+ + EDI N BVRG H THE CITY OF EDINBURGH CBUNCIL
Committee Minutes
The City of Edinburgh Council Year 200412005 Meeting 6 - Thursday 11 November 2004 Edinburgh, 11 November 2004 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council.
Present :- LORD PROVOST The Right Honourable Lesley Hinds COUNCILLORS Elaine Aitken John Longstaff Rev Ewan Aitken Jim Lowrie Robert C Aldridge Gordon Mackenzie Donald Anderson Kate MacKenzie Phil Attridge Fred Mackintosh Ian J Berry Marilyne A MacLaren Andrew Burns Elizabeth Maginn is Robert Cairns Lawrence Marshall Stephen Cardownie Mark Mclnnes Maureen M Child Eric Milligan Bill Cunningham Gordon J Munro Trevor Davies Ian Murray Jennifer A Dawe Jack O’Donnell Michael P Dixon Liz O’Malley Paul G Edie Alastair Paisley Edward B Fallon Ian Perry W iI liam Fitzpat ric k Thomas V Ponton James Gilchrist Jason G Rust Sheila Gilmore Andrew A Scobbie George Grubb Lorna Shiels The Hon David Guest Kingsley E F Thomas Kenneth Harrold Marjorie Thomas Ricky Henderson Susan B Tritton George A Hunter David J Walker Allan G Jackson Phil Wheeler Shami Khan lain Whyte Douglas J Kerr Chris Wigglesworth Allan Laing Donald W ikon 2
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
1 Integrated Transport Initiative
(a) Deputation - The Cockburn Association - Edinburgh South Suburban Railway
David McDonald, Director, the Cockburn Association, urged the Council to support the re-introduction of passenger services on the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway to complement plans for a fully integrated transport system.
Following questions from members, the Lord Provost thanked the deputation for its presentation and invited it to remain for debate on the matter (see item 1 (c) below).
(Reference - e-mail from the Cockburn Association 11 November 2004, submitted.)
(b) Edinburgh Tram Project - Tram Line 3
The Edinburgh Tram Project formed a key element of the Council’s Integrated Transport Initiative which aimed to improve transport in the city radically. Parliamentary Bills for Tram Lines 1 and 2 had been introduced in the Scottish Parliament in January 2004.
An update was provided of work currently being undertaken on Tram Line 3. Approval was sought for the final route alignment recommended by tie. It was proposed to lodge a Private Bill with the Scottish Parliament seeking the necessary powers to construct Tram Line 3.
Decision
1) To note progress to date with the development of proposals for Tram Line 3 (paragraphs 3.1-3.7 of the Director of City Development’s report) and that further reports would be submitted to the Council meeting on 9 December 2004.
2) To note the results of the public consultation exercise (paragraphs 3.8-3.1 1 of the Director‘s report).
3) To approve the recommended final route alignment for Tram Line 3 (paragraph 3.1 2 of the Director’s report).
4) To acknowledge that the development of the Medi-Park at Little France was a project of equivalent national significance to Edinburgh Park or Waterfront Edinburgh and that it must be served by an effective public transport system. 3
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
To acknowledge that provision of good public transport alternatives to the private car in south eastern Edinburgh was vital to the continued prosperity of the city and that a tram line on a route connecting major employment and retail centres in this area was necessary to achieve that objective.
To instruct tie to continue to refine layouts for the route between East Preston Street and Cameron Toll and to seek opportunities to retain those right hand turns from the route that were necessary for the wider road network or efficient local access.
To instruct tie to develop for those parts of the route outwith the current Controlled Parking Zone proposals to ensure that on street parking was equitably shared between residents, local business, shoppers and tram and bus passengers.
To approve the proposed tram stop locations (paragraph 3.1 3 of the Director‘s report).
To approve the proposed stabling site at Newcraighall (paragraphs 3.15-3.1 7 of the Director’s report).
10) To approve the proposed sub-station sites (paragraphs 3.18-3.1 9 of the Director’s report).
11) To approve the principle of the temporary construction compound sites (paragraph 3.20-3.21 of the Director’s report).
12) To approve the approach whereby the design of Tram Line 3 was integrated with the design of the public realm, similar to that approach previously approved from Tram Lines 1 and 2 (paragraphs 3.22-3.30 of the Director’s report).
13) To note that wide-area and local traffic impacts of the introduction of the tramway proposals, together with appropriate mitigation, would be the subject of future reports (paragraphs 3.31-3.38 of the Director’s report).
14) To note the progress to date with proposals for the operation of the trams, particularly the Development Partnering and Operating Franchise Agreement (paragraphs 3.39-3.42 of the Director’s report).
15) To note the development of a Public Transport Integration Strategy and that a Quality Contract might be required (paragraphs 3.45-3.47 of the Director‘s report). 4
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
To note that the Park and Ride Strategy would be reviewed and be the subject of a future report (paragraphs 3.50-3.54 of the Director’s report).
To note that Appraisal documents would be submitted to the Council meeting on 9 December 2004 (paragraphs 3.55-3.62 of the Director’s report).
To note that tie was developing capital cost estimates for Line 3 which would be submitted to the Council meeting on 9 December 2004 (3.63).
To note that tie was developing a preliminary financial case and business case for Line 3 and that the preliminary financial case would be reported to the Council meeting on 9 December 2004 (paragraph 3.64 of the Director’s report).
To note that the development of a strategy for securing financial contributions for Tram Line 3 from developers would be similar to that already approved for Tram Lines 1 and 2 (paragraph 3.65 of the Director’s report).
To approve the regulation of events, marches and demonstrations (paragraphs 3.43-3.44 of the Director’s report).
To note that a Bill for Tram Line 3 was being prepared with the Council as Promoter and that this would be presented to Council for approval in December 2004 (paragraphs 3.66-3.71 of the Director’s report).
To instruct the Chief Executive to ensure that regular reports on the progress of the Tram Line 3 Bill in the Scottish Parliament were submitted to the Executive along with any revised Business Case prior to its lodging with the Scottish Parliament.
(References - Executive of the Council 19 October 2004 (item 9); Planning Committee 3 November 2004 (item 1); report no CEC93/04- 05/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillors Burns, Child and Cunningham declared a non-financial interest in the above item as non-Executive Directors of tie. 5
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
(c) Edinburgh South Suburban Railway: Funding and Integration
Work had been undertaken on options for the re-introduction of passenger services on the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway (ESSR), in particular the inter-relationship between the scheme, Tram Line 3 and the Waverley Railway to Galashiels and Tweedbank.
The Council had heard a deputation on the matter from the Cockburn Association (see item 1(a) above).
Motion
1) To note the report by the Director of City Development and, in particular, the indication that the ESSR, the Borders Railway and Tram Line 3 would complement each other.
2) To note that the re-introduction of passenger services to the ESSR by extending the current North Berwick services to Niddrie or Newcraighall via Morningside would have a positive net present value and benefit cost ratio.
3) To recognise that, whilst not without difficulty, the re-introduction of passenger services to the ESSR would help the Council achieve the objectives of the Local Transport Strategy.
4) To work with the Scottish Executive and the rail industry to secure, in a similar timescale to the Borders Railway, the re-introduction of passenger services to the ESSR by extending the current North Berwick services to Niddrie or Newcraighall via Morningside.
5) To ask the Director of City Development to commence discussions with the Scottish Executive with a view to securing the re-introduction of passenger services to the ESSR.
- moved by Councillor Burns (on behalf of the Labour Group), seconded by Cou nciI lor Mackintosh.
Amendment
To add to paragraph 5 of the motion:
These discussions to include the possibility of allocating funds from the Scottish Executive grant for Tram Lines 1 and 2 to bring the re-introduction forward.
- moved by Councillor Mclnnes, seconded by Councillor Whyte (on behalf of the Conservative Group). 6
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Voting
For the motion - 43 votes For the amendment - 13 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Burns.
(References - Executive of the Council 10 August 2004 (item 19); report no CEC/94/04-05/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
2 Questions
Questions put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers, are contained in the Appendix to this minute.
3 Minute
The Executive Member for Health and Social Work advised the Council that, following the decisions taken by the Council on 14 October 2004 on the Strategic Review of Blindcraft, he had had discussions with Gavin Strang MP, Joe Mann MBE National League Secretary of the Community Union, and Duncan MacAulay, Interim Director of Social Work. These discussions had been positive in seeking the best outcomes for staff at the factory.
There had been some dubiety over the exact decision taken by the Council, as there was unanimous agreement on his motion and the two amendments proposed by the Conservative and Scottish Liberal Democrat Groups. This uncertainty related to the future of wire and metal production at the factory. The Council was invited to clarify its decision.
Decision
1) To approve the minute of meeting of the Council of 14 October 2004, as submitted, as a correct record subject to an amendment to Supplementary Question No 6.
2) To clarify the decision on item 5 - Strategic Review of Blindcraft as follows:
“For the avoidance of doubt, wire and metal production in the factory will now be limited to that associated with bedding products. 7
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
This change will take place after final decisions have been made on the relocation of staff.”
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Paisley declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a Director of Blindcraft.
By-Election - No 43 Colinton Ward
Decision
To note the election of Jason G Rust as Councillor for No 43 Colinton Ward.
(Reference - report No CEC/89/04-05/RO by the Returning Officer, submitted.)
Appointments
The Council was invited to fill vacancies on Committees and the Lothian and Borders Fire Board.
Decision
1) To appoint members to Committees and the Lothian and Borders Fire Board as follows:-
Executive (including Education) Councillor Dixon Children and Young People Scrutiny Councillor Rust Panel Community Services Scrutiny Panel Councillor Kate MacKenzie Councillor Rust Development of the City Scrutiny Panel Councillor Paisley Environmental Quality Scrutiny Panel Councillor Mclnnes Leisure and Cultural Development Councillor Hunter Scrutiny Panel Lothian and Borders Fire Board Co unci I lor Dixon
2) To note the following changes to Conservative Group Spokespersons:
Business and Property Management Councillor Laing Human and Corporate Resources Councillor Hunter Social Inclusion and Economic Councillor Paisley Development Children and Families Councillor Dixon 8
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Environmental Services Councillor Mclnnes Community Safety and Housing Councillor Rust Health and Social Work Councillor Kate MacKenzie
(Reference - report no CEC/llO/O4-O5/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
6 Leader’s Report
The Leader presented his report to the Council. The following issues were raised in questions on the report:
Councillor Dawe - Scottish Parliament opening - costs - Colinton By-Election - cost of postal ballotlt u rnout
Councillor Ponton - Remembrance Day Ceremony - Council representation
Councillor O’Malley - Princes Street - quality of environment
Councillor Mackintosh - Princes Street - Regulatory Committee decision on licensing of ice cream vans - Real Time Information System - need for Executive report Councillor Mrs MacLaren - Delayed discharge - census figures
Councillor Paisley - Delayed discharge - census figures - Social Work budget
Councillor Whyte - Colinton By-Election - choice of voting methods - Princes Street - street trading policy
Councillor Kate MacKenzie - City Chambers security
Co u nciI I o r Jackson - Princes Street - shopping destination league table Councillor Gilchrist - Local government funding settlement - Princes Street - effect of removal of cars on retail sector - Scrutiny Process
(Reference - report no CEC/106/04-05/L by the Leader, submitted.) 9
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
7 Budget Flexibility Scheme - Review
The Executive had recommended amendments to the Budget Flexibility Scheme following a review of its operation.
Decision
To approve amendments to the Budget Flexibility Scheme as follows:
1) Underspends
The maximum underspend that could be carried forward would increase to 2% of net expenditure (excluding devolved school management, housing benefit and expenditure funded from parking income). Departments would then be allowed to retain 75% of this amount, with the remaining 25% being set aside to ensure that the Council maintained an adequate level of reserves or to meet corporate contingencies. Any underspend over and above the 2% limit would continue to be transferred to the unallocated general reserve.
2) Overspends
Overspends would be carried forward in full and recovered in the next financial year. In exceptional circumstances this might be extended to a maximum of three years, subject to a clear and realistic action plan to achieve savings to recover the overspend. This would be reviewed at the end of each year as part of the overall outturn monitoring report.
(References - Act of Council No 9 of 12 December 2002; report no CEC/97/04- 05/E by the Executive, submitted.)
8 Revenue and Capital Monitoring 2004/05 - Half Year Position
The Executive had recommended action to manage the deferment of repayment of budget flexibility overspends brought forward from 2003/04 and to meet costs arising from the new Scottish Parliament.
Decision
1) To use f 1.401m from earmarked reserves to manage the deferment of repayment of the budget flexibility overspends brought forward from 2003/04. 10
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
2) To use f0.478m from the general reserves to meet certain costs arising from the new Parliament, as detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the report (no E/279/04-05/F) by the Director of Finance.
(Reference - report no CEC/98/04-05/E by the Executive, submitted.)
9 Childcare Partnership - Distribution of Funds for 2004-2005 - Proposed Amendment to Scheme of Delegation
The Executive had recommended an amendment to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers in respect of the distribution of Childcare Partnership funds.
Decision
1) To delegate authority to the Director of Education/Director of Children and Families (Designate) to make awards of up to f5,OOO for distribution of Childcare Partnership funds.
2) To amend the Scheme of Delegation to Officers accordingly.
(Reference - report no CEC/99/04-05/E by the Executive, submitted).
10 Scheme of Allowances for Elected Members - Establishment of Housing Area Boards
Decision
To treat attendance by Elected Members at Housing Area Boards as an approved duty under the Scheme of Members Allowances.
(Reference - report no CEC/l00/04-05/E by the Executive, submitted.)
11 Edinburgh International Science Festival and Edinburgh Science Centre
A decision of the Executive on the development of a year round Science Centre in Market Street had been called in to the Council. 11
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Motion
To note the financial implications outlined in the report by the Director of City Development but to support the proposal to expand the operation of the Science Festival by building a Science Centre. The Science Festival had become an established event in the calendar of Edinburgh festivals. The building of a Science Centre would allow the Festival not only to add value to its present operation but would also provide an all year round facility in Edinburgh that would help promote the importance of science to the community.
To note that the Council’s financial position was protected in that the building would revert back to the Council’s ownership in the event that the Science Festival was unable to raise the necessary finance.
To proceed with the building of the Science Centre under the present agreement with the ED1 Group.
To receive a further report six months before the completion of the Centre on the fund-raising activities of the Science Centre.
To note that failure to achieve Business Plan funding targets at building completion would mean that the building automatically reverted to the Council.
To continue to investigate possible co-location options with Our Dynamic Earth.
- moved by Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Cunningham (on behalf of the Labour Group.)
Amendment
1) While sympathetic to the aspirations of the Edinburgh International Science Festival (EISF) for a year-round Science Centre, to note that Scottish Executive support was unlikely and that EISF had not satisfactorily demonstrated the ability to secure the funding required for its capital development or its on-going revenue support.
2) To obtain best value by placing the Market Street site on the open market, which could return a capital receipt of around f 1.2m. 12
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
3) To ask the Director of City Development to work with ElSF to ensure the on-going success of the Festival and to facilitate further discussions between ElSF and Our Dynamic Earth to establish partnership delivery of science education in a way that would bring mutual benefit and financial sustainability to both organisations.
- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Dixon (on behalf of the Conservative Group).
Voting
For the motion - 44 votes For the amendment - 13 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Wilson.
(References - Executive of the Council 2 November 2004 (item 12); report no C EC/l07/04-05/CSec, submitted .)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Wilson declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Chair of the Edinburgh International Science Festival Limited.
Councillors Rev Ewan Aitken, Paisley, Perry and Tritton declared a non- financial interest in the above item as Directors of the Edinburgh International Science Festival Limited.
Councillors Cairns, Gilchrist, Gilmore, Mackintosh, Perry, Scobbie and Wilson declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of EDI.
12 Director of Health and Social Care - Recruitment and Selection Arrangements
The Council had agreed that the post of Director of Health and Social Care would be a joint appointment between the Council and NHS Lothian. Arrangements for taking forward the appointment were now proposed.
Motion
1) To approve the arrangements and timetable for the appointment of the Director of Health and Social Care as detailed in the report by the Chief Executive. 13
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
2) To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to agree, with NHS Lothian, the remuneration details, the employers’ responsibility and the arrangements for the joint appointment of the post.
3) To note that the delegated decisions would be reported to the Selection Panel.
- moved by Councillor Kingsley Thomas, seconded by Councillor Cunningham (on behalf of the Labour Group.)
Amendment
1) To note the suggested arrangements and timetable for the appointment of the Director of Health and Social Care as detailed in the report by the Chief Executive.
2) To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to discuss and draw up with NHS Lothian a detailed job description, organisational chart, the remuneration details, the employers’ responsibilities and the arrangement for the joint appointment of the post.
3) To receive the report on the above for decision at the Council meeting on 9 December 2004.
- moved by Councillor Dawe, seconded by Councillor Ponton.
Voting
For the motion - 29 votes For the amendment - 28 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Kingsley Thomas.
(References - Act of Council No 13 of 24 June 2004; report no CEC/104/04- 05/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Kingsley Thomas declared a financial interest in the above item as a member of the Board of NHS Lothian. 14
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Lothian NHS Consultation: Improving Care, Investing in Change 2004
Lothian NHS was consulting on major changes to local health services in three areas: acute services, services to older people and mental health services. The “Improving Care, Investing in Change 2004” consultation document outlined drivers for change, the results of prior consultation and options for addressing the issues. It recommended a significant re-design of all three services to meet future needs.
Approval was sought for the Council’s response to the consultation.
Motion
To approve the Council’s response to the consultation as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report by the Director of Corporate Services for submission to Lothian NHS, with the following addition:
The Council continues to seek a site for a new primary school for Morningside and as NHS Lothian is the main public sector land holder in that community the Council stresses that the provision of land for a new primary school should be given priority over the sale of land for develop ment .
- moved by Councillor Kingsley Thomas, seconded by Councillor Cunningham (on behalf of the Labour Group.)
Amendment
1) To agree the response as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report by the Director of Corporate Services for submission to NHS Lothian subject to changing paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the “Travel and Transport Issues” section. The changes should reflect the reality of the situation, making it clear that the proposals for a congestion-charging scheme may fail a public referendum and should explain the details of the Base Strategy.
2) To recognise:
a) that access to hospital required travel by car for many people, particularly patients who were elderly, disabled, or had serious illnesses; visitors who themselves often fell into similar categories; and staff who worked anti-social hours or who were on call;
b) that the number of people requiring to access hospitals by car was growing as tertiary medical care was increasingly centralised at specialist regional centres such as the Western General Hospital and 15
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh that both provided services for patients throughout the South East of Scotland and beyond;
c) that public transport would never be sufficient to meet these needs and that these needs would grow as a result of the changes proposed by NHS Lothian; and
d) that inadequate parking provision at both the Western General Hospital and the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh contributed to the stress involved for patients and relatives on hospital visits, damaged NHS efficiency due to the late arrival of out-patients and created parking and traffic problems for local residents in streets adjacent to the hospitals.
3) To instruct the Director of City Development to bring forward proposals for changes to the planning guidelines and to transport policy to allow hospitals to have adequate on-site parking for patients and visitors (by appointment card if necessary) and essential staff and to liase with NHS Lothian to meet the aspiration of the NHS and patients that more parking be provided on site at Edinburgh’s teaching hospitals.
- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Jackson (on behalf of the Conservative G roup .)
Voting
For the motion - 44 votes For the amendment - 13 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Kingsley Thomas.
(References - Executive of the Council 19 October 200s (item ); repor no CEC/I 02/04-05/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Kingsley Thomas declared a financial interest in the above item as a member of the Board of NHS Lothian.
14 Supporting People Grant
Decision
To withdraw the item in the absence of a report. 16
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
15 “Better Homes for Edinburgh” Strategy - Early Action Programme
Proposals for the development of an Early Action Programme (EAP) of accelerated capital investment for the city’s housing stock in advance of its planned transfer were detailed. An investment programme was set out together with an estimate of available funding sources.
Approval was sought to delegate authority to the Director of Housing to act in contract procurement matters up to EC Directive levels in order to meet the time constraints of the investment programme.
Decision
1) To note the report by the Director of Housing and in particular the funding being made available of f95m to improve and provide additional homes for the City as an Early Action Programme.
2) To delegate authority to the Director of Housing as detailed in paragraphs 7.1 -7.3 of his report.
3) To note the financial implications of the Early Action Programme as set out in paragraphs 8.1-8.3 of the Director’s report.
4) To approve the revised estimated prudential indicators as provided by the Director of Finance and as detailed in paragraphs 8.4-8.7 and Appendix 2 to the Director of Housing’s report.
5) To ask the Director of Housing to report to the Council’s Executive on details of how the f95m EAP funding would be spent.
(References - Act of Council No 4(b) of 24 June 2004; report no CEC/101/04- 05/H by the Director of Housing, submitted.)
16 Scottish Public Services Ombudsman - Report of an Investigation
Action was proposed on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s conclusion that maladministration had occurred in the handling of a case where incorrect advice had been given on the need for planning consent.
Decision
1) To accept the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s conclusions and recommendation as detailed in paragraph 3.12 of the report by the Chief Executive. 17
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
2) To send a letter of apology to the complainants.
3) To hold early discussions with the complainants’ representatives to establish the monies to be paid to ensure early payment.
4) To provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the Chief Executive’s report and notify the action taken by the Council.
5) To ask the Director of City Development to report to the Planning Committee detailing the final financial implications when these were known.
(Reference - report no CEC/90/04-05/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)
17 Towerbank Primary School
Towerbank Primary School was one of four remaining two-site primary schools in the city. As such it did not meet the standards set out in the Council’s Smart Schools Programme. The school had initially been included in the PPP2 proposals but was later removed. It was proposed to build a two storey extension on the school site and approval was sought to sell the annexe building and to retain the capital receipt from the sale for educational use.
Decision
1) To sell the Towerbank Primary School annexe building and retain the capital receipt for educational use.
2) To note that funding for the proposed extension would be the subject of a capital bid for 2007/08 to be approved by the Council in February 2005.
(References - Act of Council No 4 of 19 February 2004; report no CEC/lO8/04- 05/ED by the Director of Education/Director of Children and Families (Designate), submitted .)
18 New Capital Bid for Integrated Service Centre
Provision had been made in the 2004-2007 Capital Investment Programme to refurbish Royston and Granton Primary Schools.
Approval was now sought to reconfigure the capital programme for a new capital bid for an Integrated Service Centre which would relocate the existing RoystonNVardieburn Community Centre, Granton Children and Families Centre and local Early Years Services in one building attached to a refurbished 18
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Royston Primary School. The proposal involved funding from the North Edinburgh Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP) and the Prudential Framework.
Decision
To note the new capital bid, which had received a favourable score of 20 points from the corporate evaluation process, for an Integrated Children and Families Service Centre to replace the existing RoystonNardieburn Community Centre, Granton Children and Families Centre and Early Years facilities in one building.
To relocate the Granton Children and Families Centre and RoystonNardieburn Community Centre subject to the necessary consultation.
To ring fence the receipts from these closures specifically for the new project.
To note that the Director of Education/Director of Children and Families (Designate) would ask the North Edinburgh SIP to agree the proposed phasing of SIP funding. The SIP would need to notify Communities Scotland and seek approval for the carry forward of f636k to 2005/06.
To note that the €1 m for the refurbishment of Royston Primary School in the current Capital Investment programme for 2004-2007 would be applied to provide a Royston Wardieburn Integrated Services Centre and to apply €500,000 of the €850,000 already in the Capital Improvement Programme for the development of community facilities to the project.
To apply the funding for St Augustine’s (f0.4m) and Granton Primary School (€1 m) already in the Capital Investment Programme to this project.
To note that a bid, which had also scored 20 points in the corporate evaluation process, for a new Granton Primary School to serve the Waterfront development would be made for 2007-2008.
To note that the Director would re-phase expenditure in the Education Capital Investment Programme to accommodate €1.1m of funding pressure if the bid for the Integrated Service Centre was successful.
(References - Act of Council No 1 of 12 February 2004; report no CEC/l03/04- 05/ED by the Director of Education/Director of Children and Families (Designate), submitted.) 19
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
19 National and Regional Sports Facilities - Outcome of Funding Bid
The result of the National and Regional Sports Facilities funding bid to sportscotland towards the provision and upgrading of sports facilities of national and regional significance in the city was detailed.
One of the proposals involved the construction of a replacement facility for Meadowbank Sports Centre at Sighthill Park and a strategy was currently being prepared for the disposal of the Meadowbank site. It was recognised that it would be necessary to address the gap in the provision of sports facilities in the local com mu nity .
Motion
1) To approve the sale of the Meadowbank site and to ring-fence the capital receipt for the provision of the proposed sports facilities.
2) To ask the Director of Culture and Leisure to consult the East LDC and relevant community groups on a dry sports centre for the local community.
3) To ask the Director of Culture and Leisure to submit further progress reports.
- moved by Councillor Henderson, seconded by Councillor Perry (on behalf of the Labour Group)
Amendment
1) To instruct the Director of Culture and Leisure to report further on the priorities, standards and phasing of the new national and regional sports facilities, about which he had stated that difficult decisions would have to be made, and to give details of the financial implications of all options available.
2) To instruct the Director to consult the East LDC and relevant community groups on the proposals for Hunter’s Hall Park and on a dry sports centre for the local community.
3) To instruct the Director to consult the Pentlands LDC and relevant community groups in Sighthill and Broomhouse about the proposals for Sighthill Park. 20
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
4) To consider the sale of the Meadowbank site after the outcome of the consultations and the report were available and a decision taken on the location of the sportscotland HQ.
- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Elaine Aitken (on behalf of the Conservative Group)
Councillor Henderson, with the consent of his seconder and the mover and seconder of the amendment, accepted paragraph 3 of the amendment as an addendum to his motion.
Voting
For the motion (as adjusted) - 29 votes For the amendment - 28 votes
Decision
To approve the motion (as adjusted) by Councillor Henderson.
(References - Act of Council No 9 of 18 March 2004; report no CEC/109/04- 05/C&L by the Director of Culture and Leisure, submitted.)
20 Edinburgh’s Winter Festivals - Pre-Festival Update
An update was provided on Edinburgh’s Winter Festivals for 2004/05 in four key areas:
The evolving structure of the new Winter Festivals Team. Significant developments and actions taken to ensure the Royal Bank Street Party was more robust and resistant to extreme weather conditions. The level of appropriate event insurance. An overview of the programme of Edinburgh’s Winter Festivals for 2004/05.
Decision
1) To note that the new structure for Edinburgh’s Winter Festivals was now well established and operating efficiently.
2) To note and support the efforts made in making the Royal Bank Street Party more robust. 21
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
3) To approve the types and levels of insurance detailed in the report by the Director of City Development, specifically:
a) Public Liability Insurance up to a value of f 1Om for any one occurrence;
b) Employer’s Liability Insurance up to a value of f 1Om for any one occurrence; and
c) Cancellation and abandonment insurance for the Royal Bank Street Party to include non-appearance of performers and adverse weather conditions to a maximum liability of f 1.5m.
4) To note and support the highlighted programme of activities of Edinburgh’s Winter Festivals 2004/05.
5) To note:
a) That no detailed financial reports on the festivals had been submitted to the Festival and Events Champion Working Group.
b) That the Festival and Events Champion Working Group had not received detailed written reports on the policing of the street party and the emergency service provision.
c) That there had been no detailed written risk assessment of the street party to the Festival and Events Champion Working Group.
(References - Act of Council No 12 of 19 August 2004; report no CEC/95/04- 05/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
21 Lothian and Borders Emergency Planning Steering Committee - Annual Report
The first annual report of the Lothian and Borders Emergency Planning Steering Committee for the period 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004 was presented.
The Steering Committee was one of eight strategic emergency planning co- ordinating groups based on the eight Scottish Police Force areas and was responsible for the co-ordination of joint planning, training and exercise initiatives. Its membership of senior representatives of local authorities, the emergency and health services, military liaison, SEPA and Scottish Water contributed to good joint working and liaison arrangements for the effective management of emergency situations and the development of a co-ordinated inter-agency framework for contingency planning. ~
22
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Decision
1) To note the first annual report of the Lothian and Borders Emergency Planning Steering Committee.
2) To note that an update would be provided to an early meeting on the work within the Council relating to emergency planning and business continuity.
(References - Act of Council No 10 of 16 October 2003; report no CEC/105/04- OWE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)
22 Commonwealth Local Government Conference 2005
Approval was sought for Council representation at the Commonwealth Local Government Conference in Aberdeen from 15-17 March 2005.
The Conference, whose theme was “Deepening Local Democracy”, was promoted jointly by Aberdeen City Council, COSLA and Scottish Executive.
Decision
To approve the attendance of the Lord Provost and one member from each political group on the Council at the Commonwealth Local Government Conference 2005.
(Reference - report no CEC/91/04-05/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)
23 Rationalisation of Office Accommodation - Progress
Progress was detailed on the Rationalisation of Office Accommodation project in respect of the new Council Headquarters building, the disposal of surplus properties and ongoing refurbishment and maintenance projects at the City Chambers and Chesser House.
Decision
To note:
1) progress on the Council’s new office building;
2) progress on the disposals programme;
3) progress on other Rationalisation of Office Accommodation (ROA) projects and issues including the requirement to increase the City Chambers room hire charges; 23
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
that a comprehensive transition plan was in place to support the work of the ROA team in delivering the Council’s accommodation objectives;
that it was likely additional resources would be required to deal with accommodation planning and IT development issues;
that a Facilities Management Review was about to commence and Trade Unions were being consulted;
the following procurement arrangements for furniture and equipment for ROA properties:
the provision of all new furniture and fittings would be co-ordinated by the Director of City Development;
the provision of all new IT and networked office equipment would be co-ordinated by the Director of Corporate Services;
the cost of sustainable disposal for all surplus furniture and equipment would be the responsibility of individual departments; and
the above arrangements would be subject to review by the Council Management Team, at an appropriate time, prior to the transfer of staff to the retained portfolio of office accommodation with a view to securing agreement on a formal Council-wide strategy for the procurement of these items.
that the provision of IT services had been identified as a particular risk and the Head of e-Government would ensure appropriate contractual arrangements were in place to meet the Council’s requirements.
(References - Act of Council No 24 of 24 June 2004; report no CEC/96/04- 05/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)
Declaration of Interest
Councillor Mackintosh declared a financial interest in the above item as a member of the Faculty of Advocates and left the Chamber during the debate on the matter. 24
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
24 Appointment of Clerk to the Licensing Board etc
Decision
1) To confirm the appointment of Gillian Lindsay, Council Solicitor as the Clerk of the Licensing Board, Clerk of the District Court and Clerk of the Peace.
2) To confirm the appointment of John McMurdo, Depute Council Solicitor, and Ron Handley, Depute Clerk to the District Court, as Depute Clerks to the Licensing Board.
(Reference - report no CEC/92/04-05/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)
25 Bus Services - Motion by Councillor Wheeler
The following motion by Councillor Wheeler was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28.
“Council instructs the Director of City Development to enter into discussions with Lothian Buses and First Group regarding:
1) the provision of a “Saturday service” on Sundays during July and August 2005 (the main holiday period); and
2) the provision of a normal weekday service on local holiday Mondays which are not “parking meter holidays.”
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Wheeler.
26 City Centre Shuttle Bus Services - Motion by Councillor Mackintosh
The following motion by Councillor Mackintosh was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council notes that
1) The National Galleries and Historic Scotland fund separate bus services to link the National Gallery of Modern Art, the National Portrait Gallery, the National Gallery and Edinburgh Castle to the city centre. 25
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
2) The Council funds Mac Tour 60 bus service to link Dumbiedykes to Forrest Row.
3) The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body has in the past funded a bus service to link Holyrood to the city centre.
4) In many cities in Europe, North America and Australia a city centre bus service is operated on one or more circular routes to link radial bus and tram services, railway stations, car parks and major buildings using low floor easy access buses often with low emission propulsion systems.
Council instructs the Director of City Development to meet with National Galleries, Historic Scotland and the Scottish Parliament and others and to report to the Council on the practicality of delivering such a city centre shuttle service or services in Edinburgh.”
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Mackintosh.
27 Garden Waste Recycling - Tenement Properties - Motion by Cou nciI lor Mackintosh
The following motion by Councillor Mackintosh was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“Council notes the rollout of garden waste “brown bins” to 15,000 households within the city and the planned rollout of brown bins to 100,000 by the end of 2006 as funded by the Scottish Executive.
Council recognises that within many tenement areas garden waste is produced and it is considered it would be appropriate for householders in tenement areas to have access to brown bin garden waste recycling. Accordingly, the Council instructs the Director of Environmental and Consumer Services to report on how brown bin communal waste bins can be provided during the summer season within tenement areas outside the World Heritage site.”
Decision
1) To note the rollout of garden waste “brown bins” to 50,000 households within the city and the planned rollout of brown bins to 100,000 by the end of 2006 as funded by the Scottish Executive.
2) To ask the Director of Environmental and Consumer Services to report on the feasibility of introducing brown communal garden waste bins in tenement areas. 26
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
28 Public Transport - South Queensferry - Motion by Councillor Grubb
The following motion by Councillor Grubb was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:
“To urge the Council to take urgent action to provide a suitable bus and train service for the residents of Edinburgh living in South Queensferry, now that First Group hold a monopoly of public transport.”
Decision
1) To note that, since mid-October 2004, First Group now operated the local train services to South Queensferry alongside being the principal bus service provider.
2) To ask the Director of City Development to bring forward a report, following discussion with First Group, on potential improvements to the bus and train services to South Queensferry given this new environment. 27
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Appendix (As referred to in Act of Council No 2 of 11 November 2004)
QUESTION NO. 1 By Councillor Gilchrist answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Public Realm
I refer to the answer to Question 2 of the Council Meeting of 16 September 2004 which stated that the estimated number of vehicles parked at East Market Street was 53.
On the undernoted dates and times the stated number of vehicles were within the East Market Street Car Park.
N.B. On each of these dates one additional vehicle had the livery of recreation and was also parked in East Market Street.
Date Time Number of Vehicles 4 June 2004 1145 hrs 26 30 June 2004 0945 hrs 30 8 July 2004 1330 hrs 27 11 August 2004 0945 hrs 30 17 August 2004 1515 hrs 24 9 September 2004 1215 hrs 27
These numbers suggest that at any given day and time a large number of the City Development fleet are not being used.
Quest ion (1) Does this mean that there are too many vehicles in the fleet? 28
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Answer The fuel reports for the fleet vehicles indicate that they are all regularly used on Council business. The current arrangements reflect for some vehicles a large number of journeys by different users with return to garage in between. For others the working pattern of building inspectors etc requires return to base at intervals. However, it is recognised that there may be a more efficient way to manage the fleet vehicles to optimise use throughout the day. This is being developed as part of the Rationalisation of Office Accommodation and will be implemented at the time of the occupation of the new HQ in 2006. The introduction of remote working, in the pilot stages at present, will reduce the need to return to base and the number of vehicles required.
Question (2) If not, why are so many vehicles not being used at any one time?
Answer (2) The vehicles are used by the following groups of staff :-
Property Conservation/ Public 17 vehicles Safety Building Standards 12 vehicles Planning and Strategy/ 14 vehicles Transport (pooled use) Other Council Departments 10 vehicles
In addition to the above, officers regularly make use of the Car Club vehicles and other pool vehicles.
The pattern of vehicle use is determined by operational arrangements. The majority of vehicles return to the office over the lunchtime period which is reflected in the figures of 4 June 2004, 8 July and 9 September 2004. 29
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Property Conservation Inspectors begin the day in the office completing reports etc and go out on site around 10.00 am which is reflected in figures on 30 June 2004 and 11 August 2004. The final date of 17 August 2004 is during the peak holiday period which may account for the vehicles present in the garage on that date. As stated above, remote working with reduced presence in the office will reduce this number.
The Executive responsibility for this area rests with the Executive Member for Business and Property Management.
Supplementary I wonder if I might also take the opportunity of Question asking Councillor Burns when I can expect the reply to the supplementary I asked last month on page 35 of the minute.
Every time I ask a question about City Development I always think they have plumbed new depths and they can’t go any further and here they go and do it yet again. What we are told in this reply is that there may be a better way of managing their fleet but that they can’t do anything about it for two years. Then in the second part we are told that the largest users of these fleets don’t go out until 10 o’clock. Then, of course, they have to come back for lunch along with everybody else. The final date that I have quoted of 17 August is the peak holiday period but it does not explain that this was the month that there were the fewest number of vehicles in the car park and not the highest as I think they thought there would be.
What I would like to ask is when will Councillor Burns start taking some action about the poor quality of management and output we are getting from City Development and when will he start to take some responsibility for that? 30
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary In response to Councillor Gilchrist’s first point about Answer the supplementary from last month, I am sure the answer is in the post. As for his second point, I can’t help but notice just how busy Councillor Gilchrist must be when he has time over six days to count 164 vehicles as he parks his car at the City Chambers. It is quite a feat in itself. I have complete faith in the management of City Development and I have had that every year since I took over transport in 2001 and I continue to do so. 31
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 2 By Councillor Berry answered by the Executive Member for Environmental Services
Quest ion Please detail all expenditure incurred by the Council in regard to the planning application for the waste transfer facility at 65 Salamander Street.
The figures to include a breakdown of the staff costs associated with the application.
Answer A total cost of f33,459.79was incurred by the Council. As this project was managed by consultants and the planning application was on behalf of a private company, no specific additional staff costs were incurred in relation to the application.
Supplementary I asked the Executive Member for the Environment Question to detail all expenditure incurred by the Council. All I have been given is the global sum, which I was aware of. Would the Executive Member now be prepared to forward to me a set of invoices and receipts in relation to the expenditure in this project.
Supplementary I would like to take this opportunity to set the record Answer straight about this project, which has been grossly misrepresented by the local press. What happened in this case was that the Council, as part of its integrated waste management project to promote recycling and to look at how we handle all aspects of waste collection transfer and disposal over the next 20 years, had to find a replacement waste transfer station for Powderhall which we all know is nearing the end of its useful life. The preferred option was that the Council would not build its own new transfer station but would negotiate a lease with the owner of a private facility. 32
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
One of the possible sites was owned by Russell and Company in a warehouse in Salamander Street. It was suitable as it was a large yard in an area zoned for heavy industry with a railhead. It was agreed that since the Council would not own the facility and as it was anticipated that it could be used by other waste producers, it would be appropriate for the application to be submitted by Mr Russell with costs to be recovered from the lease payments. In the event that the application was unsuccessful Mr Russell’s costs would be reimbursed.
The Council made it quite clear that it did not bind itself to use the facility even if it did get planning permission. This is a similar procedure to that being used in a number of other projects and is indeed similar to many PPP projects. There were very sound reasons for the procedure but the unintended consequence was that, as it was a private application, the Council was not able to respond to the misleading and grossly exaggerated comments about it made by the local press and, I am sorry to say, by some local politicians. I am particularly incensed by the way the Evening News has used every dirty trick in the book of irresponsible journalism to manufacture the accusation that the Council was somehow acting in an underhand way. I think the selective use of quotations, misleading paraphrases and all the rest of it has been an appalling piece of journalism.
Our original plans have now been overtaken by events and the Scottish Executive has stepped in to insist that all five local authorities in the waste plan area get together to produce a joint proposal and the study of that is being finalised and will be reported to the Executive. I do warn the Council the plan will ask us to make some very difficult decisions and I certainly hope this time we don’t allow ourselves to be diverted by the hysteria which surrounded this project.
Finally, in response to Councillor Berry’s question; details of the payments are available and I am sure will be given to him. 33
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 3 By Councillor Mackintosh answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Public Realm
Question (1) How long will it take to carry out the STAG 2 assessment of the Edinburgh Congestion Charging Scheme, as recommended by the reporters to the Edinburgh Congestion Charging Scheme?
Answer (1) It is the intention to have an update of the previous assessment to support the recommendations to Council for the meeting on 9 December 2004. The assessment will then be finalised into a STAG2 report in light of the Council decision and will be included as part of the application in detail to Scottish Ministers to be made should there be a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum proposed for early next year.
Question (2) How long will it take to carry out the sectoral economic impact studies recommended by the reporters to the Edinburgh Congestion Charging Scheme?
Answer (2) The economic assessment of the impact of congestion charging has been developed through a number of studies and modelling exercises. A report into the forecast impact of congestion charging on the retail sector, the key sector identified by the inquiry reporters, is currently being f inalised.
Question (3) What action has the Council or tie taken to find out timescales and lay the groundwork for such work?
Answer (3) Assessments have been ongoing throughout the development of the project from its early stages through the approval in principle and as supporting material for the draft charging Order. 34
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 4 By Councillor Grubb answered by the Executive Member for Environmental Services
Question (1) What was the cost of sending out letters by first class post informing people of no changes to their wheelie bin uplift day?
Answer (1) f3,080,by best estimate.
Question (2) What would the cost have been by second class post?
Answer (2) f2,310.
Question (3) How many households have been informed?
Answer (3) 130,000out of a total property count of 221,000.
Supplementary I have received several complaints that Question householders did not receive any letters, never mind the complaints I have had about the householders who received letters about no change in the uplift day. Due to the last minute preparation by the Department this was a recipe for chaos and confusion. Will the Executive Member now apologise to the citizens of Edinburgh for this absolute mess? 35
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary I would point out that this is the first major Answer reorganisation of refuse collection routes since 1989. Since then there has been a massive increase in the number of properties in the city, a great deal of new development plus a successful programme of containerisation. These changes are long overdue and will result in a substantial improvement in the efficiency of collection. The separation of trade waste, which is part of it, will also allow the Department to provide a more flexible service and to identify those traders who are abusing the system by disposing of their trade waste as domestic refuse.
It is inevitable that there will be teething problems with changes on such a major scale with 130,000 letters going out. I regret these but I will not apologise because I do not see how you can have that kind of change without a few things going wrong. Most of the problems arise from the fact that there are many streets in Edinburgh where there are different types of property. As we all know it is extremely common for Edinburgh streets to have a mixture of detached, semi-detached, terraced, four in a block houses and flats all in the same street. It is a fact that at the moment we do not have a sufficiently developed database of properties so that we can just push a button and automatically generate individual letters to each household with specific information about individual collections days. I hope that we shall soon have that with the work that has been done on GIs. Without it, is Councillor Grubb seriously suggesting that our highly paid Council officers should have been individually picking through the 130,000 properties to identify those who had no change in their day or those individual properties with a different collection system to other properties in the street? I do not think that this would have been a particularly good use of their time. 36
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
I would point out that the letter also included information on recycling and a contact number for enquiries and in some cases the letter indicated a change to the times by which black bags should be put out. I do accept the letters could have been better phrased to allow for the possibility that the day was unchanged. I have asked the Director to ensure that in future such communications are overseen by senior management and discussed with Corporate Communications. 37
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 5 By Councillor Dawe answered by the Executive Member for Children and Families
Question (1) How much money has been devolved to schools from the Annual Education Budgets for 2002-3, 2003-4, 2004-5?
Answer (1) In 2002/03 - 81% of the total budget equating to f 157.5m was fully devolved to schools.
In 2003/04 - 84% of the total budget equating to f 195.8m was fully devolved to schools.
In 2004/05 - 85% of the total budget equating to f210.6m was fully devolved to schools.
* Note - source of figures, Education Department's service improvement plans 200 1-2007 after adjusting for the effect of PPP.
Question (2) What has been the effect in monetary terms, by school, of the "central clawback" applied recently to devolved school management budget end of year balances which schools had hoped to carry forward from 2003-04 to 2004-05?
Answer (2) Paragraph 5.3 of the Council's approved Devolved School Management Scheme makes provision for the Director of Education to reduce the carry forward balances claimed by schools in the event that the balances claimed prove unaffordable to the Department. Such eventuality arose in financial year 2003/04 and a 'clawback' of resources proved to be necessary.
The 'clawback' recovered f0.65m from schools and reduced the provisional carry forward from f 1.85m to fl.2m in order to balance the Education Department's accounts. 38
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
The DSM carry forward in 2002/03 was also f 1.2m therefore the f0.65m represented an increase in the sums claimed by schools. The 'clawback' represented additional monies spent in schools by the central department, on Health and Safety and other essential property works to the direct benefit of pupils.
The matter was discussed fully with the Headteacher's Executive and was the subject of an extensive e-mail consultation exercise providing various options for recovering the money required from schools. The Headteacher's Executive, speaking on behalf of all schools, while expressing their disappointment recognised that a 'clawback' was necessary and endorsed the approach taken by the department.
The attached appendix provides details of the provisional carry forward of each school and the effect of the reduction.
Question (3) What is this money being used for?
Answer (3) The money was spent by the Department in schools and to the benefit of pupils, ensuring the Council complied with our statutory responsibilities to keep buildings safe, warm, secure, appropriately staffed and open for Educational business. The total spends required took the department beyond budget so the 'clawback' was required. All the money was spent on schools. 39
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary I thank Councillor Rev Aitken for the full information Question and the explanation in the answer. I am sure that he will agree that the reduction in carry forward will hit many schools quite hard and perhaps particularly special schools where costs are intrinsically higher. It also seems a pity that those schools that have made careful use of their budgets and made plans for their carry forward to be used for items or projects for the next year have actually been penalised in a way their less frugal neighbours have not. Without being given detail down to the last pound, I wonder if it would be possible to supply further information on how the f652,OOO has been spent. The answer to Question 3 is very vague on that respect.
Supplementary I am sure that information can be provided. I would Answer emphasise that all the money was spent on schools. The tension between the principle of devolved management and, as you rightly point out, the ability of schools to make that kind of planning while making sure that children were in warm and watertight schools, which is obviously another equally important principle, is a dilemma in the devolved management process. We are constantly going to get this tension. I want to emphasise however, as the answer makes clear, that we are moving to greater and greater levels of devolution. Even with this small clawback we’ve still got a larger amount of devolution this year than we had last year but I am quite happy to provide the details for Councillor Dawe. 40
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Appendix
OPTION 4 41
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004 42
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004 43
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004 44
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004 45
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 6 By Councillor Tritton answered by the Executive Member for Environmental Services
Question (1) How many Environmental Wardens were employed by the City on
a) 1'' April 2003 b) 1'' October 2003 c) 1'' April 2004 d) 1st October 2004
Answer (1) Employed 1 April 2003 20 1 October 2003 31 1 April 2004 29 1 October 2004 27
Question (2) What was the budget for employing Environmental Wardens in financial years 2003/04 and 2004/05?
Answer (2) Employee Budget 20 03/0 4 f 635,260 2 0 04/05 f 696,720
Supplementary Given that the budget has increased this year over Question last year why has the number of Environmental Wardens dropped compared to October 2003 and when will the numbers be increased and to what total?
As an aside, I did not get a letter about the wheelie bins change. I only knew about it when I saw them out in the street. 46
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary The simple answer is that our Environmental Answer Wardens are so well trained and carrying out their duties so well that they are in great demand by employers and we are finding it difficult to retain them. However, steps are being taken to look at their package to ensure that we do recruit more and retain those that we have. 47
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 7 By Councillor Mackintosh answered by the Executive Member for Children and Families
Question (1) When the City Connect project was established by Edinburgh Learning under New Opportunities Fund what was the expected date at which funding would cease?
Answer (1) The Board of Edinburgh Learning understood that funding would cease at the end of December 2004.
Question (2) What action was taken by the Council or Edinburgh Learning prior to 1"ApriI 2004 to plan for the wind- up of the City Connect project, the arrangement of alternative funding or the transfer of all or part of the project to the Council?
Answer (2) The Board of Edinburgh Learning had agreed prior to lStApril 2004 that all partner organisations within the Company should consider if and how elements of the City Connect service could be continued within their organisations.
Question (3) Did the City Connect Project cease operations on 31 st October 2004?
Answer (3) Yes, with the exception of work contracted by Edinburgh Childcare Partnership, which will be completed by 3lStDecember 2004 at the earliest.
Question (4) What parts of City Connect will continue to operate after a) 3lStOctober 2004 and b) 3lStDecember 2004 and how will they be funded? 4%
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Answer The Education Department of the Council has already taken steps to continue the development and support of myedinburgh community learning microsites, including the delivery of training for staff. E-mail facilities provided to Council staff by myedinburgh are also continuing. In addition, Council officers are currently examining City Connect services to ascertain whether further action is needed to maintain other essential elements.
Question What are the implications for the Smart City Programme of the demise of City Connect?
Answer Any implications for the Smart City programme will be identified and addressed as part of the examination of services referred to in the answer to question 5. However, there are no major interdependencies between City Connect and the Smart City programme.
Supp Ie men t a ry I would like to seek the views of Councillor Rev Question Aitken on whether the information on this to the users of City Connect and myedinburgh could have been handled better. I was prompted to ask this question by a constituent of Councillor MacLaren who contacted me in my role as Convener of the LDC because he had received informal notice from one of the members of staff of City Connect in the middle of October of this change. I appreciate that myedinburgh was caught on the hop to an extent and I would ask that when we next deal with the migration of a major funded project like this we deal with communication to the users better. I would like assurance of that.
Supplementary OK. Answer 49
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 8 By Co u nciI lor Longstaff answered by the Executive Member for Business and Property Management
Question Complete the following table in respect of administration charges imposed by the Council, in its role as Feu Superior, on feuars seeking to extend their properties:
Financial Year Number of Value of Number of Value of Demands Demands Demands Actual Issued Issued Met Receipts 2004-5 to date I I I
12002-3 I 2001-2 12000-1
Answer All consents dealt with in respect of feuars seeking to alter their properties:
Financial Year Number of Value of All Number of Receipts for Requests Requests Consents Consents Received Received Granted Granted 2004/05 99 f 15,189 75 f 10,749 (to 1/11/04) 2003/04 256 f39,582 166 f23,392 2002/03 238 f33,635 159 f22,075 2001/02 21 9 f23,618 187 f 19,108 2000/01 452 f44.887 388 f36.532 50
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary It looks like this has been quite a nice little earner Question for the Council over the years. A letter saying I want to extend my property please Feu Superior, can I do it? Send another letter out saying yes, you can and here’s the bill for f 100.
I would like to congratulate the parliamentary coalition for ridding Scotland of this archaic relic of its feudal past, coming to an end as it does towards the end of this month. I would like to ask the Executive Member that, given that many of the charges in the table will have been levied on former Council tenants, who have bought their homes and are seeking to extend modest properties, is there any discretion that the Council, as Feu Superior, might have had to have foregone this archaic charge? If there is discretion why has it not been exercised?
Supplementary Like Councillor Longstaff I am pleased that Feu Answer Superiority will no longer be the case after 28 November this year. Concessions can be applied for with regard to disabilities, such as ramps or extensions to properties as well as for things like dialysis machines. These have been sought and granted. The Council won’t be required to pursue the Feu Superiority for which it has legal responsibility after 28 November. 51
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 9 By Councillor Jackson answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Public Realm
Question Why was the updated Preliminary Financial Case for Tram Line 1 submitted to the Scottish Parliament without being scrutinised by this Council?
Answer A report on the Proposed Edinburgh Tram Project was submitted to the Council by the Director of City Development on 11 December 2003. The Council approved the Director’s recommendations to (among others) approve the Preliminary Financial Case for tram line 1 and to note that a final business case would be submitted to the Council in due course. The Preliminary Financial Case for Tramline One submitted to the Scottish Parliament was a refinement of that presented to the Council in December 2003 and not the final business case referred to in the Council report.
Supplementary Could I ask Councillor Burns to look at the Question Question? “Why was the updated Preliminary Financial Case not scrutinised by the Council?” The answer I have been given is that it is a refined one not an updated one. That is what I meant. That is the one on the Parliament’s website and they have called it updated. Is it only a difference in words here and if it is can I re-word it now? Why was the refined Preliminary Financial Case not run by the Council? 52
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary I think the same answer applies however Councillor Answer Jackson wants to word his question. By any standard there was very full discussion about the submission of Tram Line One Bill to the Scottish Parliament. I do remember one or two deputations at the time. The documentation was voluminous at the time. The Council had plenty of opportunity to scrutinise the reports in December 2003 and the subsequent recommendations in January 2004 were very clear that the final business case would come back to the full Council. 53
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 10 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Public Realm
Question (1) Has the tie Board received any reports that suggest that the Edinburgh Tram Project might have an operational cash flow deficit?
Answer (1) The modelling base cases for each of the two tram lines disclose an operational surplus for each line. These cases are the basis for the Preliminary Financial Cases provided to the parliamentary Committees. It is possible to construct adverse sensitivity cases where operational deficits arise, but at this stage in the process the forecasts from tie’s advisers on revenues and operating costs have been accepted as the best forward estimate currently available.
Quest ion (2) Has the tie Board considered at any time subsidising the tram operating costs from congestion charge income?
Answer (2) The funding model used by tie to assess affordability of Lines 1 and 2 has excluded income from a potential congestion charging scheme.
Supplementary In Answer 1 we are told that operational deficits Question could arise depending on adverse sensitivity cases. Given that the Arup Report, commissioned by Parliamentary Bill Committee 1, in line 1 says that passenger projections are at the upper limit of anything seen in the UK, can he tell me who has accepted the position that Tram Line 1 and Tram Line 2 will run within an operational surplus?
Supplementary The full Council accepted it when the Preliminary Answer Financial Cases came before it in December 2003. 54
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 11 By Councillor Jackson answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Public Realm
Question (1) Please give an update on the total cost to the Council and any other publicly funded body on the pursuit of congestion charging?
Answer (1) The total cost to date on Congestion Charging incurred by this Council directly and through its arms length company tie Ltd is f6.2m. These costs are 50% funded by the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive, neighbouring authorities and other independent public agencies would of course incur costs in connection with Congestion Charging, but this Council has no knowledge of these costs. In this period congestion cost city businesses considerably more than this sum.
Question (2) Please give your best estimate of future costs up to the end of the proposed referendum?
Answer (2) Budget estimates of costs to be incurred up to the end of February total f 1.9m.
Supplementary I am very grateful for the extra piece of information I Question have been given at the end of Answer 1 where it says “In this period congestion cost city businesses is considerably more than this sum.” Perhaps Councillor Burns could tell us what the amount is, what methodology was used to arrive at that amount and perhaps you could name the businesses that have lost the money? 55
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary I can certainly provide Councillor Jackson with Answer some further information on it in due course but I think everybody in this Chamber surely would accept that it is the CBI who estimated a cost of f20 billion per year to the UK economy because of congestion. Councillor Jackson may think that impersonating an ostrich and sticking his head in the sand, which will result in worse congestion, more delays, poor air quality and a lower quality of life, are value for money. I happen to disagree. 56
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 12 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Public Realm
Question Why is the proposed congestion charging point 14 on Holyrood Road positioned such that the entrance to the Scottish Parliament garage is outwith the inner cordon?
Answer The proposed location for this point has been at the same place since the specific alignment was first set out in 2002, in the scheme approved by the Council. As indicated the point lies such that the Scottish Parliament car park, Scotsman car park and the spare car park lie outwith the inner cordon. Until the Public Inquiry into Edinburgh's proposed congestion charging scheme, there had been no suggestion that this point should be moved, other than the request by Historic Scotland to include the whole of Queen's Park within the inner cordon.
Supplementary I would ask Councillor Burns firstly to look at the Question question. I did not ask him whether the location of the cordon point had ever changed; I asked him why the cordon point was placed on Holyrood Road in such a way that the entrance to the Scottish Parliament garage was outside the cordon. Perhaps he could answer that now and perhaps he could also tell us where the spare car park is and when we can start using it? 57
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
Supplementary It was made quite clear at the independent Public Answer Inquiry and I quote from the report “,.. it seems to us to be technically impossible to include the New Parliament building for the simple reason that to extend charging controls to any journeys from the Queens Drive to the new building would require equipment to be set up either on the approaches to Holyroodhouse or within Holyrood Gait”. I continue to quote “. . . such charging would be imposed on roads over which the Council has no jurisdiction or over which there is no provision in the current regulations”. That was the Independent Reporter’s conclusion and I think it speaks for itself. It is unfortunate that Councillor Whyte did not read the Public Inquiry Report. 58
The City of Edinburgh Council 11 November 2004
QUESTION NO. 13 By Councillor Whyte answered by the Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance
Quest ion (1) How much money did the Council receive from the Scottish Executive Integrated Transport Fund to develop Tram Lines 1 and 2 to the point of attaining parliamentary powers?
Answer (1) This Council has received grant allocation of f6,025k and f5,OOOk for the development of Tram Lines 1 and 2 respectively to the point of attaining parliamentary powers (see also response to Question 5 below).
Question (2) How much of that funding has been spent to date by either the Council or by tie?
Answer (2) Of the sums referred to under Question 1 above, a total of f9.5m had been incurred in the 2.5 year period to 30 September 2004.
Question (3) Please give a breakdown of what this money has been spent on including what contractors/ consultants have been paid by either the Council or by tie.
Answer (3) Within the expenditure to date of f9.5m, f8.3m has been incurred by tie on external consultants and contractors. The balance of expenditure is for staff costs and overhead allocations within tie. For the promotion of a complex scheme of this nature this level of cost can be expected.
Question (4) Please give an estimate of how much more is required to complete the parliamentary process. 59
The City of Edinburgh Council 11November 2004
Answer (4) tie is in the process of preparing its Business Plan for 2005/06 which will contain an estimate of the spending required next year to support the parliamentary process.
Question (5) Has the Scottish Executive topped up the funds at any stage and, if so, by how much and does this come from the f375m grant promised for construction?
Answer (5) This Council has received additional grant funding awards of f5.5m relating to the preparation of the Development Operating and Partnering Franchise Agreement (DPOFA) and the infrastructure contract (INFRACO) including involvement of the operator (Transdev), system design, tram and bus service integration and system procurement. Of this sum, f0.8m had been incurred by 30 September 2004. This award was requested as advance funding from the f375m grant.
Supplementary Why has Councillor Burns not answered in Question Question 3 about which consultants were used for this work because I asked for a breakdown and a full list. Moreover, given Answer 5 that we have already spent some of the f375m grant promised for construction of the Tram Lines on other work, where does this leave us in terms of constructing the trams given that the upper estimates are now approaching f700m and estimates of cost and construction keep rising all the time?
Supplementary I will provide an answer in writing. Answer