of impacts on people with protected characteristics, other vulnerable groups, human rights and meeting the general equality duties, the environment, and sustainability.

2.12 Sign Off, Paperwork and Publication

The IIA report template at Section 4, should be used when reporting impact assessments. Please complete the form electronically. Please note that all IIAs are required to be published on the relevant organisation’s external internet site by each of the partners and therefore authors must ensure that the information is presented clearly and in plain language that can be easily understood by the general public.

The relevant Head of Service or Project Lead needs to be aware that the IIA is being undertaken and must sign off the final document.

Once completed, the impact assessment report should be sent to the relevant contact(s) in Section 5 of this document.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

2.13 Quality Assurance

A sample of IIAs will be checked by an IIA quality assurance group which includes colleagues working on equality, sustainability, health inequality and tackling poverty to ensure that IIAs are completed to a suitable and consistent standard. The QA team will use the following criteria to check the IIA reports.

Criteria: for use by IIA QA group Tick

Overall, the IIA is understandable and set in context

The need for an IIA was identified appropriately

There is evidence that all relevant populations were considered

There is evidence that all parts of the IIA were completed appropriately

There are no obvious impacts that were not identified

There is an action plan to implement any recommendations arising from the IIA and it specifies how these will be monitored

The appropriate person has signed off the IIA

Any relevant reports to committee contain the appropriate reference to IIA

Any further considerations

Feedback will be given to the lead person for the IIA report. This may include the need for minor adjustments, follow up action or other recommendations.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

Section 3 Integrated Impact Assessment Checklist

This checklist does not form part of the IIA report but is intended to inform the group discussion. The boxes may help you to write your ideas down before discussion within the group. For further support see the IIA guidance and supporting information.

1. Before going through the checklist, consider:

• What do you think will change as a result of this proposal?

2. Now consider impacts on different populations.

• Which groups will be affected? • Go through the checklist below to identify how different people could be affected differentially, and possible areas of impact.

Population Groups Differential impacts (how may each group be affected in different ways?)

People with protected characteristics

• Positive – by improving ease of access and • Older people and people in their middle years infrastructure to improve safety. More seating

in design proposals for rest points.

• Negative – removal of southbound bus stop on the Mound increases distance between bus stops on the route in excess of standard 400m. Floating bus stops are also an unfamiliar concept which may hinder travel.

• Young people and children • Positive – by improving ease of access and infrastructure to improve safety

• Positive – improve the safety of infrastructure • Men (including trans men), Women (including relating to active travel may increase the level trans women) and Non-binary people (Include of female cyclists issues relating to pregnancy and maternity including same sex parents) • Potential Negative – safety/security concerns

walking along pedestrianised areas (Forrest

Road) alone / after dark.

• Disabled people (includes physical disability, • Positive – by improving ease of access and learning disability, sensory impairment, long- infrastructure to improve safety and engaging term medical conditions, mental health with Edinburgh Access Panel to maintain a problems) line of communication throughout the project

• Negative - removal of southbound bus stop on 11

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Population Groups Differential impacts (how may each group be affected in different ways?)

the Mound increases distance between bus stops on the route in excess of standard 400m. Floating bus stops are also an unfamiliar concept which may hinder travel. Reduction in available parking.

Safety concerns/obstacles in areas of shared

space – design will strive to reduce conflict. Severing of routes due to restriction to private traffic may be of a negative impact.

• Minority ethnic people (includes • Neutral Gypsy/Travellers, migrant workers, non- Consultation did not gather feedback from English speakers) ethnic minorities. Feedback on survey not representative of census data.

• Refugees and asylum seekers • Neutral

• People with different religions or beliefs • Potential negative – reduction of parking (includes people with no religion or belief) around Augustine United Church / St Giles’ and no Sunday parking. Access will be more

constrained.

• Lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual • Potential Negative – safety/security concerns people walking along pedestrianised areas (Forrest Road) alone / after dark.

• People who are unmarried, married or in a civil partnership • Neutral

Those vulnerable to falling into poverty:

• Unemployed • Positive – by improving mobility by a modes of travel that is cheap and affordable – improving transport equality (walking and cycling)

• People on benefits • Positive – by improving mobility by a modes of travel that is cheap and affordable (walking and cycling)

• Single parents • Neutral

• Vulnerable families e.g. young mothers, people experiencing domestic abuse, children at risk • Neutral of statutory measures

• Pensioners • Positive - by improving ease of access and

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Population Groups Differential impacts (how may each group be affected in different ways?)

infrastructure to improve safety

• Looked after children and young people • Neutral – potential for play features to be incorporated into design • Those leaving care settings (including children and young people and those with illness) • Neutral – potential for play features to be incorporated into design

• Homeless people • Neutral

• Carers (including young carers and carers with protected characteristics) • Potential negative – General traffic restrictions restrict access. Consider controlled pass for access. • Those involved in the criminal justice system • Positive - provided bus access is not jeopardised – improve for people with no access to car. Have to bear in mind these groups would disproportionately use bus

• Negative – for those in justice system with

potential for restricted access to the court

• Those living in the most deprived communities • Neutral

• People with low literacy/numeracy • Neutral

• People misusing substances • Neutral

• Others e.g. students, church congregations • Students positively - improving ease of access and reducing barriers to cycling; church congregations

• Possible negative impact if parking on Sunday is restricted (no parking on cycleway e.g.)

Geographical communities

• Rural/ semi-rural communities • N/A

• Urban communities • Neutral

• Coastal communities • N/A

• Positive – increased footfall and cyclists on the • Business community corridor better for business Temporary negative traffic impacts could affect business although this will be taken into account during the construction phase Negative – impact on loading/parking 13

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Population Groups Differential impacts (how may each group be affected in different ways?)

operations;

Staff

• Full-time • Positive for all – by improving ease of access • Part-time and infrastructure to improve safety. The • Shift workers seasonal nature of employment in the area • Staff with protected characteristics and shift workers may be impacted differently. • Staff vulnerable to falling into Limited parking for staff along the corridor so poverty minimal impacts. potential negative for staff being unable to drive to work.

3. Consider how your proposal will impact on each of the following from both an equalities and human rights perspective. Objectives Positive/negative impacts

Equality and Human Rights

Negative - pedestrianisation can change perceived safety Eliminate discrimination and amongst women harassment Positive - reduce conflict between active travel and road users

Advance equality of opportunity e.g. improve Positive access / quality of services

Positive – Introduction of improved crossing facilities, Foster good relations within reduction of street clutter. and between people with protected characteristics Negative – Potential conflicts with shared space, potential confusion initially with floating bus stops

Enable people to have more Positive – fostering an understanding between different user groups through engagement stage will allow them to control of their social/work act upon their control once designs has been environment implemented.

Reduce differences in status Positive – building empathy through engagement stage between different groups of by engaging with a wide range of groups leading to a people more democratic use of space

Promote participation, Positive – through engagement stage, people are inclusion, dignity and control encouraged to participate to mould future designs and

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Objectives Positive/negative impacts over decisions allows for a desired design.

Build family support networks, resilience and Neutral community capacity

Reduce crime and fear of Potential Negative – pedestrianisation of Forest Road – crime including hate crime be mindful of perception of safety in design.

Protect vulnerable children Neutral and adults Promote healthier lifestyles including:

• diet and nutrition, Positively for diet and nutrition, physical activity and • sexual health, lifeskills • substance misuse • physical activity • lifeskills Environmental

Positive aiming for modal shift to low carbon forms of travel (walking and cycling) from motorised means of Reduce greenhouse gas travel. (GHG) emissions (including Negative – emissions spread due to dispersed traffic as carbon management) result of road restrictions

Positive aiming for modal shift to low carbon forms of Plan for future climate travel (walking and cycling) from motorised means of change travel.

Pollution: air/ water/ soil/ Positively for air + noise pollution reduction noise

Protect coastal and inland Neutral waters

Neutral – urban environment and limited opportunity for Enhance biodiversity this. Potential to enhance through design

Positive – aiming for modal shift to low carbon forms of Encourage resource travel (walking and cycling) from motorised means of efficiency (energy, water, travel.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Objectives Positive/negative impacts materials and minerals) Potential to re-use materials in the project – actively looking to do so where possible i.e. paving slabs

Public Safety eg: Positively for accidental injury reduction, particularly for • minimise waste people on bikes and on foot. generation Positively effect road traffic statistics. • infection control Access to emergency vehicles is still available • accidental injury Potential for recycling bins as to standard all-purpose bins • fire risk Reduce need to travel and promote sustainable forms of Positive – aim of the project as a whole. transport

Improve the physical environment e.g. • housing quality Positively for public space and access to and quality of • public space green space, as public space improvements are a part of • access to and quality the project, and the project aims to better link major green of green space spaces in central Edinburgh (Princes St gardens and The Meadows) by active modes of travel. No impacts on housing quality as project does not propose residential development.

Economic

Neutral Maximise income and /or However, may maximise individual income by reducing reduce income inequality the need to use private car

Help young people into Positive (access to open space, school, university) positive destinations

Positive (designs will be conscious of business Support local business requirements and operations)

Positive – improved accessibility and safety via walking Help people to access jobs and safety (both paid and unpaid) Negative – impact on use of private car to workplace

Improve literacy and Neutral - note improved access public library numeracy

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Objectives Positive/negative impacts

Improve working conditions, Neutral including equal pay

Improve local employment Neutral - improved accessibility and safety via walking opportunities and safety

Positive - improved accessibility and safety via walking Improve quality of and and safety access to services

3. As a group agree:

• A summary of the impacts identified • Is further evidence needed to understand these impacts and make any recommendations? If so complete an interim report and agree a timescale to complete a final report. • What recommendations should you make to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts?

This checklist has now been completed and the findings provide the basis for the summary report (Section 4).

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

Section 4 Integrated Impact Assessment Summary Report Template

Each of the numbered sections below must be completed

Interim report X Final report (Tick as appropriate)

1. Title of plan, policy or strategy being assessed

City of Edinburgh Council - Community Links PLUS – Meadows to George Street Project – Creating a Place for People

2. What will change as a result of this proposal?

Internal council staff and departments, external stakeholders, and local residents will be familiar with the project and have been consulted with. Concept designs and visualisations will have been prepared, and a set of agreed project objectives have been agreed, providing City of Edinburgh Council with the deliverables that are required to progress the project to the next stage. Ultimately, this Community Links Plus project will improve conditions on-route for people travelling on foot and by bike, and for those with mobility difficulties.

3. Briefly describe public involvement in this proposal to date and planned

A substantial programme of engagement was carried out during the development of the Community Links PLUS Stage 3 funding bid in 2017. This programme included:

• A focus group with people of varying occupations, ages and genders who frequent the area regularly travelling by different modes gathering insight into their travel choices and barriers to more walking and cycling. • Ongoing meetings held with The University of Edinburgh as they continue to support the scheme, working with staff and the student population to support sustainable travel in the University and in the city.

Stage 1 Initial Community and Stakeholder Engagement 2018, held from June- October 2018, included:

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie • Stakeholder workshop; • Business drop-in session; • Community representative drop-in session; • A Placecheck tool of the study corridor accessible to anyone online and advertised widely; • Public engagement stalls on-route on June 21st and July 21st ; • An on-route visitor snap survey; and • Selected one-to-ones, including with Edinburgh Access Panel. A report of Stage 1 Engagement has been produced and is available.

Stage 2 Concept Design Consultation 2019, held from May - July 2019, included: • Stakeholder Workshop; • Consultation promotion via leafleting, social media postings, lamppost wraps, railing banners; • A dedicated project website; • Online survey; • Business ‘walk the route’; • George Heriot’s school visit; • Public engagement stalls on-route on Middle Meadow Walk, Candlemaker Row, The Mound and Princes Street which displayed concept designs and provided feedback forms; • Concept designs on display at the Central Library and The National Museum of Scotland; and • Community Council engagement. A report of Stage 2 Consultation has been produced.

4. Date of IIA

Integrated Impact Assessment drafted at MGS Delivery Group meeting on 1st August 2018. Updated subsequently at end of Stage 1 in October 2018. IIA updated again following Stage 2 in September 2019. To be updated again at end of Stage 3.

5. Who was present at the IIA? Identify facilitator, Lead Officer, report writer and any partnership representative present and main stakeholder (e.g. NHS, Council)

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Stage 1 Name Job Title Date of IIA Email training

Deborah Paton AECOM Associate [email protected] Director, Transport Planning (project leader)

Anna AECOM Transport [email protected] McRobbie Planning Graduate Consultant

Martyn Lings CEC Active Travel [email protected] Officer .uk

Kevin Gauld CEC Active Travel [email protected]. Project Manager uk

Chiquita Elvin CLP Project [email protected]. Coordinator uk

Alasdair Sustrans Project alasdair.anderson@sustrans Anderson Team .org.uk

Howard Jones CLP Project Officer [email protected] g.uk

Ben Palmer OPEN Director [email protected]

Stage 2 Name Job Title Date of IIA Email training

Paul Matthews Principal Engineer [email protected]

Anna AECOM Transport [email protected] McRobbie Planning Graduate Consultant

Chiquita Elvin CLP Project [email protected]. Coordinator uk

Howard Jones CLP Project Officer [email protected] g.uk

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

6. Evidence available at the time of the IIA

Evidence Available? Comments: what does the evidence tell you?

Data on populations in Yes • The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment need (JSNA) contains detailed information on the population of Edinburgh, locality needs and health and social inequalities. Future trends insights indicate that: Poverty rates are likely to remain high in the next few years; There will be an increase in the size of the population – this in itself will lead to an increase in the number of people needing support, even if prevalence rates and economic factors stay the same; There will be more older people – again leading to an increase in the numbers of people needing support.

• Census 2011 data – review found here

• Office for National Statistics

• CEC Profile

• SIMD A review of the latest Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2016) indicates that the immediate areas surrounding the Meadows are amongst the least deprived – review found here

• Population Statistics Database Service

• Local NHS Service

Data on service Yes • Census 2011 data uptake/access There is a very low percentage of people that travel to work via car. Both train and

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Evidence Available? Comments: what does the evidence tell you?

bus percentages are much higher than the Scottish averages with walking double the Scottish average in the study area.

• Scottish Transport Statistics

• Scottish Household Survey

• Office for Rail Regulation Patronage Statistics Edinburgh Waverley 16/17 Entries & Exits – 22582342

• Transport Scotland

Data on equality Scottish Government outcomes

Research/literature • Scottish Government’s National evidence Performance Framework

• Scottish National Transport Strategy

• Strategic Transport Projects Review

• Cycling Action Plan for Scotland

• National Walking Strategy

• National Planning Framework 3

• SEStran Regional Transport Strategy

• South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan

• CEC Sustainable Edinburgh 2020

• CEC Local Development Plan

• CEC Economic Development Strategy

• CEC Active Travel Action Plan

• CEC Public and Accessible Transport

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Evidence Available? Comments: what does the evidence tell you?

Action Plan

Public/patient/client Gathered during Stage 1 Engagement and experience information Stage 2 Consultation– all reported in Stage 1 and Stage 2 report, varied views and experiences.

Evidence of inclusive Gathered during Stage 1 Engagement and engagement of service Stage 2 Consultation– all reported in Stage 1 users and involvement and Stage 2 report, varied views and findings experiences.

Evidence of unmet need Gathered during Stage 1 Engagement and Stage 2 Consultation– all reported in Stage 1 and Stage 2 report, varied views and experiences.

Good practice guidelines • Edinburgh Street Design Guidance

• Good practice guidelines Scotland’s transport future – Guidance on local transport strategies. 2005.

It should be noted that this guidance is somewhat dated, whilst we follow the core elements, we have supplemented with accepted best practice and our own experience.

Environmental data • CEC Air Quality Action Plan

Risk from cumulative impacts

Other (please specify)

Additional evidence Suggestions/Actions: required • Consider design options on Forrest Road/Forrest Hill to enhance perception of safety/security

• Consider targeted engagement with 23

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Evidence Available? Comments: what does the evidence tell you?

potentially vulnerable groups on the design of Forrest Road

• Targeted engagement with ethnic minorities who have been underrepresented in the engagement to- date

• Continued engagement with churches along the route (Augustine / St Giles’) to better understand/consider church operations

• Consider targeted engagement with potentially affected church users who are of a particular religious belief

7. In summary, what impacts were identified and which groups will they affect?

Equality, Health and Wellbeing and Human Rights Affected Populations

Positive All, particularly those from marginalised or • Long-term reduction in health issues related to low physical activity levels for all active travel users, due to anticipated modal shift to active travel. disadvantaged groups or communities, or • Safer routes for pedestrians would benefit those travelling on foot. affected by a • Safer cycling routes, due to better / dedicated infrastructure, making cycling particular condition or more accessible to less experienced cyclists, and those without expensive specialist equipment. This is positive for people in general, but is likely to disability. improve accessibility for groups who are less likely to cycle, such as women, as well as people from more deprived areas. • Long-term reduction in pollution-related health issues due to anticipated modal shift. • Improved connections to local educational institutions. • Improved connections to local workplaces. • Improved connections to local retail destinations. • Improved connections to local green-spaces. • Anticipated increase in use of outdoor spaces due to improvements to existing public spaces as a result of place-making measures. • Improved wellbeing for employees of local businesses due to anticipated 24

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie increase in use of outdoor space for breaks, as a result of place-making improvements. • Reduction in traffic, due to anticipated modal shift to active travel, resulting in shorter and less stressful journeys for remaining motor vehicle users. This is likely to have a positive impact on those who are reliant on motor vehicles due to reduced mobility.

Negative

• Finite road space means careful consideration of allocation of space to pedestrians, people on bikes and people who rely on taxis and buses on the corridor. May have to be compromise on certain elements at particular pinch points e.g. Bank St, North Bank St. • Removal of southbound bus stop on the Mound increases distance between bus stops on the route in excess of standard 400m. Floating bus stops are also an unfamiliar concept which may hinder travel. • Safety/security concerns walking along pedestrianised areas (Forrest Road) alone / after dark. • Potential impacts on the access and operations for those with blue badge parking.

Environment and Sustainability Affected Populations Positive All • Long-term reduction in pollution from traffic due to anticipated modal shift. • Development of green-spaces through placemaking. • Improved area aesthetic and reduction in noise pollution, due to anticipated reduction in traffic.

Negative

• Some areas of green-space may be constructed upon to accommodate new infrastructure. • Short term impacts on wider road networks and corridors due to traffic dispersion as a result of the proposed changes.

Economic Affected Populations Positive All • Improved access to workplaces, providing employers with a larger pool of potential employees.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie • Reduction in vehicle operating costs for individuals, due to anticipated modal shift. • Research has shown that efforts to attract more pedestrians and cyclists has a positive economic impact on businesses, with people on foot potentially spending more than those travelling by car (in terms of town centres5). • Reduction in long-term health costs for the NHS due to improvements in health prospects as a result of anticipated reduced pollution and increased average physical activity. • Anticipated improvement in employee health, as a result of anticipated reduced pollution and increased average physical activity is likely to reduce absenteeism. • Improved access to workplaces from areas within the 5% most deprived areas in Scotland, as recorded in the 2016 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, potentially reducing unemployment.

Negative

• The introduction of new infrastructure would necessitate additional maintenance costs.

8. Is any part of this policy/ service to be carried out wholly or partly by contractors and how will equality, human rights including children’s rights , environmental and sustainability issues be addressed?

This project provides the Council with the deliverables that are required to progress the project to the next stage. At subsequent stages, there will be elements and actions noted that will be partly outsourced to contractors who will assist City of Edinburgh Council in its delivery. On those occasions, the Council’s Procurement Policy will be followed.

9. Consider how you will communicate information about this policy/ service change to children and young people and those affected by sensory impairment, speech impairment, low level literacy or numeracy, learning difficulties or English as a second language? Please provide a summary of the communications plan.

Any communication associated with this project will include the opportunity to have it translated or to be communicated in other formats. Consultation with local schools is also been undertaken in Stage 2. YoungScot have been engaged with in Stage 1, and a representative of the 2050 Climate Group associated with YoungScot participated in the Stage 1 stakeholder workshop for this project.

5 Living Streets, The Pedestrian Pound, https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/who-we-are/reports-and-research

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

The Communications Plan has considered the full spectrum of stakeholders, including internal Council departments and staff, and external decision makers, influencers, partners and stakeholders including local residents, employees, staff and students of local educations institutions and those with mobility or sensory impairments. Both traditional media and social media will be used to convey messages throughout, ensuring that the message is received by as large an audience as possible.

We will continue to actively engage with young people with existing contacts in local schools as the project moves forward.

10. Does the policy concern agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use? If yes, an SEA should be completed, and the impacts identified in the IIA should be included in this.

Yes – transport and tourism. However, SEA is not thought appropriate for this level of intervention, as this is a detailed engineering intervention as opposed to a strategy or policy.

11. Additional Information and Evidence Required

If further evidence is required, please note how it will be gathered. If appropriate, mark this report as interim and submit updated final report once further evidence has been gathered.

• Consider targeted engagement with potentially vulnerable groups on the design of Forrest Road • Targeted engagement with ethnic minorities who have been underrepresented in the engagement to-date • Continued engagement with churches along the route (Augustine / St Giles’) to better understand/consider church operations • Consider targeted engagement with potentially affected church users who are of a particular religious belief

12. Recommendations (these should be drawn from 6 – 11 above)

Interim stage recommendations as of October 2018 (end of Stage 1 Engagement):

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie • Include a specific focus on engagement with children in Stage 2, by working with schools and using contacts with schools established in Stage 1. • Sustrans to gather up to date data on pedestrian volumes in Stage 2. • AECOM to undertake accident analysis (STATS19 data) in Stage 2. • Continue to engage directly with Edinburgh Access Panel, and consider additional engagement with Age Scotland, RNIB and other organisations representing those with additional mobility needs (though have attempted to engage with several orgs in Stage 1 and no reply, except for Edinburgh Access Panel and Age Scotland). • Flyer residents in Stage 2 to ensure all are aware of the project and emerging concepts – residents assumed to have picked up on project during general public engagement in Stage 1. • Continue to engage directly with businesses in Stage 2 as per Stage 1. • Lack of engagement and evidence of need as yet from homeless community, and from those involved in the criminal justice system (several Law Courts on- route) – need to try to address this in Stage 2. • University of Edinburgh as an organisation is engaged with the study but EUSA did not respond in Stage 1, so need a more effective way of engaging with university and college students in Stage 2. • Continue to engage with Churches on route to understand travel and access needs of congregations – initiated in Stage 1 and more underway in Stage 2.

Interim stage recommendations as of July 2019 (end of Stage 2 Engagement):

• A lack of engagement and evidence remains of the needs from homeless community, and from those involved in the criminal justice system (several Law Courts on-route) – need to try to address this. • Consider design options on Forrest Road/Forrest Hill to enhance perception of safety/security • Consider targeted engagement with potentially vulnerable groups on the design of Forrest Road • Targeted engagement with ethnic minorities who have been underrepresented in the engagement to-date • Continued engagement with churches along the route (Augustine / St Giles’) to better understand/consider church operations • Consider targeted engagement with potentially affected church users who are of a particular religious belief • Further engage with businesses along the route to better understand loading/parking impacts. • Further engage with stakeholder and local residents to understand what placemaking/landscaping options are favourable.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie

13. Specific to this IIA only, what actions have been, or will be, undertaken and by when? Please complete: Note actions highlighted are from most recent revision.

Specific actions (as a result Who will Deadline for Review Complete of the IIA which may take them progressing date include financial forward implications, mitigating (name and actions and risks of contact cumulative impacts) details)

Include a specific focus on AECOM By end Jan 30th Yes engagement with children in (Deborah March 2019 2019 Stage 2, by working with Paton) schools and using contacts with schools established in Stage 1.

Sustrans to gather up to date Sustrans By end Jan 30th Yes data on pedestrian volumes (Chiquita November 2019 in Stage 2. Elvin) 2018

AECOM to undertake AECOM (Paul By end Jan 30th Yes accident analysis (STATS19 Matthews) November 2019 data) in Stage 2. 2018

Continue to engage directly AECOM By end Jan 30th Yes with Edinburgh Access (Deborah March 2019 2019 Panel, and consider Paton) additional engagement with Age Scotland, RNIB and other organisations representing those with additional mobility needs (though have attempted to engage with several orgs in Stage 1 and no reply, except for Edinburgh Access Panel and Age Scotland).

Flyer residents in Stage 2 to CEC (Kevin By end Jan 30th Yes ensure all are aware of the 29

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Specific actions (as a result Who will Deadline for Review Complete of the IIA which may take them progressing date include financial forward implications, mitigating (name and actions and risks of contact cumulative impacts) details) project and emerging Gauld) March 2019 2019 concepts – residents assumed to have picked up on project during general public engagement in Stage 1.

Continue to engage directly AECOM By end Jan 30th Yes with businesses in Stage 2 as (Deborah March 2019 2019 per Stage 1. Paton)

Lack of engagement and AECOM By end Stage 1: No evidence of need as yet from (Deborah March 2019 Jan 30th homeless community, and Paton) 2019 from those involved in the criminal justice system Stage 2: th (several Law Courts on- Jan 30 route) – need to try to 2020 address this in Stage 2.

University of Edinburgh as an AECOM By end Jan 30th Yes organisation is engaged with (Deborah March 2019 2019 the study but EUSA did not Paton) respond in Stage 1, so need a more effective way of engaging with university and college students in Stage 2.

Consider wider traffic network AECOM (Paul By end Dec Jan 30th and environmental impacts Mattews) 2019 2020 as a result of the proposals.

Continue to engage directly AECOM (Paul By end Dec Jan 30th with businesses in Stage 3 to Matthews) 2019 2020 understand impacts of 30

Continue to engage directly AECOM (Paul By end Dec Jan 30th with local residents and Matthews) 2019 2020 stakeholders regarding decisions on placemaking/landscaping.

Consider design options on AECOM (Paul By end Dec Jan 30th Forrest Road/Forrest Hill to Matthews) 2019 2020 enhance perception of safety/security. Engage with potentially vulnerable groups to gather information.

Lack of engagement and AECOM (Paul By end Dec Jan 30th evidence of need as yet from Matthews) 2019 2020 most ethnic minorities, and from those involved in the criminal justice system (several Law Courts on- route) – need to try to address this in Stage 3.

Engage with church users to AECOM (Paul By end Dec Jan 30th gather evidence of potential Matthews) 2019 2020 impact project will have on attendance of church operations

14. How will you monitor how this policy, plan or strategy affects different groups, including people with protected characteristics?

By revisiting this IIA assessment during the next Stage 4: Preliminary Design to ensure that anticipated impacts have been addressed and mitigated in design.

15. Sign off by Head of Service/ Project Lead 31

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Name

Date

16. Publication

Send completed IIA for publication on the relevant website for your organisation. See Section 5 for contacts.

Last edited: 01 November 2019 2nd draft Author: Anna McRobbie Section 5 Contacts

• East Lothian Council

Please send a completed copy of the IIA to [email protected] and it will be published on the Council website shortly afterwards. Copies of previous assessments are available via http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/info/751/equality_diversity_and_citizenship/835/equalit y_and_diversity

• Midlothian Council

Please send a completed copy of the IIA to [email protected] and it will be published on the Council website shortly afterwards. Copies of previous assessments are available via http://www.midlothian.gov.uk/downloads/751/equality_and_diversity

• NHS Lothian

Completed IIAs should be forwarded to [email protected] to be published on the NHS Lothian website and available for auditing purposes. Copies of previous impact assessments are available on the NHS Lothian website under Equality and Diversity.

● The City of Edinburgh Council

Completed impact assessments should be forwarded to [email protected] to be published on the Council website.

● City of Edinburgh Health and Social Care

Completed and signed IIAs should be sent to Sarah Bryson at [email protected]

• Edinburgh Integration Joint Board

Completed and signed IIAs should be sent to Sarah Bryson at [email protected]

• West Lothian Council

Complete impact assessments should be forwarded to the Equalities Officer.