City of Edinburgh Council Place Standard Locality Planning Workshop

30-31 January 2017

Introduction Process Lessons Learned Contents This illustrated report records the Within each locality the council had Work at 3 scales: The workshop Personas and target groups: Briefs for change: The group work Page 1. Introduction output of Place Standard group identified focus areas of multiple highlighted the need to address local The ‘day in the life’ group work on identified four conditions with potential work carried out at the Masterclass deprivation for priority attention and needs through work at three scales: characters such as Jimmie and Jessie wider relevance accross the city, Page 2. North West Locality workshop held on 30th and 31st action. The format involved a ‘live improved city scale mapping of existing came across strongly. including the need for: Page 4. North East Locality January 2017. testing’ process assessing these focus community assets and opportunities, This group work began to illustrate areas using Place Standard methodolo- place/neighbourhood scale addressing Four groups addressed one Edinburgh the issues for target groups to be Page 6. South West Locality locality each: Northwest, Northeast, gies. Following introductions and brief small scale geographies that local addressed at a neighbourhood level. Southeast and Southwest. Each group presentations we got out on site. Each people recognise and finally an It flagged-up place-based needs Page 8. South East Locality comprised a mix of community and group visited a focus area, making its inter-community scale where for service providers although we spatial planning officers, services own decision as to which geography relationships between communities are only touched the tip of this iceberg. providers, 3rd sector and community to target more closely, where to walk important, where the impact of new Examples include: isolated areas where representatives. This report records around, where to see by bus and who development is felt and where there the need for local employment and the output and collective work of to talk to. After the visit each group are interdependencies for access to social infrastructure is greater; steeper A: Stronger better linked hubs – see the four groups across the two-day came together to compare notes and services and work. parts of the city requiring greater Oxgangs output (SW locality) process. carry out a Place Standard assessment. attention to accessibility by mobility- impaired groups; facilities failing The group work had the dual Reflecting on the graphic output of Local Empowerment: There was to meet the needs of local groups; purposes of training in Place Standard assessment each group then identi- clear sight on the need to work impacts of antisocial behaviour, application as well as facilitating fied priorities for action and went on from the bottom up and engage territorial divisions etc. dialogue and corporate working to to consider target groups who would disempowered groups where significant weaknesses were evident help initiate locality planning work. The need to be involved in future assess- Facilities and Amenities: Significant in local amenities, quality of streets, workshops were designed to help build ments. Opportunities for change were weaknesses were identified in the green space, active travel accessibility, capacity for participants by sharing then discussed both in terms of service focus areas, including issues around: B: Breaking down traffic corridors to knowledge of target areas and some of planning and building on local assets, access to local employment; issues better integrate the warp and weft of Having the wrong stuff in the the issues that communities face. This following a place-based approach. The exacerbating social inequalities. • local walking and cycle routes – see wrong place. workshop output has been captured to discussion was recorded at each stage Community needs must be much Lockend, Restalrig and Piershill output inform the next stages of the locality and is detailed for each locality in the better understood at a neighbourhood • Low usage. (NE locality) planning process including ‘team following pages. level as the group work illustrated. The • Poor maintenance and condition. difficulties around capacity building around place’ workshops in May 2017. Poor surroundings, access routes were much discussed. The role of • Feedback indicated that the Place and challenging topography. Place Standard and other tools such Standard was considered a useful tool as National Standards for Community • Physical and governance barriers by participants. However a further Engagement is worth testing alongside for access to community use of critical step was sought to work more other techniques. The potential of school estate out of hours. directly to involve target communities. participatory budgeting was discussed. • Vehicle corridors, traffic and In compiling this report A&DS has been parking were seen as significant C: New street hierarchy better supported by the facilitators involved barriers for access. structured around topography and Sharing and expanding the with each locality group over the two pedestrian accessibility – see Drum knowledge: The group work showed days, including our Place Standard Brae output (NW locality) the insights and knowledge that can be partner organisations: Scottish captured in a short time through focus Government, Health Scotland and on areas needing special attention. Glasgow City Council. However the outputs also show common characteristics and there is potential wider relevance for areas with similar characteristics in other parts of the city. This knowledge base could be extended by similar work across D: Stronger integration between targeted deprived neighbourhoods and traditional and new communities – see in neighbourhood affected by planned Gracemount output (SE locality). The growth and major physical change. design of these interfaces came out as important for the many instances in Edinburgh where traditional communities adjoin new development, planned growth sites and incoming communities. 1 North West Locality Group: Drum Brae and Clermiston: Day 1 Largest of the localities with some 138,995 residents across wards including Almond, Drum Brae / Gyle, Corstorphine /Murrayfield, Inverleith, Forth. One-third of the city’s child population aged 0-15 and one third of those aged 85+. Highest (27%) and lowest (17%) percentage of households on low income in the city. Largest projected growth to 2024 (11%).

NW Locality discussion Place Standard assessment Social Interaction – 6. This score Priorities for action ± In a session prior to the visit, the Back at the venue the group carried appears to contradict comments under Following challenging discussions, the group discussed the wider NW locali- out a Place Standard Assessment. The facilities and amenities. group identified three priorities around ty and noted the massive geography group made the following observations, Identity and Belonging – 4. Can’t accessibility and useability: of the NW area which was felt to be while noting that some questions are answer properly without input from More local amenities need to be a scale that most residents wouldn’t difficult to answer accurately without 1. local residents. made available. For example there grasp. Issues in terms of poverty or direct input from the local community: could be more and better use of health vary massively between areas Feeling Safe – 5 Lack of separate Moving Around – 3. Limited number of the community health centre which such as Pilton and Inverleith. Mean- footpaths/cycle routes mean that footpaths and cycle paths. Pavement pedestrians are overlooked and don’t was shut on the day of visit and ingful geographies would be needed Drum Brae / Gyle maintenance needed. Better direct more use of all the greenspace. to enable effective engagement and feel isolated linkages from housing area to Hub identification of need. There was also There are a lot of assets available. should be provided. Care and Maintenance - 4 Housing 2. recognition that the issues faced by appeared well maintained. Some However some of them do not communities would take generations to Public Transport – 5. Discussion garden grounds in need of care seem to be used that much and resolve and an acceptance of the need regarding bus routes and frequency. sometimes not maintained. There Influence and Sense of Control - 3 to work together for communities, be- Felt that area had good accessibility by is a priority to find out from the Ward boundary Can’t answer properly without input (2017) Data zone yond political timeframes in the context bus compared to other areas in city. community if and why this is the boundary SIMD 2016 - from local residents. 20% most of depleting resources within the public case and what community groups deprived in Scotland Traffic and Parking – 4. This was 40.1 to 50% poverty and voluntary sectors. Collaboration and networks are currently active. Corstorphine / Murrayfield More than difficult to score. Residential areas 50.1% should happen by or with communities poverty were dominated by on street parking Traffic and parking needs to be Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. 3. North West - Priority Area 4 - Drum Brae/Gyle © Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved. on an equal partnership basis, across Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100023420. but this probably meets community addressed services. The order of doing things was needs. People can park cars outside felt to be important, and it was noted their homes – convenient. But does that it may well be necessary to pause Learning point detract from appearance of the area. plans to spend or disinvest until area Strong local knowledge is key. Where needs were understood. Streets and Spaces – 3. Score linked to lack of footpaths and cycle routes. assets were evident on site, there were Place does not feel distinctive queries over quality and maintenance What the group did of them and questions about fitness for The council identified three focus areas Natural Space – 6. There is a lot of purpose, use and accessibility. Without around Drumbrae and Clermiston. green space within the area. the context of strong local knowledge, The group made a loose plan and set Play and Recreation – 4. It was noted meaningful scoring of the 14 themes out on site. On arrival, the group split that there are a range of facilities was challenging for this group. up to see as much of the locality as available but a perception that they possible. Most group members had didn’t necessarily meet needs of limited personal knowledge of the community. Amenity space next to focus areas. One group concentrating housing not useable - no ball game on Clermiston had a housing officer signs, poorly placed seating and who had visited recently with the local restricted access. councillor as well as a resident with children at a local school. The second Facilities and Amenities – 5. The area group covering Drumbrae further is well served in quantitative terms but subdivided to cover the site. The may not be in the right location. More groups approached and spoke to three could be mad of the facilities at the local residents to hear their thoughts hub – no café/place to meet. of living in the area. It did not prove Work and Local Economy – 2. possible to visit all 3 locations. Predominantly residential area. Limited job/business opportunities Housing and Community – 6. Range

of house types and sizes available. > Housing appears to be well maintained. NW focus areas and place standard assessment 2 Day 2

3 3

1

1 2 3

3

KEY 1. Re- assess needs and create one stronger identifiable local centre.

2. Review local routes to establish a stronger E- W walkable route connecting services and green space.

3. Improve links to dispersed schools.

Assets Opportunties for change networks and frontline workers to better understand local needs The key assets identified in the area The following place based actions or and reasons for low usage and were: approaches were identified: other issues such as poor private maintenance. Consider expanding the primary schools, The area has facilities and green • • and strengthening the role of space however there is no focal the Leisure Centre, Drum Brae Dumbrae local community hub point and facilities are dispersed, • library hub (who are the target schools in particular. audience?) and the community the leisure centre • health centre as more effective Improved links and clustering • community anchors. Should uses • Corstophine hill are needed to create stronger be re-deployed? centres of gravity and to improve accessibility between facilities and Target groups There is potential to establish a to quality green space including • stronger east-west active travel The key target groups were: Corstorphine Hill. corridor parallel to Drumbrae Drive The elderly linking the hubs and schools with • Quality of public realm needs • one another and to Corstorphine improving, starting with the impact Young People Hill. • of traffic and parking. Mums with children There is a need to improve • The facilities have issues over • • community accessibility to schools quality, maintenance, fitness It was identified that engagement across major roads e.g. Drumbrae for purpose, levels of use and would need to be undertaken with and Queensferry Road. accessibility. Work is needed each group in order to find out their with the community, current needs. North East Locality Group: Restalrig: Day 1 Smallest locality in terms of population with 110,550 residents across wards including Leith; Leith Walk; Craigentinny /Duddingston and Portobello/ Craigmillar. Almost half of population is aged 25 to 49. Largest number of households from a minority ethnic background. Second largest projected growth to 2024.

NE Locality discussion with disabilities. No transport ‘hub’ so in the area. However, this was a Priorities for action ± In a session prior to the visit, the difficult to score regarding facilities. residential area and we wondered what Leith the expectation would be of an area Three Priorities were identified: group discussed the wider NE locality Traffic and parking: (2). Very car- like this. and noted that a redesign of services dominated. Some good parking 1. Moving around for pedestrians and assets would be likely to be solutions in Lochend but insufficient Housing and community: (4) Good giving access to local assets and avoiding traffic and parking issues necessary in the area to improve as signs ask people not to park on the variety of housing stock and a balance Leith Walk integration. To achieve integration grass verges. All road safety measures of publicly and privately owned 2. Care and maintenance and feeling of assets and services would require appeared to favour drivers rather than properties. However, housing was not safe (small issues having a bigger engagement to enable specific needs pedestrians or cyclists. a positive feature of the area with than average impact on local area to inform wider needs and drive obvious signs of neglect. Streets and Spaces: (4) Lots of – weather, dog fouling etc.) capital/service decisions. The desire for Craigentinny / Duddingston a bottom up approach was expressed. discussion with disparate views leading Social interaction: (5) Difficult to score 3. Social interaction – although this to an average score. A number of but group felt the range of amenities scored quite highly the group felt What the group did public spaces and buildings provide and facilities aided social interaction as this underpinned successful change a positive atmosphere. However, also well as the local park and community The council identified Lochend, a number of derelict, abandoned and gardens. Ward Restalrig and Piershill as focus areas. Learning point City Centre boundary unmaintained spaces/places that had a (2017) Data zone The group planned a route that would Identity and belonging: (5) Again boundary SIMD 2016 - negative effect. Regarding use of the tool – the 20% most deprived in enable them to experience different difficult to score without members of Scotland score alone is not enough to tell the 40.1 to 50% poverty aspects of the local area: greenspaces, Natural space: (4) Lochend park the community. However, it was felt More than 50.1% story- recording narrative is important poverty busy roads and commuter routes, provides major area of greenspace for that there was a history associated to particularly where there are differing Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. North East - Priority Area 2 - Craigentinny/Duddingston © Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved. daytime. Well kept, signposted and the area. Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100023420. residential areas, and community opinions across a group. largely accessible once there. However assets such as shops, local schools, Feeling safe: (3) Safety appeared to be ^ Focus areas pubs and community gardens. There routes to the park not accessible or a significant issue with much reporting Map showing was a good mix of people and most clearly signposted. Large number of on recent violent incidents. In a group, focus areas around knew the areas well in professional private rear gardens well looked after. during the day the area felt reasonably Lochend, Restalrig capacity or as residents/volunteers. However, front lawn and public-owned safe. However, poor maintenance and and Piershill greenspaces not so well maintained. One person in the group had a lack of lighting in greenspace areas particularly in-depth knowledge of Play and recreation: (3) Significant looked to be an issue. the Piershill area, others were able to lack of play and recreation areas for Care and maintenance: (3) Some provide some background knowledge younger people and families outside

areas were well maintained (Lochend on the Restalrig community gardens. of Lochend park (the park itself only park) by the local authority and by > The group spoke to two local residents caters for certain ages). NE place in Piershill who had lived in the area local residents (Community gardens) standard for a number of years. Facilities and amenities: (4) Good and effort was being made by local assessment number of shops, pubs and other residents to upgrade their area Place Standard assessment facilities with no obvious empty (Piershill). However, overall there was Discussion points as part of the scoring properties. Mostly traditional ‘corner’ significant dog fouling, graffiti, litter, process for each of the 14 themes. shops with little to support a healthy and broken stairwell windows within lifestyle. A number of sporting and the area. Moving around: (2) Plenty of routes exercise facilities within the area but Influence and sense of control: (4) for walking but priority given to cars. there could be a cost and access Difficult to score without community Junctions particularly bad, forcing barrier to the majority of local participation. Group had some local pedestrians to walk a long way. No residents. priority to cyclists. Old railway line knowledge of community groups cycling route poorly maintained. Work and local economy: (5) Overall trying and failing to make changes to Greenspace walks pleasant (where feeling that there are significant the local area due to public/private available) in daylight. employment opportunities albeit with ownership. a focus on retail. Good bus routes Public transport: (5) Number of good provide easy access to city centre. quality bus routes (regular) and not Couldn’t agree that there was a so good (irregular). Poor walkability thriving local economy as there was a makes it likely these are not as shortage of locally-owned businesses accessible to older people or people 4 Day 2

4

3 2

5

5 1

3

3 2

KEY 1. Build on secondary routes and existing green spaces to create a walkable network of green space.

IDENTIFY SMALL SCALE SITES 2. Re-imagine primary road corridors to give space for cycle lanes and active travel.

3. Existing schools, facilities and public services.

4. Improved links across rail lines.

5. Upgraded green space and community gardens.

Assets Opportunities for change • Re-imagine the street network and re-prioritise the large primary • See Public buildings and green The following place based actions or carriageways to make way for spaces as marked on the map approaches were identified: walking and cycling. Cycle route below. to Leith. • Create ‘green corridors’ within the area to link residential areas with • Better community links by building Target groups the greenspaces and community on strong secondary frameworks of assets. This would be done via streets and green spaces to better The key target groups were: signposting, upgrade of paving, link people, existing dispersed traffic-calming measures, planting, facilities and parkland. • Young mothers making better use of public spaces. • Older people • Encourage infill development to • Skills based training for community intensify use of local facilities and members was highlighted as an improved routes. • People with disabilities area for exploration. This would link with community assets such • Men aged 35-54 (primary focus of • Strengthen the urban function of as the local football clubs (Hibs nodes other than as traffic hubs. discussions) and Edin City), facilities (5-a-side, Meadowbank) and Ripple project. The group focussed on one 45 year old • Build on the strengths of successful local projects such as Urban Eden. man (called Spud!) who has a history of • Green space upgrading including drug, alcohol and mental health issues improved maintenance, new • Tackle barrier created by rail lines who lives in the most isolated part of civic space at St Ninians School, the estate. to break down barriers between opportunities for food growing and communities. community gardens. South East Locality Group: Gracemount: Day 1 Second largest locality with 126,148 residents across wards including City Centre; Liberton / Gilmerton; Southside / Newington; Meadows / Morningside. Largest percentage of households on low incomes (23.5%). Largest proportion of persons aged 16 – 24 (40.3%). More than half of the city’s students. Highest private-rented. Maintenance of the City Centre key to city’s perception and reputation.

SE Locality discussion Traffic and Parking - 3 Parking a major seen as ‘threatening’/allowing anti- feel most at risk. Lack of self-esteem In a session prior to the visit, the issue due to school/community centre social behaviour/too uncontrolled. The | empowerment in environment. ± group discussed the wider SE etc hub. Speed camera on Lasswade area is a ‘work in progress’. Empowering local community to take Road? responsibility? locality and noted the importance of Social Interaction – 6 Opportunities finding the right scale for community Streets and Spaces - 2 Higgledy- at community hub, gardens, Mansion discussions, where a sense of piggeldy environment – poor legibility. House – query actual use? Good Priorities for action belonging exists. Importance of “I could have been anywhere”. Only engagement with walled garden. Three Priorities were identified: speaking to, not about communities feature is the Mansion House. Poor Poor design and lack of coherence and not making assumptions. maintenance of environment – lots of of ‘centre’ inhibited positive social 1. Getting to the right people - Multiple strategies needed to enable litter. Unappealing environment. interaction. Gracemount Drive(?) had Converting local pride and sense of collaboration in different types of a reputation as ‘hotspot’ for anti-social belonging into action. Natural Space – 5 Walled garden is places. Opportunities to engage need behaviour at night, inhibited visiting 2. Quality of streets – moving around/ to be presented to people in the right a key natural space and is safe for children. Lots of green space around Identity and Belonging – 5 Strong traffic and parking/ safety – whole way. Building relationships and trust is streets, public open spaces and vital. Mansion House appears quite ‘left sense of the area as an individual over’. Others overgrown. Lots of entity – localised approach. Individual path network to address. Neglect/ Ward Run down spaces /vacancy. Lack boundary potential but needs to be harnessed. villages within the wider area. Is (2017) Data zone What the group did of coherence. Improving links at boundary SIMD 2016 - Less green in rest of Gracemount, eg that a positive or a negative? Strong 20% most deprived in The council had identified Gracemount, different scales. Scotland lacking in ‘centre’ around amenities, territoriality. Strong sense of identity- 40.1 to 50% poverty More than Southhouse, Burdiehouse, Hyvots 50.1% car parks dominate. but is it positive? Action would be to 3. Employability- Local jobs/skills, poverty and Ferniehill within the locality. The Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. try to build further on the positive training opportunities. South East - Priority Area 2 - Liberton/Gilmerton © Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved. Play and Recreation – 4 Leisure Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100023420. group focussed on Gracemount due to aspects of the local identity. the recent and legacy social housing centre and walled garden provide and for its role as a local centre opportunities. School pitches are Feeling Safe – 3 Need to ask people/ Learning point ^ Focus areas used– but by whom? Behind fences. different groups who live there. Some with concentration of local facilities. Given the degree of change in the area, Map showing focus Underused. Local people use the spaces overlooked – others not. No Planned route for the study tour was the group found the time available areas leisure centre but it is paid. Not so clear sightlines for pathway past school from Lasswade Road (taking in the 21 insufficient for discussion Century Homes development) through many opportunities for free play. and old shops. Issues of congestion/ Gracemount, with a short detour to Mansion House has a pitch. Skate parked cars/road safety at school. Southhouse, then to Captain’s Road. park at burn is Burdiehouse (another No-go areas at night (historical police ‘territory’). Problems with kids on feedback). Youth congregations on Place Standard assessment motorbikes. street corners. Gracemount Drive

Discussion points as part of the scoring perceived by local people as a ‘hot SE place Facilities and Amenities – 6 Facilities > spot’ however this is also the main process for each of the 14 themes. are there but underused standard thoroughfare/service concentration assessment Moving Around – 3 Not conducive for Work and Local Economy – 2 Very affecting other communities. Crime cycling: lots of cars, congestion, busy limited for local people. No evidence stats and local perceptions need main roads. No safe routes to school. of initiatives to encourage local people to be checked. Local fears due to Footpaths not well maintained. Route into local work eg apprenticeships etc incidents – but there are worse spaces. recommended for cycling is not good Vacant yards/properties/open ground. Housing and Community - 5 to cycle. No signposting to amenities. Vandalism of 21st C improvements. But no cul-de-sacs. Access to public Gracemount 21st C Homes is a small transport possibly difficult for those area with mix of private and social Care and Maintenance – 2 Litter and with limited mobility. housing – an improvement though not dereliction issues. Mansion House representative of the wider housing could be a real opportunity. Not much Public Transport – 6 Regular buses on provision. Mix is flats and terraced pride in the local environment all main roads. In and out of city is housing in the area. Waiting lists for Influence and Sense of Control good, across is harder – 18 infrequent. housing. Investment in new housing – 1 Only 3 community attendees Accessibility difficult – getting from is very positive – contrasts with at a recent community meeting. home to the main road for older people remaining high rises in the midst of Engagement apathy – disengagement. and limited mobility. Growing elderly green space. High rises are popular Places where people might come demographic. Overall the PT system is though. Building of further low rise together, eg around facilities, is also really good. social housing to infill some green was the place where people currently 6 Day 2

KEY

1. Proposed regeneration of local retail offer, existing square and local employment opportunities. 2. Proposed transformed and more coherent education campus. 3. Overcome social divide with burn corridor working better for all. 4. Risk to overcome of spend leaking to out- of - town retail. 5. Upgrade linked and adjoining smaller village facilities and centres.

Assets Opportunities for change • See Public buildings and green The following place based actions or • Improve walking and cycling routes spaces as marked on the map approaches were identified: linking homes, local services and below: green spaces including tackling • Engage with the community using the ‘barrier’ created by steep PS at neighbourhood scale: to Target groups topography affecting elderly and ascertain needs. mums with buggies. The key target groups were: • Build on the opportunity created by Expand role of planned new high Elderly • • 3000 new homes in the area. school and community campus as • Young People a learning hub including lifelong • Strengthen the role of Gracemount learning and training and capacity People who use the facilities at • as a service, retail and for local business start-up. Gracemount employment hub for the enlarged • Local shop owners population and including facilities • Strengthen smaller scale facilities and opportunities for target provided at adjoining ‘village’ Working age unemployed • groups. centres. • 40+ age group • Regenerate and renew facilities • Tackle blighting effect of vacant, The group spend time discussing ‘a and adjoining streets to improve overgrown and poorly maintained day in the life’ of two members of service provision and remove sites. target groups, ‘Jessie’ and ‘Jimmie’. perceptual and physical barriers Personas illustrated in images to right. to accessibility e.g. antisocial behaviour e.g. traffic and parking e.g. poor physical condition. South West Locality Group: Oxgangs: Day 1 Smallest locality. 109,245 residents across wards including Pentland Hills; Sighthill / Gorgie; Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart; Colinton / Fairmilehead. Most like Edinburgh as a whole • Most deprived individual ward (Sighthill / Gorgie) • High proportion of council tenants. Highest percentage of residents economically inactive due to limiting long term illness (15%) • Relatively high rates of women with dementia. Highest concentration of people who cycle to work.

SW Locality discussion Place Standard assessment Library. Local shops (2 supermarkets Priorities for action Fountainbridge / Craiglockhart Discussion points as part of the scoring (Tesco and Morrison) but access issues ± In a session prior to the visit, the Three Priorities were identified: group discussed the wider SW locality process for each of the 14 themes. topography. Healthy eating – is poor and identified that key issues for (local Centre trying to teach healthy 1. Influence and sense of control Moving Around (3): Topography = eating on a budget). Council facilities the wider area were: Infrastructure, Streets, spaces, housing, care and big issue. Not easy to move around really poor. “Can we use the new 2. Lack of Basic Skills, Firefighting – maintenance not being able to follow a project or understand the place layout. Quite schools more efficiently?” “ What other long-term, A general feeling that the disorientating (no key landmarks). Not uses can be included in the schools?”. 3. Work and local economy Council is about ‘Prevention’ rather cycle friendly. Narrow roads. Housing Not affordable than ‘Intervention’, Budgets and lack layout does not reflect demographic Learning points of funds, The need for a bottom-up split. Lots of elderly people. New Work and Local Economy (3): Retail Two key questions were:- How do we Colinton / Fairmilehead approach, Making better decisions doctors surgery – poor accessibility, jobs and Council opportunities for redesign services? How do we redesign around budget spend + Service principally older people. Why funding is jobs locally. Also new Aldi and Doctors assets? The group identified that better Provision Decisions and Input, the poor. Winter and autumn = real issue surgery. No opportunity to set up collaboration across sectors and within geographical size of the areas - What for moving around a business (local enterprise). Jobs fares – but not regular. Council are sectors is important. The Council is the meaningful geography for local Ward boundary Public Transport (5): Fairly well encouraging new business to get local needs a better understanding of how (2017) Data zone people?, the Voluntary Sector may boundary ‘people use the place’. Budget Issues SIMD 2016 - serviced on major routes – fair walk people into work. Community Centre 20% most struggle to remain the ‘safety net’ for deprived in Scotland to bus routes. Set Fares - £1.60 so and library – local opportunities v. Timelines – need to align - some 40.1 to 50% communities, bridging the gap for the poverty More than budget decisions already made may 50.1% Council and shrinking service provision it is affordable. Not convenient from poverty Housing and Community (4): Some of need to change!! “Are we willing to do Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. peoples’ homes. No toilets, seats or South West - Priority Area 1 - Colinton/Fairmilehead © Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved. and finally, that support would be Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100023420. the houses are ok. But there is really this?” Building trust with local people needed from Council, Third Sector, etc. resting places poor housing – not wind and water was seen as one of the most important to help build capacity in community. ^ Focus areas Traffic and parking (3): Depends on tight (high fuel poverty). issues. “The Council needs to prove Map showing focus time of day – evening no parking what they can do for local people and areas What the group did spaces Social Interaction (5): Library is really also local people need to do more.” busy – all age ranges (young and old). “The Council needs to represent the The council had identifiedxxxxxx Streets and Spaces (2): Older build Community Centre and neighborhood real community but this takes time and within the locality. The sub-area – not attractive. Newer build – more Centre – good hard work, which we don’t have”. identified by the group for assessment attractive. Very split area visually. was Oxgangs – mainly because of Ramp access housing – really really Identity and Belonging (6): Sense

the difficult topography and lack bad!! Lots of green but not used – “a of belonging. Very good community SE place of connection to key services and green desert”. “Library nice inside identity. Strong sense of community > standard facilities. The planned route for the but not outside” Community Centre assessment study tour was to start at the library, unattractive. Feeling Safe (3): Depends on time walk down hill to existing shops , past of year. Feedback – not feeling safe housing, along to neighbourhood Natural space (4): Nice park at the at night. Two youths created a real centre, onto new housing and new border - but has issues – fights, drugs bad perception. Ok during the day health centre and back up to library. etc. A lot of green but none used. Not but not at night. Lots of training and good for health and wellbeing. Access intervention work has changed things to Pentland hills – but route is more on the ground Colinton oriented. Depends on season – but still bare– no trees etc. No Care and Maintenance (3): “No – it’s a seating. Colinton Mains park is nice. No disgrace”. Community Centre is awful wildlife or habits to encourage. Influence and Control (3): Very difficult Play and recreation (3): Community to answer if you don’t stay there. Most Centre and nursery (indoors). Football people don’t think they have a say in ^ Record of groupwork and indoor football at Community decision-making Centre.

Facilities and Amenities (4): GP.

8 Day 2 3

1. Renewed relationship between park and facilities/school. 2. Potential garden/ growing project. 1 STRENGTHEN LINKS 3. Learning from cohesive model of community centre in residential streets. 4. Create attractive spaces via infill 4 development. 5. Expand local facilities to consolidate role of library/post office/store as a local centre.

KEY 2 1. Build on existing facilities cluster adjoining green space to create an attractive hub.

2. Potential for community garden project.

3. New community centre and housing 5 provides a model for more cohesive and integrated facilities.

4. Potential of new housing sites to integrate green spaces and attractive route.

5. Strengthen role and service provision around existing facilities to create a hub.

Assets Target groups Opportunities for change where they want to go. Making the connections easier and more The key assets identified in the area The group felt people need to be at The following place based actions or coherant. approaches were identified: were: the heart of everything. No particular • Review service provision and personas identified, prefering to reflect Cluster Campus approach - Not seek partnerships. Need honest • Library has capacity to change – and respect all different household • about trying to cram everything conversations about what each has Mobile Library Garage below = types – Families; Single People; Single into the cluster, but meeting local partner is willing/able to do. opportunity. Parents; Same Sex Households; etc. needs. What Can’t the community Identify opportunities to share • Community Centre has capacity • Places + Spaces - Connecting live without? What is Essential? services and assets. but there are issues over running people to where they want to go Education a priority – links the facility. • Build capacity and voice for the • • Formal + Informal - routes to community to prioritise needs: between high school and local • Neighbourhood Centre EMPLOYMENT participatory budgeting. area. Reimagine as centre for excellence. • Schools • Skill Sets / Training / Education • Strengthen role and function of community services to form two • See Public buildings and green • How much do we ask the local spaces as marked on the map distinctive clusters. people / communities? Need to ^ Record of groupwork below. have clear boundaries (about what • Build on new development and it is we are doing before starting a green space opportunities as part discussion with local people. of creating ‘green links’ between clusters. • Build on success of new community centre as an integral part of cohesive new streets. Upgrade street experience: • Record of groupwork people first. Connecting people to ^