Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Are we ready? Okay. So welcome to the Transport and Environment Committee meeting of June 2024, our last one of this kind of council year. This meeting has been held in the Dean of Guild courtroom in City Chambers High Street in Edinburgh and virtually by teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the council's website. The council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the council's published policy. Is he behaving himself? I didn't quite catch that. Policy. Generally, the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you should be aware that you may be recorded and images and sound will be stored as above. Children will not be filmed, although sound will be heard. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system and that they must switch microphones on when speaking and off when finished speaking. Okay. So welcome everyone. So just two things to note with maybe perhaps three actually. So since we've last met, Hannah and her team won an award, the LGC awards, which was fantastic. This is a colossal event. The scale of it was quite gobsmacking actually. And this award was actually really hard to obtain, but Hannah and her team absolutely smashed it. And this evening we're going to the Scottish Transport Awards and the council and other organisations in Edinburgh, I think are up for 17 awards there. So absolutely incredible. Another thing I have to say, of course, is depending on how the election goes, this could be the last meeting for myself, you and Hislop, you and Hislop, Marie Care Monroe and Councillor O'Neill. But I do have to say it is definitely the last meeting for... I'm trying not to be political. Rachel's on the edge here. It is definitely Eula Bandel's last meeting with us. And it's been great having you on the committee over the last two years, Eula. And I say that genuinely. We'll all miss you. But I'm sure everyone's looking forward just as much as me to Councillor Booth to take over for your nickname. Rachel. Thank you. Item one is order of business. The meeting papers were published on Friday 14th of June. Motions and amendments were circulated online yesterday and are available on the website alongside the meeting papers. There have been two deputation requests. One is a verbal deputation from the cargo bike movement on relation to item 7.3. And there was a late written deputation from Leeds Central Community Council which was accepted by the convener and has been published yesterday. Are the committee happy to hear and consider both of these? Thank you. And just to note, understanding order 2216, each item will be subject to the 40-minute time limit unless agreed specifically under order of business. But the convener has discretion to allow proceedings to continue beyond that. Item two is declarations of interest. Members are required to declare any financial or non-financial interests or make transparency statements and items being considered today. Does anyone have anything to declare, please? No. Item three is deputations. So first we have the written submission from Leeds Central Community Council on item 7.2. So that has been published, as I said. And we have a verbal deputation from the cargo bike movement in relation to item 7.3. And we have John Taverlis, Lake Collins and Paul Arden here. If you want to just come down and sit on the edge, please. So hello again. Your five-minute starts when you're ready and you have to press the button to speak. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for hearing us this morning. So I'm John T. I'm a trustee of the cargo bike movement. I'm joined here by Paul Arden and Lake Montgomery. Lake is a rider and a trustee as well and Paul is our team mechanic. We submitted that written deputation. I hope you had a chance to look at it. It lays out our position and appeal here for item 7.3. In short, cargo bike movement is in crisis. We believe the city is at risk of losing a keystone organisation for active travel and zero carbon freight. The board has a crisis plan in operation at the moment, which I'll touch on shortly. But in short, we're running on reserves. Our staff are on redundancy notice and we're at risk of winding up. Let me give you a quick refresher on cargo bike movement, if you aren't familiar. We started as a collection of volunteers back in 2020, delivering food which was bound for landfill to co-ops and food banks in the city using cargo banks to make this movement. That was 2020. Today we own and operate the largest cargo bike fleet in Scotland with a mission to promote the use of cargo banks for fairer, greener and healthier society within Edinburgh. We run the biggest free cargo bike lending scheme in the country and we've trained 164 cargo bike riders since establishing. We're still delivering food, but now we have a standing army of 50 volunteers who are out on the roads every weekday evening, shifting food to those who need it most. Alongside this, the movement runs tasteful engagement sessions for the public. We support circular economy organisations like the Edinburgh Tool Library and the Cats and Dogs Home with zero carbon freight. And we introduce and train Edinburgh businesses to trial zero carbon logistics. We operate the Tollcross active travel hub, which is home and incubated to several community organisations and we are working to plant more at the moment. So from those humble beginnings, we've kind of grown into this keystone organisation for modal change within the city. We're here today and looking at item 7.3 because we're having a serious financial squeeze right now. We are asking the council to see what they could do to help out. We currently have a pending decision from Paths for All. This could be £200,000 worth of funding for cargo bike movement of which £50,000 is match funding. This represents we think the best value for money to keep the organisation going. If we're unsuccessful in that Pass for All application or we don't manage to find that match funding, we have a financial plan to keep us on life support until the end of the year, which has been put together by our treasury. The plan is pretty brutal for cargo bike movement. It involves losing staff, closing the hub, lending our outreach work, selling our assets, which are the bikes that we use, curtailing the bike lending, minimising mechanical support, slimming down the public engagement, all with the interest of protecting our core ambition, which is moving food through the city from supermarkets to food banks. That will continue as long as we possibly can. As I said, all the staff are on notice of redundancy. This came in at the end of May and we have sufficient revenue to keep the staff on with us until, I believe, the end of July. We don't want to lose this movement. We don't want to lose this organisation. We're at an inflection point in our opinion. We are running the organisation very lean at the moment, working to make sure that we're providing the best value for money we can to the city. We, as a board, have expanded recently with five new board members, a new treasurer, chair and secretary, and we're starting to see sustainable revenue opportunities out there for the organisation. There are opportunities to monetise our lending scheme for those who can afford to pay, and monetise our business engagement as well for those who can afford to pay. Our size and our connections mean we can tap into more broad public funding initiatives and we are applying to become an SCIO at the moment as well. Apart from the loss of staff and services that come with winding up the organisation, we're deeply concerned about stalling a movement and a behavioural change we're starting to see happening in the city. We are already starting to see record levels of cycling. There was a report this week on the Leith Walk counters showing extremely high levels of cycling in May that came out this week, and we've been having conversations on the road every evening as we deliver food around the city, and the sheer demand for bikes on our lending scheme means that the lending scheme recently has been completely empty of bikes. They've all been on the roads. People are, we believe, waking up to the need for this kind of logistics, and the cargo bank movement frankly has the skills, the machines, the people and the connections the city needs to push us over that tipping point and make a name for the city as a world leader in zero carbon, last mile freight and active travel, and we don't want to lose that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Ulla? How many do I get? How many questions do I get? Just one, and I should have called your Councillor Bandel, sorry. All right, I'll ask one question. I'm quite interested in the wider knock-on effect that would happen if cargo bank movement were to close. You talked a little bit about the partnerships you have with other organisations, and in your written deputation you also mentioned that the Lauriston place hub is used as a kind of incubator for community organisations, so what would the impact be on not just you but other community organisations as well? That you're asking if we shut down, yeah? Basically yeah, if you were to wind up operations, if you were to lose the Lauriston place hub. Right, I think for me, considering the momentum that we've already gathered, that momentum would stop. We would have to stop relations with the tool library, with the shrub, the people that we support as well who are renting cargo bikes. I think right now we're fully lent out, we have a fleet of 20 cargo bikes that are being fully lent out. We rent for up to two weeks that people are able to use, that would have to shut down. I was speaking to someone just a week ago who said this has been a life changer for her and her family, her two children are neurodivergent, they cannot ride the public transit with ease, and she said she didn't even know about cargo bikes until she was able to do this so easily, she was trained up, her children now, the reason I was able to talk to her is because they just stopped in the hub and wanted to see the cargo bikes and they're super excited about them. So her transit time has turned from an hour and a half to 15 minutes to school, that would stop. So yeah, I hope I answered the question. Councillor Aston. Thanks, Kinvira, thanks so much for the deputation, it must be a really stressful time for you and everyone employed at cargo bike movement. Obviously organisation does amazing things in terms of food collection, food delivery, linking in with the tool library, but like Councillor Bandel, I'm quite interested in I suppose the impact on companies particularly actually because moving towards low carbon last mile delivery is a really key priority in policy terms for the council, so I'm just wondering if you could expand a bit on if cargo bike movement doesn't receive funding to keep going in something like its current form the impact that that might have on transitioning to sustainable last mile delivery in the city. I'm going to sound a bit dramatic but I think that cargo bike logistics in the city are hanging by a thread and I can say this because I'm not just involved with cargo bike movement, I've got some connections with the other logistic cargo bike logistic organisations in the city. So if the cargo bike movement stops it may be a bit of a tipping point or it may continue a trend which is we're beginning to see the first signs of and I think that should probably worry us because I have no doubt at some point cargo bikes are going to appear in the city but we could be putting that back by 5 or 10 years and I think that would be a missed opportunity perhaps even an embarrassment for us. Just to add to what Paul was saying, it's worth noting that maybe some of the highest impact work that we do is in the early stages at the moment which is the business engagement work that we do. We've brought on plumbers, couriers, electricians, the council uses some of our bikes as well. We kit out the tool library and various active travel hubs around the city. All of that is going to have to contract and that network will start to die if we as the kind of the hub at the centre of this wheel disappear. We're a connecting force in the city as much as anything. Thank you, chair, and thank you for your deputation. My question is around your financials and just a point of clarification because in the report that we were presented with, we read about a hundred thousand pound grant from Pass For All with a match required but in the deputation you've given you're talking about 200,000 total so I just wondered if you could just clarify the financials around that and also just give us a sense of how long that would provide you with the stability after which you would obviously need to go out and seek further funding. Thank you. Yeah. So the mismatch in the numbers there is because the Pass For All is a hundred thousand pounds worth of money, 50,000 pounds worth of match funding and I believe it's 50,000 pounds worth of volunteer time essentially. So the total comes to 200,000. I will need to speak to our treasurer to understand that better and I'm happy to get you those numbers but we're working with a 200,000 pounds worth of benefit from that funding for the organization. In terms of what that allows us to do, that is going to sustain the team first and foremost. Our largest overhead is not only the hub that we rent from the council but also maintaining a kind of 1.5, 1.6 person team that we've got spread across three people. That allows us to run the logistics of the organization. So lending to both businesses and private citizens when they want to borrow from us and engaging with businesses and running public engagement, that is where that money is going to go. It also then gives us the space to start exploring more sustainable revenue opportunities. So as I mentioned, our lending scheme, there are people who are borrowing bikes from us who can afford to subsequently go on and buy bikes and could afford potentially to give us some money towards the lending scheme. So we are planning to build in a pay what you can approach to this in the coming year to experiment with revenue generating opportunities around the lending scheme. We can't do that unless we have time and skills and staff who can actually start to operate and maintain a system like that. The board, as I mentioned, is expanded and are engaged and enthusiastic and experts in a lot of fields but cannot run the organization day to day without support from dedicated staff. Is that sufficient? Yes. So really what you are saying is that money will not only be used to run the organization but it also helps towards getting you on a more sustainable footing for the future. Absolutely, yes. The purpose of expanding the board was to make this organization better value for money for the city now that we are more established. Councillor Wright. Thank you, Kynvina. I have two questions really. You have one. I have one. Okay. It was in two parts but it's about financial sustainability. Please come very carefully. I'm a charity trustee as well. As charity trustees we have to make sure that our organization has a sustainable financial footing. How have you managed to get into the situation where you don't have that position going forward and given that what you have described to us is apparently very successful and you say will be continued to grow, why is it that you need all this additional funding from the council to make that grow if it's so successful out there when apparently it's successful and popular and should grow on its own? I'd like to give a try anyway and then I'll try to answer this because for some reason my first thought in response to this is a vision of, say, seeing a mountain, having a lot of energy and saying I can get right to the top climbing. We were very enthusiastic, tiny board. It started off with two chicks who went on a big UK ride and were inspired by knowing that cargo bikes could be the future of a place like Edinburgh. I started off as a rider. I think we had about four cargo bikes, something like this. The idea and the enthusiasm behind what we were doing was larger than the money that we had behind it. It also started off with certain funding that was earmarked. I'm new to the board so I'm also learning what went wrong because that was my bigger question as well. Being a rider since 2021 and then now recently becoming a trustee and understanding. We've broadened the board. We've now switched from a really, really good idea, funding for quite a while and then the funding stopped quite abruptly. Now we're learning what it is to be a skio, what it is to have a thing that should be more of a business economy than a very, very good idea. We're stuck now in the middle of the mountain. We see the peak. We know it's very possible. We're learning at the same time as implementing that good idea. To build on what Lake was saying, I can give an overview of how we got to this position. One thing that has changed I think everybody should know is that the macroeconomic environment we're operating with shifted a little bit and cargo bike movement's ambitions when it came to funding did not shift over the last couple of years. So we were still asking for very high value capital funding to support purchasing these very expensive machines where funders were saying do you know what, we need to spread this money thinner and wider and looking for greater demonstration of like earned income, greater perceived efficiency in the organizations that we're funding and we weren't in a position at the time those funding requests were going in to properly demonstrate that. So we missed out on a couple of bridge kind of pieces of funding that would have supported us. Sorry, there was a second part to that question. Can you repeat that? So if it's so successful why hasn't it built to be more self-sustaining? You said the network will dissolve if you're not there and actually if it's so successful and so popular I don't see why that would be the case. Yeah, that's fair. The bikes themselves are a high capital investment so they are £9,000 at most per bike. That represents a large outlay for organizations that want to explore this space and want to explore zero carbon logistics with uncertain returns. They need to have a ramp into that. We're starting to see organizations start to get on the bottom of that ramp and start ramping up but they need to have a low cost, accessible, easy way to do that so they can then start investing themselves. So the beginning of any movement looks like a cost on a balance sheet instead of a profit making opportunity. That's where CargoBike is working right now. As we see the bikes start to increase in the city and the critical mass of bikes start to grow on the roads we fully expect this thing to become more of a snowball rolling downhill. We're still in the early stages, I think it's fair to say, of actually making this change but to stop now because we're not seeing massive sustainable results or fleets of bikes roaming the city yet would be to kind of misunderstand the pace of this change I believe. Okay so last question goes to me. So I think there's been a big surge in CargoBike use over the last five years or so and I think a lot of that is driven by the electrification of them I guess if that's the right word. And I think the next big surge we'll see is when city centre transformation starts to take hold and I hope you guys are around to help support that. And I know there is bigger companies looking at this we're due to meet one in July to think about how they can use this as part of their work in Edinburgh as well. So I think things are heading in the right direction. But I think you said that, I mean obviously you're here at the Transport Committee, you're applying to Pass For All which is an active travel fund, but you said a big party in activity is actually moving food around and I know you're using bikes to do that but I wonder if there's kind of non-travel, non-active travel funds you could be applying for for that absolutely important activity? Is that something you've looked at? Yes. In short we are exploring as many options as we can at the moment. These things take time to do and submitting for requests and submitting for these sources of funding and finding them is a skillset that frankly has not been present on CargoBike movement up to this point given the ease with which we've gained funding before this point. We are changing, we are improving, we're kind of building that skillset internally now, but the challenge for us was that with such a small staff base asking them to start writing funding requests instead of operating the organisation has meant some real challenges for the organisation. With the board expanded we've now got more opportunities to do that but it is still like I say the early days of that. I don't think you're all alone in that, you see I think there's so many organisations now having to find those skills. Okay, thank you. You're welcome to stay around for this to be debated but there might be a few minutes left before we get to that. The next item is 4.1 which is the minutes of the last meeting of 23rd May which is for approval as a correct record. Are we happy to approve them? Okay, excellent. Thank you. Item 5.1 is the committee's work programme which is for note-in. Approved? Okay, I think that's a first. Item 5.2 is the committee rolling actions log. There's 14 actions recommended for closure, the rest are for noting. There's been a request which the convener has accepted for Councillor Mitchell who is a member of the special interest in item 58 which arose from a motion he submitted. Welcome back Councillor Mitchell. I have to say this is our first special interest in this particular agenda item. I'm not surprised to see it's you, thank you. Thank you very much convener and indeed to committee for the indulgence. May not be on the agenda but I've managed to find a way to speak about bin hubs. In all seriousness though convener, I think I was quite, I accepted the reassurance that was given at the last meeting of this committee which was based on the motion that I had submitted to council in February that, you know, extending it from two to three cycles that we would receive a report about the noise mitigations and other issues whether it's servicing or the glass bin noise that that would arrive to last month. And then obviously it was noted that it was going to be coming to this month's committee and when, you know, excitedly when the agenda was published I looked through and I didn't see anything about it so then I come to the rolling actions log and find that sort of a motion on a separate, a related but separate issue has now been included in the comments about the members workshop which was about a motion later on at the last meeting and doesn't actually have anything to do with the substantive actions that were agreed unanimously and amended in February. And so I'm essentially here a little bit irritated to establish what exactly is happening, when is this report coming, what's going on with it and am I actually, am I and residents all just supposed to be waiting until October because ultimately since these bin hubs have been installed the noise is there whether that's the bin lids clashing, that's the glass bottles crashing or whatever else it is and indeed the servicing issues of collection starting quite early in the morning and, you know, we're trying to work with officials, work cross party to get this to a successful place and sort of the goal posts keep being changed here and so when we're reassuring residents who are being woken up at goodness knows what time that don't worry, there's jam coming tomorrow but we're looking outside and I don't see any so I'm hoping that we could get an explanation of what is happening and when. Thank you very much, Convenor. So I don't think it's appropriate for Mr. Burwell to answer that just now until we go on to the next stage of this, is that right, because he, yeah on a member with special interests such as questions from the committee and any officer's points can be covered in discussion. But don't worry, the question will be answered, don't worry. Do you have any questions for Councillor Mitchell? This is questions for Councillor Mitchell at this stage. Okay, would Councillor Mitchell, would Councillor Mitchell like me to ask that Mr. Burwell answers his question when we get to that stage in the agenda? Convenor thank you Mayor, thank Councillor White for the question. I would very much appreciate if he could ask either Mr. Burwell or indeed Mr. Williams who is looking on at us from afar, that would be very helpful. Do we have any other questions for Councillor Mitchell? Okay, so now I think we can go to questions to officers. Does anybody have a question for any of the officers with us today? Councillor Mayne. Convenor, perhaps Mr. Burwell could answer the question that Councillor Mitchell posed in his presentation to the committee. Thanks Councillor White, I'm going to very quickly just pass that one on to Andy because I'm aware there's a lot going on in the background on this but Andy's probably more informed than I am. Yeah, so there is quite a lot going on in this one in the background, so we've been speaking to our communal bin supplier who have made some amendments to the design of the lid because I think part of the problem in respect to the noise is obviously the emptying of the bin but the clattering of the lid, particularly when it's being used or when it's coming back down from the lifters, so they gave us a sample lid last week which has got kind of rubber inserts around the circular lid in the middle and that's obviously with a view to reducing noise. What we're also looking at in respect of specifically communal glass collections, we have a thousand communal glass bins that have bin fill sensors in them. When we took that service in house, we put those communal bins all on a fortnightly collection cycle which matched up with the collection cycle for curbside services. We've now got quite a large data set, so for each bin that has a sensor in it, it will tell us usage patterns, it will show us when the bin is collected but it also gives us predicted overflow dates based on usage as well. So we're now in a position where with that data set we can amend collection frequencies, so we're collecting them less often but collecting them ahead of them becoming kind of 90 per cent full. And in terms of the use of that data, can you remind me, when is the bin as it's noisiest? When it's very partially full, isn't it? Yes, it is. We've also got two reports. One was undertaken by our own colleagues from the noise team, so that looked at servicing of a number of different types of bins when they were I think a quarter full, half full and particularly with glass when they were completely empty. We also asked our communal bin supplier to have some laboratory tests done. So they were done I think at the University of Southampton and it shows some slightly different readings from the tests that were done by the in house team but they were quite different environments in which they were tested. The laboratory testing was obviously in a noise insulated room with a number of recorders set up whereas the noise team kind of tested them in a more real life environment for want of a better term. So that was actually when bins were on the back of a collection vehicle and being emptied. So we've got those two reports which I'm more than happy to share and circulate. Sorry, can I just add hopefully to answer the other part of Councillor Mitch's question. So we did have a motion, I forget to which committee from Councillor Osler I think on residential amenity, which is another factor being considered. So the idea of the team which I would agree with is to contain all that within one workshop. However, I should apologise to Councillor Mitchell because clearly Andy's just given a verbal update that we could have put as an interim business bulletin update on to this but hopefully members can appreciate that there is a lot going on. There are a lot of challenges but taking Councillor Mitchell's point, the idea of that single workshop is to very hopefully quickly come to a conclusion on those other parameters members have asked us to lock at and then decide on a way forward because it's not for the want to try and well this isn't a very easy issue to fix unfortunately. Great. You've got to follow up. It's just a very quick follow up. It's to ask Mr Williams if he goes ahead with rubber inserts and changes to the collection rotor to fit with 90% full or whatever, how long will it take to implement those two changes? I think we need to try all the new bin lids and I think what we would do is initially where we've got complaints regarding noise, we would fit those bin lids. I would like to think that following any feedback we provide to the supplier, they can manufacture them at a larger scale relatively swiftly, possibly within kind of three months. So I don't think it would necessarily be unfair to kind of commit to some of those new style bin lids subject to being suitable, being starting to be introduced at the back end of the summer. In terms of slightly more dynamic collection scheduling, I think we could plan to look at that by the end of the calendar year. I think would be reasonable for introduction on that. Whilst we have the data, we need to obviously use that data to inform new routing, which is on the forward plan but I think within the calendar year would be my assessment. Okay, Councillor Neill, do you have a question on this point as well? Since the workshop has crept into item 58, I understand the workshop is going to be arranged for after the recess but it would be extremely helpful if it could be arranged and calendarised before the recess so it can take place as soon as possible after the recess. Can that be done? Yes, we can do that. Was there another question on Councillor Aston? Councillor Neill, to you first. Thanks. Yes, my question is not about bin hubs. It is about the bus station item, which I believe is 81. I completely appreciate this is a really complex issue but we get asked about it quite a lot so I just wanted to check. Do you have any update at all on what has happened since we last spoke about it? Thank you. My apologies. I know that there is continuing negotiation with the landlord of the bus station and there is going to be some future engagement with them. There has been a press statement recently from the landlord advising they would be willing to consider a new lease so we are going to need to progress that, Councillor Neill. Thank you, that is helpful. Excellent. Councillor Aston. Thanks, convener. It is in relation to item 45, new style bus trackers and it is not so much about Councillor Munro's principle motion, which is obviously being covered in monthly business bulletin updates, which is great. It is on the addendum that I added, which is covered in part 2 of item 45 regarding the bus tracker app. We have now got a new bus tracker app, which is great. It seems to be working better than the old one did, a lot more smoothly. Obviously, we still have not been updated on that. There has not been an explanation about what changes have been made. So I was just wondering if that is going to be covered potentially in the next business bulletin update? Changes made to the app on your phone? Yes, that is right. That is directly what my addendum addressed. It would be good to get an update on exactly where that is. That is probably for Stuart Lowry, I would guess. Stuart is unable to join us today. Absolutely, we can include that in the next business bulletin and apologies if that wasn't picked up. The other thing that strikes me is that for the next tech members briefing, I have invited Lothian to come in to talk about decarbonisation. I wonder if it might be helpful to ask them if they could do a quick demonstration of the new app and show you what is different on it so you can get a face-to-face demonstration rather than something written down, which might be a bit harder to get the principle points across. I am able to ask something about bin hubs. Would you allow that? As long as it relates to the ruling action log, of course. That is very kind of you. Doesn't what Councillor Mitchell has just told us that a decision has been made but has not yet been implemented yet, is that right? Have the committee made a decision that isn't yet implemented regarding the bin hubs? Which decision are you referring to specifically? Which decision are you referring to? With regards to what Councillor Mitchell was saying with the noise. I think what Councillor Mitchell asked for was for officers to look at the available mitigations to deal with noise. It was obviously quite broad. I think what Andy has updated Councillor is that the progress so far, there is more to do because it is a complex issue. I think it is a fair point. As a matter of fact, that hasn't been discharged yet. I think our view is that this workshop needs to take place for members to discuss all the options available because there are a raft of options which include things like collection times or provision of service or how far people walk to bins. I guess they are all the issues we need to consider with members but right now we are working to the approved parameters that are in existence, accepting that subject to that workshop members may wish to change those. The committee made a decision and it hasn't yet been implemented. Is that right? I think in approving Councillor Mitchell's motion, the committee agreed that the action set out and that would take place. There were no approved infrastructure changes in that motion. There was for officers to come back and say to members what can we do to further improve the situation. We haven't exhausted that list. You have heard from Andy some interim updates but as I say, I'm not sure Councillor if we have had that one closed. If we have, apologies because it shouldn't be. My view is until that workshop takes place and the decision is taken, that action is still open. I think we agreed to look at options for reducing noise. To be honest, when I first became convener, this was something I asked about and at that point I was told it had already been explored. So I think it's really good that we are going back and looking at it in quite a lot of detail and rather than rushing to say no, there's nothing we can do or to a particular option, it's good to hear they're doing a bit of analysis. They've even got the bin laboratory involved to test the noise coming from the bins. I think this is all good actually. It's worth taking a little bit of time to get the right outcome I think though. Okay, so that was an unusual amount of discussion of the role and actions. A lot of detail there, it felt like a mini business bulletin at times. I'm happy to approve it. Excellent, thank you. Item 6.1 is the business bulletin which is for noting there is also a conservative group amendment circulated. So what I intend to do is go through it topic by topic just so we could try to focus the discussion a bit rather than jumping around. So I will just start at the top and invite questions. So Kirk Liston and Queen's Ferry traffic and active travel study. Okay. Travelling safety, active travel path, implementation of new parking prohibitions, Councillor Lange and Councillor O'Neill. Yeah, I'm conscious we will probably have a deeper dive in this in August. But the business bulletin says that compliance rates have been high and I agree with that. I personally have noticed though the beginning of a drop off I think as the novelty has worn off. Particularly I would say in evenings and my question was the enforcement that we do, do we only really do that during the working day. Thanks for the question Councillor Lange. We have parking attendance out on patrol until 10pm usually. So yes, in the evenings there may be instances where irresponsible parking is creeping back into some of the behaviours you are witnessing. So let me speak to the contract managers and see if there's anything we can do to potentially have more patrols and more random patrols that could maybe deal with that. But as you say we could certainly add that to the report that's coming in August. Thank you, can you just remind us what the £85,000 will cover? Is this properly covering all the costs of running it or is this extra money that we have sitting for something else? All the income that's generated through parking enforcement by legislation has to be reinvested into transport improvements. So it goes into the pot so to speak that is created by enforcement and then is reinvested into transport improvements. So I think Gavin the motion, the amendment we passed said that we would look at bringing fencing for footpath upgrades. But that will be in the August report and it comes as a guess. We can talk about that then. I think on Councillor Lange's point I think it's fantastic what Gavin and his team have achieved actually with this. But when you do see a vehicle, it's always been one of my pet hates but when you do see a vehicle now it really stands out as parking. And it makes me even more intolerant too I have to say. Do we have any other questions on the pavement parking ban? OK. Mobility analysis, predictably Councillor Vandal. I love data. I have a question on the work with the road safety team. It was saying there that they might work with schools and I was interested in if these systems would be able to analyse other junctions as well and tell us where we can actually give more priority to pedestrians in the traffic signaling. And also if this can be, I don't know how much you are already working with people who are implementing school travel plans but obviously you know you've got junctions kids need to cross on their way to school other than just the junctions really outside the school so if that yeah how much you are working with that team I would be interested. Thank you. Thanks Councillor Vandal. Obviously Dave who manages the road safety team is part of my wider team so Mark Love who manages intelligent traffic systems is working with him extremely closely particularly around as you say looking at school travel plans. The whole idea obviously is that any information that is coming in through the brief cam system and the flowing into the UTMC will add to the functionality of planning signals etc so that they can provide for the safety of all vulnerable road users. But Dave has also been looking at potentially looking at predictive artificial intelligence software for looking at where accidents could potentially happen on the network. Dave might be able to expand on that. Thank you Gavin. In terms of the UTMC cycle timing and pedestrian crossing time we've trialled it on Queen's Ferry Road near the Royal High so to reduce the cycle times over particular periods when children are coming out of school so it's a piece of work that I think the new UTMC system is capable of and we're looking to try and roll that out across most of the network but to answer your question it's early days and I suppose where we haven't tied it into school travel plans yet but where it's successful and where I think the UTMC system is capable of doing it will seek to improve either extending pedestrian crossing times or reducing cycle times to get to improve opportunities for pedestrian crossings near schools. The section at the end, the two bullet points on future here seem to me to be what the whole system is about actually, bringing everything together rather than having lots of discrete systems. What's the time scale on getting to the end and implementing those two bullet points? Thanks Councillor White. The UTC, the urban traffic control system will be fully migrated by the end of June. Once that's been fully implemented then we'll be able to, we've been working in the background doing the plans and strategies for the UTMC which is the urban traffic management control which is what will have the plans and strategies for the signals. I would hope that by the end of this year we will have everything in place, we'll have all the plans and strategies for the UTMC sorted, all the information coming in through the air quality sensors and the various other sensors that we have for journey times etc will be flowing freely into the UTMC and the UTMC will be delivering the type of safe and free flowing network that we envisaged from utilising the new technology that will go in place and with that we would also hope that the city operations centre would be fully integrated and all the technology will be working seamlessly. So I would say by the end of this year Councillor White and I'd be more than happy to update yourself and committee as that progresses. Okay so we can move on to the bus tracker update, any questions on that? Councillor Aston. Thank you, I suppose what I'm not clear on from this update is when we'll be in a situation where we've got real time information from Lothian buses on those displays and that's what we want to know, I think that's what you know Edinburgh's bus users want to know. Yeah thank you Councillor Aston, there's been an obviously as you can appreciate ongoing discussions with Lothian buses on this, the good news is that the real time data information testing is going well, we're working with Lothian at the moment on when their information will go live and also to make sure that when the information goes live it's as complete as possible. I had an update from Stuart this morning and when we say summer we're talking end of July or end of August to have that information up and running, but we'll continue to flag any issues over the recess. So my understanding is the vast bulk of the fleet is now fitted with equipment but the progress was slow as we move into the summer period because the holidays and it's a busy time for Lothian as well during the tourist season or during the peak tourist season. So the progress was slow in installing equipment. So there's a question about do we go to a system where almost all the fleets are on the system and that would lead to some uncertainty for people because it's really difficult, it's not easy to differentiate on the screen between a bus that has a tracker and one that doesn't. There is a way of doing it but it's not very clear. So there is a question about what is best for customers to, travellers to stick with what we have or go with a system which is almost complete in terms of live data. So it's, and particularly given the summer period where we often expect more delays to public transport which is because the sheer volume of people in the city, perhaps the tracker system even incomplete would be something worth having, but ultimately we do have to a large extent listen to Lothian on this because Lothian understand their customers better than we do, particularly the ones with, you know, who really rely on Lothian to get around rather than just occasional users. Just a very short follow up. So can I just confirm then from when old style tracker screens were taken out in March, it will be August, so that's five months that we've had these very nice looking screens up that are more or less useless. Is that right? Yes, that's right. So we're on to support of bus services. What counts the line? So firstly delighted to see all this happening, I want to say that. The timetables have now been announced and one thing I've noticed about the new Cramond to Ballerno service is that the timetable doesn't work for kids who are travelling from Camo to the new Mayberry primary and we had hoped and kind of expected that the timings of that service would be arranged in a way to provide a public transport option for children. So I'm just trying to understand what flexibility have we got in trying to adjust these services given the fact that we have funded and set them? Because I do feel this has been a bit of a missed opportunity particularly for this brand new housing estate. So we can have a look at amending bus times. It would require a new timetable to be registered but that's okay. I think that the one thing that we would need to be careful of is it's an hourly service. So we have a little less, I suppose, it's not like a 15 minute service where we probably have a little bit more flexibility and we need to be really careful about what the knock on impact of that change would be elsewhere in the route and make sure we're getting as much kind of bang for our buck as we can. But we're happy to take that away and have a look at it. Okay, thank you. The next is set mobility plan KPI update. Apologies. So I've got a couple of questions on this. I'll make them as brief and focused as possible. But I just want to note that people in Ratho are in this period obviously with the McGill's contract coming to an end. I understand that the number 20 this morning again had been cancelled and the bus connection in Ratho seems to have gotten to a worse place than ever before as that contract's ending. But just in terms of this business building update, I have received an email from a Ratho resident that can take quite a few things that I think need investigation. So it's been suggested that McGill's wanted to tender for the contract but couldn't because of some sort of technicality in their attempt to do so. I haven't received the details on that. This is just what I've been told. And can you confirm that the council hasn't been pursuing the avenues open to it in the service contract with McGill's when the service has been poor since they took it over from first? And if that's the case, why? I'm sorry, I'm going to have to take all of that away and come back to you, Councillor Aston. I'm not aware of any technicality with McGill's but not to say that there isn't one. And in terms of enforcing the contractual requirements from a contract management perspective for the existing service. So I'll need to come back and respond on that as well. So the council does have to stick to its procurement rules when it comes to this. And so this was something that was subject to some debate. But I don't know how much of it is confidential around the two bids forward and how they were considered. But I'm guessing from Hannah's response that she'll produce just a quick note and we can circulate around the whole committee. And you'd have to know whether or not it was confidential, of course, yeah. Thanks for that, Hannah and convenor. I also wanted to ask, so one of the things that this committee, myself and I think conservative colleagues as well may have put this forward, is that there are, so there's lost shore out there and there's also obviously RBS Gogar not far away. There's the Edinburgh International Climbing Arena in a slightly different situation because they're an Edinburgh Leisure owned asset. But all of them and obviously in particular lost shore and RBS Gogar were more in a position to do this as independent businesses. I understand that they were never involved in the discussions around the bus service to Ratho and their potential involvement in, you know, whether contributing to a service or whatever, and they are now investigating tendering for their own service. That I just find mind boggling. Why weren't they involved as we requested on more than one occasion that they would be? I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but I'm going to have to look at that and come back to you and find out what it is unless you happen to know Gareth. So I can't speak to the level of chat that's happened with the lost shore council, excuse me. I was out there just the other week actually meeting the developers of lost shore and it's a huge development. And one of the discussions we had was exactly this, which is, unfortunately we've been through this discussion on the Ratho bus connection. And actually when you go out there and you see the size of the development and the, I can, I can speculate the likely use of it down the line. I can pretty much guarantee that the next conversation will be about public transport links. And we've discussed the ICA before. I guess one of the things we do have in the benefit of the dynamic purchasing system that has now been introduced is that there is the term dynamic is for that reason that you can run regular mini competitions and subject to contractors and sees this council could change its, change its plans, particularly if the incumbent contractor on that route is up for variation. So I wouldn't say that this, this ends any opportunity. Clearly the public transport team had to deal with the known issues at that point in time. And we can't guarantee that someone like lost shore would subsidize a route. We don't know what they're if they are tendering, what the size of that operation would be. But I think we're happy to, well, I'm absolutely sure we'll have to take that away and continue discussions with them because I do think it would be a strength or the wider area and acknowledging other points in the business both in that link bridge and the wider development as well. Alongside there, you can see how there would be a kind of hub service that would link that housing development, the lost shore development on the climbing arena potentially. Okay, thank you. So move on to sustainability plan KPI update, then local improvement programme. Councillor Bandel. Thank you. Can I just ask if and when the deadline for LTL proposals was communicated to community councils as it seemed to close quite suddenly. And I know at least one of my community councils had to put in an application very, very quickly, but I feel like other community councils maybe wouldn't have had the time to actually meet before that deadline. So I just wanted to clarify when that was communicated. Thank you. So I'm not entirely sure when it happened. I think it was roughly a couple of weeks over 10 days before the deadline. I mean, the reason for introducing that was to allow the team an opportunity to score and rank the shortlist for consideration committee in August, but if there are community councils or neighbourhood networks, or councillors who have maybe missed that deadline, I think we have a bit of time over the next couple of weeks where we could consider that. So I can get that information for you. Thank you. Pedestrian crossings. Councillor Dix-Downey. Thank you, convener. Yes, I have a question about the prioritisation of these pedestrian crossings, and I was really disappointed to see that the Cracow road crossings that were programmed for the 23/24 year have now not only appeared -- not appeared on the list for 24/25, but are now unprogrammed. So I was just really keen to understand why that's happened given the proximity to the school, the academy, and also it sits between the Bangam estate and the school building. And can you just reassure us that when you're looking at the review that you're talking about in the update, that the school travel plans and school travel in general is going to be taken into account? Because I'm just so disappointed to not see those crossings now on the plan for this year. Thank you. Absolutely, and in terms of the latter question, yes. I mean, our proposals are that as we reconsider how we programme and prioritise pedestrian facilities, that we do that more strategically, so we look at the demand rather than sort of chasing historic survey information from PV squared analysis. So that we look at the demand for schools and our communities around it. So absolutely there are pedestrian crossing frameworks I'm describing that will include that information. I can, off the top of my head, clarify why the crossing that you mentioned is maybe not on the programme, but I can get that information for you. And you'll share that with all the committee, Dave, yeah? Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Councilman Knott. Just following on the back of what my fellow Councillor has said, I was a bit disappointed when reading about the crossings as well, particularly around schools when we're trying to get young people to travel to school by walking, wheeling and cycling. Why these in the tables that we can see are not programmed for delivery. And while my fellow Councillor has mentioned a particular school, there's also another school on there that gets three and a half thousand pupils every day. That's George Watson's College. And at Tipperlyn Road, just at Morningside Place, it is one of the worst junctions in my ward for children to cross. It is horrendous. Traffic is coming from every angle. And parents, local residents of children and other schools travel that way as well. I don't know why that school, along with others, are not given priority because it's really disappointing for the parents and the children who are trying to get to school actively that they don't have a simple zebra crossing. So who decided what was important and what wasn't? And who made the decision that these schools should not have safe crossings as a priority over others? So before I pass that to Councillor Sinclair, I think it was us who decided we'd look at ranking, because we had a recent report where we agreed we'd look at ranking again. And this is a result of that. But we do have to look at anomalies, of course. But I think it was us that agreed that the PB Squad was no longer fit for purpose. Sir Dave Sinclair. Thank you, Convenor. So I think first of all, the crossing on Tipperlyn Road is in the delivery programme for this year. So that's a zebra crossing on Tipperlyn Road. And I think it's included in the - well, I know for sure it's included in the programme that we discussed in April. Like many of these crossings, unfortunately, I think we may need to go through the traffic order process because we're potentially changing the parking bays, et cetera, in the area. And that adds on a bit of time. So I think that's the good news story. I think in the past, this list is not a ranked list. What we're describing here is in the past, I think there was a bit of a chronological kind of process in terms of pedestrian crossing delivery. Now, it's worthwhile noting as well that from the output from school travel plans and discussion with school communities is and can be slightly separate to this or has been in the past. So where our school pedestrian crossing programme sits maybe slightly separately to school travel plan infrastructure programme. So as part of the work that we're doing, and it is to understand demand. As I described before, it's to think about where is the demand and not chase survey results to a certain degree. I think survey results are important. They inform where demand is, but I think in terms of as officers, the purpose of the review that we're undertaking this summer is to, I suppose, plot out in a spatial form work where we have infrastructure, where we have survey results and where we know there's unmet demand so we can approach this more practically. And I think as I've described, there are, I think there's about 90 odd crossings within the existing list is to consider how we approach the delivery of those, how we fund that, and is there opportunities to deliver some of these schemes in partnership with colleagues through our TCD transport capital works or other development works. It's a strength approach. So how we deliver this in a more strategic context. So Councillor Munro, it's number six on the list. It's right on the page break. So that takes us on to the first fear review. Happy with that. Roseburn to Union Canal. Councillor Bandel, then Councillor Aston. Thank you. I have two questions maybe. First of all, can I just seek some clarity on what are the barriers to implementing temporary measures like build outs or temporary cycle lane under, for example, a TTRO under safety grounds. And then my next question would be two years are a pretty long time. So can the section be prioritised within the fountain bridge Dundee Street project so that it's delivered as early as possible? Thank you. Are you going to do that, Andrew? Yes. Thanks, convener. And thank you, Councillor. As it says in the business bulletin, effectively, there are facilities there that have been operating as part of the travelling safely scheme for probably upwards of two years now. And I'm not aware of any concerns being raised about those facilities at the moment. To deliver the element of the fountain bridge permanent scheme involves changing the road width. It involves putting a two way cycle way on the north side of Dundee Street between Telfer subway and Gibson Terrace. It involves signalising the whole of Gibson Terrace. It involves removing existing pedestrian crossing 50 metres up the road from Gibson Terrace. So it's not just a matter of saying we could put a few cones in and put a temporary pedestrian crossing across the road at Gibson Terrace. It's considerably more complex than that. Not to mention the fact that temporary pedestrian crossings cost a considerable amount of money to hire, maintain and operate. So our feeling is effectively there is a safe facility there, which has been operating satisfactorily for a couple of years. Yes, it's not to the standard we would build as part of a permanent scheme, which is obviously what we're aiming to do with the fountain bridge scheme. But to try and put in something temporary would involve a great deal of complexity and expense. TTROs only have limited uses. A danger to the public is one of those uses, but it's one that is legal advice we should only use very sparingly. It's more used for things like unsafe buildings at the back of the footway that where things could fall off the building or roads that have had a land slip on them and could have further collapse. The only sort of equivalent I can think of in recent years we've used that was at the junction at Kings Road where we had two fatalities. Obviously we have nothing of that sort in Fountain Bridge to justify the use of a TTRO on grounds of danger to the public. >> Thanks. I want to pick up on what Andrew was saying about the current arrangement, while not being ideal, being kind of adequate. Because the highway code states do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. What the business bulletin says is that we are asking unconfident cyclists to travel about 100 metres along a busy road where part of it is unsegregated. And if you are coming from the canal towards the Telfer subway, that means going across a flared opening at the quick fit garage there. And then if my reading of the highway code is correct, we are asking them to perform an illegal manoeuvre. So I am just wondering, I guess I am pressing you a bit on your answer to Councillor Bandel there about the current arrangements being adequate. >> Thanks. Sorry, you coming in there? You want to respond to that, Andrew? >> Yes, I would be quite happy to respond to that. I mean, yes, the Councillor is right that you should not cycle across a pedestrian crossing. However, as a temporary measure, obviously a cyclist can stop, dismount and use the pedestrian crossing. >> Councillor Neill. Thank you. This is a bit of a downer of a question, but I understand there has been a lot of funding uncertainty which has delayed other projects. Is it expected that this would also affect the delay? I think it is the mid 2020/60 for this project. If you could speak about that, that would be really great. >> I am quite happy to take that. On the grounds that it is not a question I can give a definite answer to. Effectively, what we have got now is we are bringing a review of the ATEMP as a whole to committee in the autumn which will look at obviously existing projects and potentially new projects to add to the programme to replace those that have been delivered in recent years. Funding going forward is a bit uncertain because we have gone from an environment where certainly for bigger projects with multiyear funding agreements to a situation where one, our main source of external funding being Transport Scotland is all now single year funding, which means we can look with a fair degree of certainty what funding we will have for the next year, but beyond that, we have no certainty. Also, the wider picture is Edinburgh has been extremely successful in the past at attracting Transport Scotland external funding because we have largely been ahead of the game compared to most other local authorities in the country. Other local authorities are now catching up because they are more geared up now for active travel so the environment for bidding for Transport Scotland funding is becoming more competitive. Until we submit bids and get outcomes back from Transport Scotland, it is really difficult for us to know how much funding we will get next year and how much funding we will get the year after that. We can't really even just project on what we got in the past because we don't know if that is even a relevant competitor going forward. That uncertainty applies across the programme not just to the scheme. Councillor Neill, if I can just come in on that as well. I think one of the key priorities right now is to try to establish some certainty around funding stream in the short to medium term. That is across the programme of delivery. I am working on a number of different strands to that and seeking meetings with funding partners and also to consider how we can best use and prioritise the funding that we do have and how we take forward projects in an uncertain funding environment. We will be coming back with an update on that and probably some suggestions for prioritisation as we go forward. Thank you, that context is helpful. If there are no further questions on that, we can move on to the best value review, waste and cleansing. Any questions on that? Thanks, convener. I just wanted to ask about the anticipated £1 million saving. I can roughly understand most of it down to the final part that accounts for £237,000, the wider efficiency contribution from waste collection and cleansing. Can you explain what that is, please? We have modelled achieving that on communal glass collections. In this financial year, we are receiving more income for glass than we did the year before last. We are getting roughly around another, in percentage terms, probably another 75 per tonne than we were previously receiving. Slightly linked to my response with regard to communal bin hubs, we do see the opportunity to change our servicing frequency as providing the other element of that saving. That is linked around communal glass collections. OK, if we have no further questions on the business bulletin, I think that brings considerations that I have at the end. I think we have an amendment, so I am happy to move the business bulletin. I will second it. Councillor Wight. Thank you, convener. As you might imagine, the amendment has been inspired by Councillor Bruce to some extent, because it is all in the Pentland Hills ward. We seem to be spending money procuring a bus service for Ratho. That is something that people there really want and really need. It meets most of their needs, although, as the business bulletin indicates, not all. But it also seems that we have a bit of a lost opportunity, because this bridge over the Union Canal was to link further places to the bus service and each other for pedestrians. And we do have some money there, as I understand it. There are developer contributions, there is other money available, but not enough, it seems, to carry that through. So it is really to get a report back to this committee about that, to ask what the shortfall is and see whether anything could be done to put it in place. Thanks, convener. Councillor Munro. I will second that. Thank you, convener. OK, thanks for bringing this forward, Councillor Roy. I think it is worth us learning more about it. I was hopeful that we could do this via a business bulletin update in the first instance, rather than bringing the report to the committee. I am happy with the concept of that. I suppose the issue would come if there were anything that required a decision from us, and presumably officers would then elevate it to a report at that stage. Agreed, agreed. I think with that amendment, Rachel, I think we are agreed, thank you. Section 7 is executive reports. Section 7.1 is the petition for an exemption to the pavement parking ban in Bangholm Street. There is an SNP group addendum circulated to this. We also have Lindsay McKenna, Richard Stewart and Bill Stronach here if you want to come forward, please. Welcome, all. You have been very patient waiting there. I hope there has been an education for you. Don't laugh too much. So five minutes begins. Thank you. By way of introduction, I am Richard, I am joined by Lindsay and Bill. We all live either in the Bangholm streets or immediately adjacent to them. We have a small number of slides here if anyone is interested. That includes a map of the streets in question so I can have those passed along if anyone is interested or if they are available afterwards. We are here specifically to talk about the impact of the pavement parking ban on four streets, Bangholm Avenue, Bangholm Road, Bangholm Park and Bangholm Place. We and our neighbours both in the Bangholm and in Clark Avenue believe there is a necessary and a reasonable case for the Bangholms to be granted an exemption to the pavement parking ban. We want to go through the reasons for that and also to set out the impact the ban is having on the community. The first and fundamental reason is that the roads in the Bangholms are unusually narrow so all four streets are 3.6 metres wide which is our measurement taken from the Footway Parking Report that was prepared for the council in 2022. Just by way of easy comparison, Clark Avenue where there is not a problem with pavement parking is roughly 8 metres wide and Clark Road that supports buses is 10 metres wide so we are talking less than half the width of the average road in Edinburgh. By way of comparison, a Ford Focus is 1.8 metres wide. Before the ban residents parked two wheels on one pavement so the opposite pavement could be left unobstructed end to end for pedestrians and wheeling use. That also allowed safe passage of vehicles up and down the road. Since the ban has taken effect residents have complied with it but this means that traffic is required to mount the pavement as cars are parked four wheeled on the road and the width does not allow, it would only allow the narrowest of narrow cars to pass by one another and does not allow ordinary sized family vehicles. I would just stress we are not happy about having to do this but we have little choice as there are no real alternative parking options nearby which we will come on to just now. The 45 hours in the bangams do not have alternative roads nearby to safely park so to the north of the bangams we have the cycle path, to the east we have Clark Avenue that has a capacity with its own residents. Using it to the south we have Ferry Road that has very limited parking and that's not, it's a very busy road, it's not a safe option for residents particularly those who are elderly with young children, members of the wheeling community and those who have other physical impairments who cannot walk streets away to get to their vehicles. Clark Road finally is a busy road with commuter parking Monday to Friday and is a bus route so we do not have reasonable options round about and as a result residents are forced to park in the streets around their homes but in a manner that complies with the ban but introduces an unsafe outcome. It's also for this reason that the residents would be very strongly against any double yellows being put through these streets as we do not have somewhere nearby to go to. I think lastly I would just like to focus on our understanding of the intention as to why the ban was put in, came into effect and then the impact it's having so as we understand it the parking ban was introduced to create a more equal city and we fully support this, we fully support the wider ban and we fully support the intention that it's after. Unfortunately it has delivered a less equal and an unsafe environment in the bangams. Prior to the ban it was considered a fairly safe place for children to play and for community use, a good example of place making in action. Following the ban however this is really not the case, I can only personally speak to what I've seen, I have seen my 15 kilogram four year old come face to face with a 1300 kilogram Volkswagen Golf on the pavement on the way to nursery. And to quote her literally this morning, and I did not prompt her to say this, cars driving the roads, people walking the pavements was a passing comment she came out with just this morning for reasons I can't really understand to be honest, but again for children they don't understand what's happening here. Cars, vans and lorries are passing within centimetres of gates leading to properties and the residents of those properties should not have to be concerned about the risk to themselves, their children, their children, so it's not an equal outcome for residents and it's not a safe outcome for everybody, residents, visitors. We're also aware of instances of taxis, delivery companies and ambulances being unwilling to drive within the bangams which puts the residents at further risk of unequal treatment and a further impact to the ban. Now being practical and short of spending a huge amount of money we need to work with what we have and with a road that's only 3.6 metres wide in our view that means an exemption is a reasonable option to be considered. In our view that would allow for two-wheeled parking on one pavement leaving the opposite pavement entirely free for pedestrian and wheeling use and that would allow cars to safely move between the two thereby greatly reducing the risk. This would be in everybody's interests, it's the safest situation for all and creates as equal a situation as we can achieve with what we have. So just in summary it's having an unintended and disproportionate impact on the residents and the users of the streets. The Clark Avenue residents use the bangam roads to get to their road that is the only vehicular access to Clark Avenue so it does although they are not looking for an exemption for Clark Avenue that is the reason why Clark Avenue is involved in this and it's their petition that's in the pack that you have before you. There was an existing recommendation from the from or brought to the council in the 2022 footway parking report which is at section 3730 which recommended an exemption under the pavement parking ban for these streets I think it's called cluster one in ward four. We think that an exemption being granted would be based on the uniquely narrow nature and location of the streets which would be a justifiable defence if there's an argument about precedent being set by an exemption being granted here and overall an exemption would create a more equal and safe environment for residents and visitors to the bangams. So we just like to thank you all for your time today so far and also particular thanks to Councillor Dalbine, Dixler Downie and also Councillor Arthur who've at some stage given up some or a lot of their time to come and see the situation and discuss it. Thank you. Thank you and thank you for the points you've made. Do we have any questions for the petitioners? Councillor Dalbine. I just wonder if you could you you talked about particularly about safety and larger vehicles and ambulances I just wonder if you could expand a bit upon that and also you you touched on the residents of Clark Avenue and suggested that they have to use the bangams to access Clark Avenue. Can you just expand on that as well please? Yeah so certainly on your first question around larger vehicles so before the ban when there was two wheels on the pavement bin lorries, emergency services I think only the largest of removal lorries had to mount the kerb. Everything else could get passed on the road. The bin lorries do appear to be operating. I have seen ambulances make their way down the road but we are aware of instances where apparently ambulances I think when the bins are out as well and then there's cars parked we have there are instances where we've been told that either larger vehicles and including ambulances have been unable to get down. The residents are driving slowly because they're obviously aware of the significant risk but the delivery vans in particular go down the street pretty fast on the pavement and we're talking this far from someone's gate and all it and there's high hedgerows and children in those houses so they step out. The obvious is there. In terms of the Clark Avenue access there's a map in this pack if anyone for ease of understanding but Clark Avenue is a one-way exit onto ferry road. The only entrance into fit into Clark Avenue is down bangam road and bangam avenue so they are the main users of the roads beyond the bangam residents themselves and the residents of Clark Avenue are driving very slowly and the petition that Lindsay carried out for the Clark Avenue residents showed not unanimous but overwhelming support. I think it was 35 of the 40 households contacted supported an exemption. We did a similar petition in the bangams that didn't quite meet the threshold of 50 signatures. I'm told that you need to get in the pack here but of the 40 households contacted there 35 were in support of an exemption so again there's overwhelming support within the bangams and Clark Avenue for an exemption because I think everyone recognises the dangerous situation that exists. So Councillor Neill has a question, I'll go to Councillor Munro. You've outlined that you want an exemption and I think I understand that but you've also detailed how right now vehicles are, quite large vehicles are driving on the footpath because of the way people are parked. You've said that because of the way people are currently parked an ambulance struggled to get down the street. So the question is I get that you want an exemption and we'll talk about that in a minute or two but why are people in your street parking in such a way that is blocked an ambulance? I find that absolutely incredible. So I think the people are trying to mitigate that as best they can so bangam place which is one of the four roads is not a through road and people are putting their cars onto there but there's only so much capacity in bangam place. People are also installing their own driveways which has its own knock-on impact on biodiversity and drainage so six of the 45 households have done that in the last few months that's about 10% so there is going to be a knock-on impact there on drainage and the local community but that's not an option that's necessarily affordable or desirable for everybody. And then the final and probably the most important point is there isn't really a local alternative so Clark Avenue is at capacity with its own residents. Clark Road is a busy road Monday to Friday so you can't get a space up there and then you've got Ferry Road to the south where what limited parking there is there is already taken up. There are separate stuff on the other side there will be camper vans but that's probably a much bigger topic of conversation. So I think people do not want to but people have parked on these roads albeit two wheels on the curb for decades and I think people are no one is expecting to park outside their house but I think people particularly the elderly residents and those who can't get about or those with young children are looking to park nearby but nobody is happy with the impact of people driving on the curb because that's being recognised as much more dangerous than parking on the curb where at least vehicles are stationary. I think it's also the size of the area that would need double yellow lines it's not just one street but it's a series of four streets each of which are about 200 metres long so the residents would not be able to park even near their houses especially if there was no parking available in Clark Avenue as there isn't in the evenings nor on Clark Road during the day because of the commuter cars. Councillor O'Neill. Thank you Kambina and thank you very much for the vote coming in today. I visited a couple of nights ago and being in a wheelchair I completely it was I've never felt more unsafe I think in the ward. I was shouted at until they got just to go on the road instead of squeezing past a car and that's something that Citywide has had a really positive effect but obviously this is not seem doesn't seem to be working here there's no doubt that something's going to have to give so my question is does the community so weird I'm supportive of it coming back to a report and looking into this absolutely does the community have specific paths or roads they're willing to give up or is that something that you still need to discuss with officers and would you expect the council to do extra enforcement and yet could you just tell me about the vision of what that would look like in your eyes thanks. Yeah thank you. So in terms of give up I'm not sure there is in terms of the capacity there's a possibility of bangham place maybe if people were able to park and bangham road and bangham avenue because the cars would come out of there but there isn't a huge amount of capacity I think everyone is quite happy that people double yellow the corners because the roads are so narrow and nobody previously parked in the corner so I think that was previous suggestion from council officers was just to put double yellows just on the corners. In terms of how we potentially see this working we had envisioned so this area is not permitted for parking so we had we had envisioned this might be first of all funded for three parking permit income but then also controlled so that it's bangham residents and visitors because obviously people may have people family visiting and also trades, trades persons who are coming to do work in houses who need to be near houses so they can't park streets away. We I don't think anyone would have an objection if there was a lower speed limit in place so I think it's currently it'll be 20 currently I don't think anyone has an objection with 10 if that's part of it and in terms of enforcement we've seen officers in the area in the run up to the ban happening I haven't personally seen one since then. Obviously I'm not I'm not asking the council to throw extra resource behind enforcement at the moment the residents are complying and we're not aware of I think well there were two cars parked not in compliance when council arthur was there but they weren't they weren't resident cars they're visitors but the residents are complying which is what where the problems arising from so if it is an exemption limited to residents I think it kind of polices itself the roads are not really an attractive parking option to people who don't live there because they're so narrow and they're also not a through road to anywhere you can't quickly get from ferry road to clark road so it's not really somewhere that someone's driving through you really only are in there to live there or to visit someone who is there okay thank you Councillor Monroe thank you very much for coming along and speaking today I wasn't familiar with the area so I went down and I went down in a very small vehicle a Fiat 500 just to see for myself so the problems raised in this petition have deeply concerning implications so measuring of the width of the carriageways available on the bangham roads when I was there reveals that even on the widest of them in the little Fiat 500 I was in if two Fiat 500s were parked adjacently on either side of the road only 76 centimetres of carriageway would remain open so I was thinking these conditions obviously present a severe inconvenience for residents but what worried me more frighteningly they would also prevent the use of the road by emergency vehicles and that's what's coming out with what we've heard today so just for clarification can I ask you so I'm clear that the residents are suggesting that what they see is a positive outcome and one that everybody would be happy with is exempting pavement parking on one side of each street and from what I can gather this would leave one pavement completely unimpeded but also improve carriageway availability basically in a nutshell is that what you want yes and so just to go back to Councillor Neill's question about how we would go about this I don't think anyone has a problem with double yellows being painted on that clear side to enforce the fact that you can park two on one side and that's how it used to be and that allowed emergency vehicles to get past no problem because agreed at the moment they are getting through but they're having to mount the curb but that your understanding is correct it would be two wheels on one pavement which we acknowledge would mean that pavement then becomes a less equal area for all to use but the opposite pavement would be clear end to end and if that also involved double yellows down that side to make it 100% clear to everyone that's the plan then no one would have an objection to that it's it's it's what happens before the pavement parking by the residents managed it themselves perfectly well for 50 60 years and we don't park in front of people's gates we don't park in front of uh driveways we don't park on the corners it was always um it was it was a common sense solution to an issue um and like we said before if if we had if we had a return an exemption and a return to two wheels on one side double yellows on the other then we'd be back to what we had before the pavement parking ban and the carriageway would be free to use for smaller and larger vehicles I also think a 10 mile an hour limit would further enhance the safety of the area so so on google earth you can see how it looked before you know before the ban came in and what you have is where the vehicles are parked in the footpath quite often well based on looking at google earth there's no space to move between the vehicle and the hedge or the wall or whatever particularly if you're pushing a buggy or you're in a wheelchair and I just wondered why you thought that was acceptable well I think the the issue is it was acceptable because all the residents accepted it you know it was a common sense solution there was always one in a very narrow street there's always one pavement completely free for residents to use and actually what you find is because they're very quiet suburban streets the majority of people that walk up and down the street actually walk up and down the road and that's what normally happens now I'm not saying people should be walking up and down the road but there was always a free pavement for people to walk up and down and the residents can always I mean if anybody didn't did park on the wrong side they were always it was always reinforced to them that there's only one side of the street to park on the footway parking report also recommends a yellow sorry a white line is painted down and one of the pavements to indicate how far onto the pavement you may park which would leave space between the car and the hedge or whatever. So I think I've got Councillor Bandel then Councillor Lange. Yeah I mean that just reminded me I guess what do you do if you have a wheelchair user who can't just you know go into the road or something like that or then needs to go to the other side where the cars are parked how do you how can they access if someone is in one of those residences becomes disabled and has to use a wheelchair or someone is visiting them how are they how are they getting access to these places because I yeah that's what I'm concerned about. They would just they would just cross the road and if we had double yellows on the corner that allows you know a clear sight of what's coming around the corner they're very very narrow streets there's very very little traffic on the streets at all it's not used for through traffic at all so anybody accessing the area is only there because their residence. Apologies Councillor Lange it's Councillor Dix-Ladoni then yourself. Is that me now? Yeah oh thank you very much. Thank you thanks for coming today and for all the conversations that we've had over the last few months. So my question is if an exemption is not possible what is the next best thing for you to improve pedestrian safety which i think is what ultimately you're here to ask about? So I think that's a question I don't think we feel empowered to answer on behalf of the residents because we know and we've been to a number of Trinity Community Council meetings where the chair of the committee asked that question and whilst there is a sizeable majority in favour of exemption you start to see a divergence between the residents as to whether they want the status quo to continue which is dangerous and unsafe or those who are would would would favour double yellows but then you start raising questions about well where do the cars go that's fine for someone who's in their 30s who's who's able to get around but what about my elderly neighbours are they going to walk streets away in December to get to their car so I think there would be other I think that would have to be a much wider conversation within the community because I don't think at the moment we got a very strong in favour of the exemption I think if you went background and knocked the doors and asked everyone do you fancy double yellows everywhere you would start to see a much different reaction. Councillor Lai. Thank you I know that Bangam is actually very well but handily I think as mentioned before Google maps all their imageries from before the bans you can actually see what it was like before and I think it is fair to say that the footways on which vehicles were being parked would not be usable for people who are have mobility issues buggies and prams I'm looking at them you can't use them you can't use them and so my question is if you're effectively saying that you want to return to a situation whereby these footways cannot be used by vulnerable users would a simpler answer I'm not suggesting this is what I would be in favour of but would a simpler answer not be to simply re-determine that footway as road space? Sorry can I just so I'm understanding you correctly Councillor are you saying you would remove the pavement so that the cars would park on the road leaving road so I'm not sure what you mean by re-determine sorry. So re-determination is when you change footway into road or you change road to footway my point is that if what you're suggesting is that the practical consequence is that these footways cannot be used is the simpler thing not to simply re-determine that footway as road. So I think he's not meaning physically he means in terms of how it's dealt with on the Council's database. I maybe I may be talking physically all right okay sorry. So I don't I think in terms of non-physical re-determination then I think that would ultimately take us back to where we were before I think if I'm following the logic and I agree I pushed a pram around these streets for 60 years you could not get a pram or a wheelchair or anything wider than a person in single file down the road when you parked on it obviously that is not ideal but the roads 3.6 meters wide and we can't magically make it wider than that I think if we were to re-determine one of the pavements that therefore allowed parking on again I think I'm following this right then that would be a potential solution I think you are presumably that avoids you giving an exemption to the band because you've re-determined the pavement instead so it's a different way of achieving the same end result I think yeah. Special Councillor Lange, do you have any further questions? Okay so if the committee doesn't mind I think we're almost at two hours now so I think we'll have a short break and then we'll come back to come back at noon to consider the report formally and then we can get as much the agenda in as possible is that acceptable to people? Welcome back so I think we can now consider the report Rachel. Yes thank you so the report is by the Executive Director of Corporate Services just setting out the petition which is attached at appendix one and there's an SMP group addendum. So do we have any questions for council officers on this report? Councillor Munro. Thank you very much Confino and I would just like to thank officers for the report and given of what we've just heard from the deputations can I ask would officers be willing to undertake to perform a study of whether and where the ban on pavement parking may have inadvertently produced such a reduction in carriageway that roads have become impassable to emergency vehicles in order that remedial action might be taken before lives are endangered and also could officers reveal whether they have conducted stakeholder consultations with each of the emergency services on the above matter and if so what is their status and if not why not thank you. So Councillor Munro before I pass over to Mr Brown to answer that it's important to remember that when you park your car you should never do it in a way that blocks the road to vehicles particularly emergency vehicles and that was true before the ban came into force and also after it. Now Mr Brown I think he's going to tell us that he's going to bring a report in August which covers I think the seven streets where issues remain out of the 5,000 or so where this ban has been implemented. Gavin hopefully I've not spoiled your line there. Thanks very much Convenor yes you've stolen my line so Councillor Munro just to add to what the convener said yeah that will all be covered in the report that we're bringing to the August committee where we'll address any streets that we still consider to be problematic in regards to fruit way parking and just to assure you yes we have been engaging with the emergency services and the public transport providers throughout the process and that will be reflected in the report as well. Thank you very much I appreciate that and Convenor I'm well aware of the implications for not only the residents but for drivers and with regards to the safety of vehicles. Do we have any other questions on this? Okay so if you don't mind I think we're all going to support Councillor Aston's amendment is that correct? So what I'll do if you don't mind I'll just let you move the report and then we can along with your amendment. Okay I wasn't expecting that yeah clearly it's a very difficult situation for folk living in these streets officers will need to look at this specific situation here and bring forward hopefully more than one option in terms of my amendment my addendum which I'm moving you know clearly the whole point of this policy is to ensure that things are safer for people who are walking around or wheeling and ensuring that footpaths are clear. So I think it's important that we recognise that that remains the priority in the context of looking at solutions for these streets in Bangam. Kavina you've said that when the for the report comes back it's going to cover the second point about streets where there are still issues outstanding I was very surprised I have to say to hear Gavin say that there are only seven streets I can think of at least five off the top of my head in my own ward in Lock End in New Creek Hall in Boswell the Bangam streets of course as well and I think in Clermaston too so you know that it will be interesting to see that list when it when it comes back but we can we can we can save that that conversation for after recess but I'm happy to move the report alongside my addendum. I'm impressed as I am with my colleagues knowledge of the streetscape of Edinburgh and acknowledging the interesting rejection from Councillor Lange I'm happy to second the amendment thank you. Do we have any further contributions we just have to approve this. I'm happy to approve it Kavina I'm very happy with Councillor Aston's amendment I mean normally on these petitions we have three things we can call for a report or we can say no action or we can take some specific action I would have called for a report anyway we don't have to put that forward I suppose the one thing I would say to officers listening when we get that report I hope they will consult with the residents about what's possible I heard what you had to say convener about nobody should park in a way that blocks emergency vehicles and I understand and agree with that but I think the issue here is that potentially if you go down that line with these particular streets you mean you're talking about double yellows both sides and nobody parking in the whole area which I think would cause great inconvenience to residents so let's hope there's some local discussion and find ways around this as I hope there will be in all the other areas that Councillor Aston has mentioned including in our ward but also in other parts of the city. So that's a fair point Councillor Wright and of course what we have fundamentally with this situation what we have to balance is the convenience of residents and people to park nearer to their home perhaps right outside it with the safety of people who are using the footpaths and that's what we'll have to try and balance here. I think we're agreed. Okay agreed thank you. So just to let the petitioners know that we'll come back in August and no doubt we'll see you at that point again you'd be very welcome to come back thank you. Item 7.2 is the report on the review of parking and loading within Elmore and Southing area. There is an SMP group addendum, Liberal Democrat addendum and a Green group amendments and Robert Armstrong will speak to the report. Hi everyone I think we've met quite a bit this week in terms of the report itself obviously I'm aware that it's been lacking a bit of detail in terms of what's actually going to be happening on the ground but obviously the report goes into a bit of detail about the proposed changes to Elmore to help increase pedestrian safety especially in and amongst the bus stop and also looking at the issues that we've come across at Brunswick Street and taking a more holistic view to the overall area in itself so happy to take questions on this. Sorry can I just come in as well there's a typing error in the report that I just want to pick up which is in the finance section and I'm afraid to say that it's stated to be five hundred and fifty thousand in fact the cost for the project is estimated in the region of two hundred and fifty thousand. Okay corrections like that are always welcome I think. So Councillor Bandel, Councillor Aston and then Councillor Monroe. Thank you very much for a report and we've talked before but just for the benefit of the public could you maybe explain in a little bit more detail how the changes at Elmore are going to benefit people who walk wheel and cycle. Thank you. Yeah of course yeah so what we're what we're proposing to do is to widen the pedestrian bus stop area so flipping the cycle way onto the other side of the trees this will reduce the amount of parking in this section here. We're reducing that from I think it was sixteen down to eight parking bays will retain the two disabled parking bays that are in here. But also as part of this look at creating a loading loading only time within those parking bays itself to help the businesses and the residents which have obviously came to us quite a bit in here as well. The cycle itself will then increase from the one point five which is currently there and we'll be looking to install a bi-directional cycle way which is three metres in width as part of these works we're also looking at additional soft landscaping which I'm aware has been raised quite a bit in here as well. So specifically the area outside the cafe to the south of Elmore. There's obviously a bit of a pedestrian way which they've obviously created on the on the soft landscaping there as well. So there's a bit of work that will be going into this as well. Just the last time. Yeah. Thanks convener and thanks Robert for the opportunity to have a chat beforehand and actually that that chat was really helpful and and getting to grips with exactly what this would mean. And I as I said to you I think it would have been helpful actually to have included those slides which had been shared with the ward councillors within the report and we had some concerns about the visualizations been a bit quick and dirty but I actually find them really really helpful. I just wanted to follow up on Hannah's point about the typo in relation to the to the costs because that was something I queried with with Robert and it was picked up on but because of course the 550 figure would then have about 300 grand of interest on on top of it. I'm obviously pleased to hear it's more like 250. What would what would the interest costs be on on that. Just wondering if you could talk us through that. Yes so against the principle of 250,000 the interest is 159,000 over the 20 year period. So it's total 409,000 with an annual charge of 20,000. Thank you very much and thank you very much for the report which which I read with interest although I think it was vague as to the nature of the problems presently faced by residents and businesses. I just want to say that and I also want to see the Edinburgh Conservatives raised so many of these issues before this even came about. So it's interesting that we along with businesses and local residents and we're in agreement so it is stated in the report that it's intended to introduce a TRO to allow for more loading areas to be provided on Leith Walk and Elm Row and Brunswick Street. So at present there's only one loading bay from what I can see on each side of Leith Walk to service the multitude of businesses and residents on that 200 metre stretch of the road between Elm Row and Brunswick Street. So the adequacy of this arrangement, I think it is quite plain to see. So while it's very much welcome the officers are taking steps to provide a remedy. Unfortunately from the report little information has been provided in the report as to the degree to which access to loading areas might be improved. So what I'm asking is could officers please provide the committee today with a more specific impression of the degree to which they intend to improve this provision please. Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah. So what we're looking at is increased loading on Leith Walk itself. So outside in particular from Packinsend up past Garland's, which I know is one of the issues that has been raised to us, especially from the Wellam Association. The vehicles that have been coming into Windsor Street and Montgomery Street have obviously been far too large for that area in itself. The reopening of the left-hand turn at Brunswick Street is to help vehicles access that area as well because obviously introducing loading on Leith Walk would be of no use if Brunswick Street was still fully closed off. People can't access it. We'd be forcing them down Brunswick Road, which is obviously a street that's got a school on it as well. So what we're looking at introducing is the loading itself on street loading outside Packinsend, Garland's. Similar situation to what's outside Magnet and Tesco just a little bit further down Leith Walk. Obviously the loading which will be on Elm Row itself, which will be timed loading bays to make sure that those are available for the likes of Joseph Pierce, Jeremiah's, the piano shop and things like that as well. And then as part of these works, we will be looking at a little bit of a redesign in terms of the Brunswick Street area and what needs to be done in there. Is there a possibility for further loading bays that can be included in the part of Brunswick Street as well? And then obviously, again, more finishing works rather than actually as part of anything new, but reintroducing the yellow lines, double yellow lines on Montgomery Street, the bollards to prevent the illegal movements that were coming across there as well. And again, really just tidying up the area and taking that holistic view to the likes of Windsor Street, Montgomery Street, Brunswick Street, Leith Walk. We are aware that that one section there was very light on loading in terms of especially the businesses that were there. So this is what we're trying to address with this. After that tour of Leith Walk businesses there Robert, do we have any other questions? Yes. I'm really glad to see that we're finding solutions to this. And thanks for the report. I suppose even with the reduced costs, what is going through my head is that we're trying to correct something and I still haven't quite understood why we got it so not right in the planning. And is that something that we know why that happened or is it just because the way that the whole plan evolved as it went on? Because I think I do recall people pointing out the things like the bus stops and the bus shelters were always going to be really difficult there right from before they were there. So, you know, I'm just trying to work out why we're having to spend quite a fair bit of money. If you understand what I mean. I'm kind of I am looking back and I'm forgetting that this is a transport environment and not GRBB and sort of looking at that. But I'm just trying to understand that. Yeah, of course. Yeah. So I think two, two years ago, two and a half years ago, it was this one was raised to us, especially by New Town and Broughton Community Council, as well as the businesses and the Wellness Association, which I don't think was formed quite at that time. So they came to us with an issue in amongst the sort of especially relating to the bus stops themselves and how that cycle way was split at Elm Row. We took that back into the project from Trams to New Haven. And at the time, whilst we looked at that to make those changes, obviously, as part of the contract, the contract was going to have to halt the works that we're carrying out there, which would have come at a cost. Plus the design work that would have went into that and the design changes, then the construction. I think it was amounting to I can't remember the exact figures, but it was it was something that we weren't obviously looking at doing at that point. What we made a commitment to do was to come back and revisit that at a later date when it would be more financially suitable and obviously cheaper for us to carry out those works. We are obviously really aware of the fact that Elm Row, especially up and down the whole route, have obviously been affected by the tram works for, well, the longest compared to the rest of Leith Walk as well. So we are making sure that we try to minimize disruption as much as we possibly can whilst also being aware of the issues that they are all facing there and trying to make the situation as well viable for everyone as best as we possibly can. And then, sorry, just to touch on Brunswick as well, that was obviously a continuous footway when it was first implemented. When as soon as it opened, we then obviously seen the issues which I think Councillor Monroe raised earlier sort of thing was the fact that this was brought to our attention with that rat run right the way through there. So we came in, we closed it off, we made it safe. And from then we've been sort of going away working to see what we can do to, again, make this a little bit more safer for pedestrians and businesses in among the area. Councillor Wright. Yeah, thanks. I suppose it's a bit of a follow up to Councillor Finchendo's question, and that's really about how we ended up having the design signed off in the first place. The first time I got off a bus at Elm Row to change buses between the two bus stops there after the new design had been opened, it was very clear to me instantly that it was really quite dangerous. I was standing at the upper bus stop with cyclists coming downhill really quite fast and seeing older pedestrians at the lower bus stop looking down the way, not up because their bus was coming up the hill, and then moving across in front of cyclists who were going really quite fast. So the whole design was really flawed. So I suppose the thing is how do we get our design processes better, and how did we manage to sign off something that essentially looked to me dangerous from first viewing, such that we don't have these costly mistakes in future, because we've got not an awful lot of other projects ongoing. So Councillor Wright, my recollection is, and your memory is always pretty good on this stuff as well I know, is that we originally didn't have a cycleway on that side of the street, because it was actually going, there was a bidirectional cycleway on the other side of Leith Walk. This was one of the changes that was made in the later stages of detailed design development, because of a desire to provide connectivity with other cyclists who were maybe coming in and out of London Road for example. And I think that is something that we need to consider as we move forward, is when we're going out with initial designs for big interventions like this, we know that we have to look building line to building line, and I suppose maybe stick to what we've originally got in for the benefit of all road users. Sorry, I was going to ask about Brunswick Street, and we closed it to make it safe, because of overrunning and the issues with pedestrian safety, and I have concerns about how sure we can be that if we reopen it, that these issues won't return. Yeah, the biggest issue that we had at Brunswick Street was obviously the rat run coming from Macdonald Road, and looking to access London Road, and obviously there was a bit of that came from the fact that Albert Street was closed at the time due to the Scottish Water Works. And then obviously the London Road left hand turn was closed off as well. We are now reintroducing that, and Albert Street has reopened as well, but we're still banning the left hand turn into Brunswick Street which was where the majority of the vehicles were coming from. We're looking at a one way out, but as part of that design, we will be, sorry, words just disappeared there, we will be reducing the width of the carriageway there itself. The continuous footway will remain, but we'll be designing it in a way that is almost impossible to make that left hand turn in, to make sure that we're not having that issue going forward as well. Thanks. Good. So no further questions. So I'm happy to move the report. I think as some people have discussed, this is probably not a good place for us to be in. In a lot of ways it should be really controversial that we're going to undo work which has only very recently been completed, but I think one of the first meetings I had when I became convener a couple of years ago was looking at this, and at that time this wasn't actually built. But yet there seemed to be a broad agreement that once it was built, it was going to be changed, and I think I was actually looking at the webcast this morning on the bus on the way in here from April 2022 from the predecessor committee, and there seemed to be acceptance then that this work was going to get done, and there was a likelihood it was going to get changed. So I do agree with people who say that, you know, lessons have to be learned, etc. But I think what's important here is we are working with local community and businesses to make this happen. And I think everyone, I think right around this table and I think in the community think this is a step in the right direction in terms of both supporting the businesses in the community, but also I think importantly for me, protecting the safety of people accessing the buses, services, those stops. So with that I'm happy to move the report. Council Fajenda? I formally second. Okay, and then I have an addendum from Councillor Aston. Yeah, thanks convener. So, I have a lot of sympathy with what Councillor Bandel and Councillor O'Neill are putting forward, and I share a lot of the concerns that they have in doing so. I think it was just after I became a member of this committee, the tram works were starting to disappear from the top end of Leith Walk, and moving down the side streets gradually were opening up again. And it felt for a period like every time a new side street opened, there were new issues emerging as a result of that reopening, particularly with car conflict, with pedestrians at the continuous footways and so on. As I said, I was very grateful to Robert for taking the time to talk to me about this. We're adopting a slightly different way of tackling these concerns in terms of ensuring that that junction is really looked at very closely after it reopens, after that redesign is done, and none of the work that's going to be done there. My understanding is it's going to prejudice a future decision to, again, close it to vehicle traffic going through. And obviously, with that monitoring, we would like to see steps being taken to ensure that if similar issues do rear their head, despite the steps that Robert and the team are taking, that that junction can again very quickly be closed again. I'm very supportive, as well, of the Lib Dem addendum, which I think addresses some of the further concerns of local residents. I'm happy to move our addendum. Seconded formally. Thank you. Thank you, Kavina. Just very briefly, on Brunswick Street, we agree with the recommendation that Brunswick Street shouldn't reopen from Leith Walk, and I know that my colleague for Leith Walk Ward, Councillor Caldwell, has been very keen to support this recommendation. We do understand that residents are understanding of the need to allow delivery access and for the burden of the loading base to be shared more equally across the area, but that they do have concerns, ongoing concerns about the number of unsafe manoeuvres, whether legal or illegal, that are being performed particularly by delivery vehicles at the end of Leith Walk and of Brunswick Street. And so this is a concern that we share, which is why our amendment asks that as these changes are implemented, that officers identify where possible appropriate measures that improve the safety for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in this street. Thank you. And seconded formally. Thank you, Councillor Lai. Thank you very much. I will keep this brief. We think that doing something about the cyclist-pedestrian conflicts next to the Elmore bus stop is a really positive step, and one I wish we had the space for on other pinch points on Leith Walk. However, we have concerns about Brunswick Street. As the report sets out, the street was closed on the Leith Walk end because of issues with rat running and pedestrian safety, and we're concerned that should it be reopened, some of these issues should return. Maybe not to the same extent as last time, but that pedestrians would nonetheless be less safe than they are now, and I understand that local residents are still a bit divided on whether it should remain opened, whether it should be opened or remain closed. I appreciate that the officer's design and that they are planning and the agenda seek to mitigate these issues, but we think that it would actually just be easier and cheaper as well to achieve better conditions for people who walk, wheel and cycle by just not reopening the road. Thank you. Councillor Neill. Formerly seconded. So I'm obviously happy to move the report, and I'm happy to accept the SMP and Lib Dem addendum. I think I can't accept the greens because I think allowing access onto Leith Walk is a really important part of getting the loading arrangements right, and we've heard about the care and attention that's been invested in making sure pedestrians are kept safe, so I'm quite confident we're going the right direction there. Hopefully we'll all be able to accept that, so the report with the SMP addendum and the Lib Dem addendum but not the green one, Rachel. Thank you. Can I just check with Councillors Astin and Ditradonny if you're happy with that and not push yours separately? Yeah, okay. And Councillor Bandel, do you want to press yours? Yes, please. Thank you. So we have the motion by Councillor Arthur, which is to move the report and incorporating the addenda by the SMP and Lib Dem groups, and the amendment is the amendment by the green group by Councillor Bandel. Could I please have votes for the motion by Councillor Arthur, please? Nine, thank you. And for the amendment by Councillor Bandel, please? Two, thank you. The motion is carried. The next item is 7.3, which is the report on people and place 2024/2025 funding and the cargo bike movement. There is an SMP addendum, which has since been adjusted and circulated to members by email. There is also amendments from liberal Democrat, green group and conservative group and Hannah Ross and Judith Cowie are here for the report. Thank you. I've got nothing to add, but happy to take any questions. I'll start on the right this time. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the report. Before I ask my question, I'd just like to say that if we are seeking to foster active travel communities, I think as a council, we need to fix our potholes first of all, and that's for all road users. My question is the information contained in appendix three detailing the activities of the cargo bike movement doesn't really suggest the population were enthralled by the thought of pedal power revolution and haulage. The number of people buying a cargo bike represented is very low. It's not 0.3% of those engaged with the CBN. So while those who hired a cargo bike, a quarter thought it was worth investing in one permanently, as such, can I ask what evidence officers have that the council might achieve a more considerable return on such a substantial investment? I'll ask Judith to come in on these figures, because I know that she's been working very closely with the cargo bike movement on it. I think this is one of the challenges of the report, Councillor Munro, is that we have a clear policy position to move swiftly towards zero carbon logistics across the city. And one of the -- I suppose one of the possible mechanisms we have to do that is to work with organizations like the cargo bike movement in order to drive further engagement. But clearly at the moment it's sitting from a very low base, and that's the challenge is to work out how do we engage with them most efficiently and effectively to deliver our policies. Judith, do you want to come in on some of those figures? Yeah, I think -- yeah, thanks for letting me come in there. So, yeah, I think some of the reasons for people not owning cargo bikes are due to cost and also sort of availability of cargo bikes as well. So I think that those are things that are worth being on the mind to. They're not so easy to buy, and they're expensive. So I think it's worth noting that. No, thank you. I couldn't find the evidence that the council have that they might achieve a more considerable return for the substantial investment that we see in the report. It was that I couldn't find. Thanks, Judith. I think it's a kind of political decision to kind of invest this money, and hopefully the evidence in the rest of the report is they're both balancing the costs and the benefits of doing so. So I think there's been a relationship there between the council and cargo bike movement for three years now, and the deputation this morning kind of talked through what's been achieved. So it would be a case of kind of keeping that going or looking to be losing the benefits that we've seen so far. Councillor Monroe, if I could come in. We're not presenting evidence in this report of what we could achieve going forward. I think one of the struggles that we've got is that it's a single-year funding opportunity, and so we're obviously constrained by time in terms of how much we can predict or project of what they'll do. It would be great if we could provide like a three-to-five-year funding stream, which would then allow us to have some proper business planning against it, but it is a single-year fund. Councillor Laston. Thanks, convener. So I'd just like to direct you to our amendment, the SMP amendment, which obviously I've slightly adjusted so that initially the funds would come out of the cycling revenue budget. And then that in turn would be replenished from reserves in order to deal with the urgency of the situation, but then protect the cycling revenue budget. Just like confirmation from you that that's a feasible route. Yes, so my understanding is that we can do that, obviously, to use reserves as a decision of Council, so it would somewhat run the risk, I suppose, of utilising the cycling revenue budget, and then if Council decided not to use reserves, then it would obviously still be sitting on the revenue budget. That's my only caveat. Thanks for that, Hannah. I mean, I suppose the fallback position anyway sort of implicit in my amendment is that it would come out of the cycling revenue budget, but what I'm seeking to do is avoid that eventuality if possible. So just to develop on that, can you go into a bit more detail than there is in the report in terms of the opportunity costs around the cycling counter work and really by essentially halving that budget, what impact that would have on the work that the transport team is doing? Yes, so as it's highlighted in the report, the match funding, the cycling revenue budget currently supports the data that we try to drive out of how many people are cycling and walking around the city. Obviously, that is really important for us to be able to report back to you on how our policy interventions are working, and I consider that to be very important because I think it's really crucial that we're able to demonstrate benefit when we make investment. At the moment, a lot of our counters are obsolete, and we would not be able to run through the programme this year of replacing those cycle counters, which in turn means that when I come and sit in front of you and talk about interventions we've made, I'll be unable to back that up with the evidence that we've already referred to today. Councillor BANDEL. >> Thank you. I wanted to ask how much capacity we have in the council to take on some of that role of supporting zero carbon logistics by ourselves, or is this work that will always rely on partnerships with outside organisations? So I think that we can look to, for example, the logistics hubs that we put in place for the Tramps New Haven project, which were the last mile delivery, and I know that other council projects are looking at similar interventions in specific projects. I think that what we're talking about here is behaviour change rather than a kind of a fixed piece of infrastructure like the logistics hubs were, and we haven't developed that to the same extent. We do have behaviour change officers in the council, and we would be able to talk to them about how we encourage that change, but I suppose, and it's to Judith's point, Judith may well want to come in on this as well, is the capital cost associated with investing in the bikes and, of course, the area they have at Lauriston Place which supports that. Sorry, Judith, do you want to come in a bit further on that? No, that's fine. I suppose one of the things that the deputation made, which I think I have a lot of sympathy with, is this is kind of pump priming for a policy change that this council has agreed to make. So I have a lot of sympathy with the fact that there is a point in time when usually public subsidy for many behavioural change or kind of seismic changes in policy has to happen. In this case, it's cargo bike movement. And I think, actually, Councillor Arthur referred to it as well, they've kind of got a mixed economy where clearly cargo bike movement are filling that gap where businesses are arranging their own logistics, there's an economy in the city where you've got national contracts, big haulage that comes in. I'll not name the kind of firms you'd see, but your big department stores in the city centre, and then you've got that middle ground of, for example, food and beverage where there's some local haulage and some kind of national buying framework. So there's a way to go, again, to where we need to be. Alongside that, I think it was referenced earlier on, if you think of city centre transformation that we are aiming to do, that the number of closed streets for vehicle access alongside the need to deliver to premises, my professional views, cargo bikes absolutely have that role to play. Where we're stuck here is this subsidy piece in keeping an entity going and hoping to grow that and not wanting to lose that momentum. So I must admit as well, in some respects, when we prepared this report, I feel a bit of sympathy for cargo bike movement because we're actually doing a lot of analysis of their business plan that possibly we don't often do for any other organisations, but it's the nature of the report we're dealing with. So I think my professional view on this is if we want to maintain this direction of travel and if we want to kind of increase the appetite for the use of sustainable methods of transport, this is the type of space we need to be in. We do similar grants in culture and communities, for example, for the water and conservation trust to help us in a different way or for things like the re-makery for waste minimisation from this committee's remit, so there are other examples. I think in this case, clearly there's a viability issue and to get back to Councillor Bandel's point, the team and the council are probably more akin to business gateway type services, we'll be talking from a business support function here because we're mixing two hats here. We're talking about a policy aimed at the council and then trying to support an enterprise, so actually I suspect there are probably multiple teams we would need to wrap around this, but if we have a year to do this, then I think we've got the expertise in the council to at least give it a good try. I can't give any more assurance than that, but it would seem to me that where we're trying to go as a council and as a city, this would be the right thing to do. Do we have any further questions? Councillor Bandel? Thanks. This is a more general question because I feel like this is symptomatic of some of the issues we've had in recent months with funding changes coming from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government. Are the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland aware of just how bad the situation is with how funding has changed and do we know if they are intending to stick with it? Or is it this time around just a problem of them changing things, I understand, quite quickly, flipping the capital and revenue, for example. Is that going to be easier next year or is it going to become a bigger problem in the future? So we probably have to be careful here not to be too political, I think. You're not doing that, but we're getting maybe a little bit close to it. So I will be engaging in a dialogue with the Scottish Government to make sure that we make the points very clearly about what we're finding difficult and what those constraints are. I think the other thing that I would reflect on this is that clearly we're talking about using external funding here to support a further payment onto, in this case, a grant, given onto an external provider. I can't think of another, my department uses a lot of grants, but I can't think of another example whereby we have that kind of double uncertainty. The other grants, for example, within the committee, this remit of this committee are generally paid from core revenue as opposed to externally funded revenue. I think that's maybe one of the things we need to take away and actually ask the question of in the bulk of the revenue spend that we have on transport, should we be in a position of using this funding for something different, where we've got that flexibility to toggle up and down. And if we are going to maintain, and this is for members to decide to maintain these kind of relationships, my view is that needs to come more from core revenue where we can give that certainty as we do for other grant programmes in the council. And standing orders dictate that committee decide those grants, but it gives us a bit more flexibility to look at multi-year if members decide that's the way forward. Do we have any further questions on this? Okay, so I'm happy to move the report. I think we heard quite a frank deputation from Cargo Bike Movement this morning. They're very clearly on a transition, in terms of how they operate, in terms of how they're seeking funding. And to answer Councillor Munro's point, I hope and expect as part of that transition we'll be with much more clarity about actually what they're delivering for us as a committee and also to the wider city. And of course the other transition we're on is I think we are going to continue to see cargo bikes use in the city increase. And I think that will be really accelerated through the city centre transformation where it should be easier and safer to move goods around the city using cargo bikes. As I said, we're due to meet major retailer early in July hopefully to talk about how we can support them and that's about providing space so they can move goods from vans and trucks into cargo bikes. And let's hope that discussion is productive. But nonetheless it feels right to support Cargo Bike Movement at this stage, particularly because of the co-funding situation that's there and our history of supporting Cargo Bike Movement. It does feel that there's a real tension around this, particularly as we heard from them this morning, as they face quite an uncertain future. So I think we just have to nudge them in the right direction and hope that helps them going forward. So if you don't mind, I'll address the issue around the use of reserves. I do think that we should be using reserves as a last resort and not to avoid making difficult decisions to be honest. So I think I'd rather our decision today was self-contained rather than either kicking it down the road a little bit or expecting someone else to help us out with this decision. I've absolutely no problem if people want to bring a stand-alone item to fuel Council, asking for us to be reimbursed in some way, but I'm not sure that we should avoid making that difficult decision today, tempting as it is to be honest. With that I'm happy to move the report and pass to the Council for Gender. I'll just formally second. So, Councillor Aston. Thanks, convenor. Listen, I agree broadly with what you've just said there about the use of reserves, but I think the reason I'm putting it forward is because we've heard from Hannah Ross earlier in questioning how important the data is to determining wider policy decisions. And implementing and installing infrastructure where it's needed. Equally, cargo bike movement are hugely important as a hub, as we heard from them earlier, in moving towards zero or low carbon deliveries, which of course is a key policy aim of the Council in the City Mobility Plan. And this is a relatively modest sum of money, £42,600. It is one-off. And as you say yourself, once we've got to a stage where we're implementing our future streets in the circulation plan, that will really put a rocket booster under use of cargo bikes and obviously cargo bike movement as a result. And it should be, and I'm confident it will be, a lot easier for them to get onto a footing where they are financially self-sustaining and don't need support from the Council. It's essentially bridging finance, I think, that we're giving them here. And, you know, partly I also think that there is a bit of a moral obligation on the Council because there's a pretty clear through line from budget decisions that have been taken by this Council to where cargo bike movement are at the moment. So I am going to press our amendment on that basis. And I just hope that, you know, other parties listen to what we're saying about the importance of supporting the cargo bike movement and achieving those very important policy aims. But the importance also of sustaining the hugely important cycle counter work which feeds into a lot of our policy decisions. So I move our amendment. I very much support everything that my colleague said, particularly the last part in terms of how we think about funding it. I found the deputation this morning was very good, very interesting. I really appreciated their frankness and their self-awareness, particularly around where the enthusiasm perhaps has led them into a difficult situation. I found the response to questions on how they see themselves changing the nature of the business credible. And I think again 42,500 in the grand scheme of things is not a huge sum of money. It's an important sum of money. But if we were not to support them, I think that the cost to our civic society in future, given where we're trying to get to would be much, much more significant to be a huge step back. So I'm very pleased to second our amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank officers for coming back with a response to my emergency motion from last month so swiftly and for all of our time meeting with me and my colleagues and thank you to the people of cargo bike movement for giving their time as well. I think ideally I would not want to choose between getting good data on how cycling is changing across Edinburgh. But if I compare another year of subpar data to losing an organisation that has been so central to bringing cargo bikes closer to people and to businesses, not to mention several people losing their jobs. And I think that's partly because officers simply haven't had the capacity for it and we as a council aren't currently set up to do the work on the ground learning how to go back to people and businesses and going out into the communities and engaging with people and encouraging them to do the work. Yeah, maybe then buy one if they have the money to do it. But, you know, I think it's important to have these kinds of organisations that make cargo bikes accessible to low income people as well. So if there is a community organisation who are able to do that work and, you know, we've seen have a lot of people who are able to do that work. So if there is a community organisation who are able to do that work and, you know, we've seen have a lot of enthusiasm for it, I think we should support them in doing it. Because I think it's a non-negotiable that we will need to switch to low and zero carbon logistics. Some of our really big ambitious projects like the Edinburgh City Centre transformation rely on it basically. One year ago many members of this committee, including me, got to try out cargo bikes at cargo bike movement as part of clean air day and I will say my experience of riding a cargo bike for the first time was that it was a bit hard to get going because it's a heavier bike than I'm used to. But there was a very kind volunteer who made sure that it didn't tip over and with her help I managed to stay on the bike and then very smoothly cruise about the meadows. And I'd like to think that approving the much funding for cargo bike movement in that time of need is offering a similar kind of help to them to ensure they can then succeed and go very far. Thank you. Councillor O'Neill. Formerly, thank you. Relatedly, Councillor Dinks, returning. Thank you. Through no fault of my own I point out there. I think we all, or most of us around this table, agree that cargo bike movement is a good organisation that does useful and important work in a range of areas. As we've just heard, this council has taken clear policy positions on increasing low carbon transport and also on combating poverty, including food poverty, and as officers made clear earlier, one of the ways that the council does try and achieve these aims is by working with good local organisations. I think the deputation made really clear this morning that this is an organisation that's been impacted by changes in the external funding landscape and they've simply not had enough time to adapt. And they've also made clear that council funding at this point will help unlock not only potentially external pass-through funding but also will help them to put into place the plan that they've already developed that will help put them on a more sustainable financial footing and they've already made, as they've talked about, the governance changes that will help them to do this and I also thought that the way they talked about that was really quite compelling. So we are clear that we do not want to lose the momentum on the outcomes that the cargo bikes movement can help to deliver and that means that we accept that we do not want this organisation to fail at this crucial point as a result of these funding challenges, some of which are clearly beyond their control. And this is why we propose towards the necessary funding from the council budget as proposed in the report on a one-off basis and why we would like officers to continue to work with cargo bike movements in their journey towards a different, more sustainable funding model. Seconded formally. Thank you both of you. Councillor White. Thank you, convener. I've heard an awful lot of optimism from people around the table today and an awful lot of optimism from the deputation. I have to say, looking at things, I find some of that optimism to be really rather unfounded. We've got an appendix 3, cargo bike movement outcomes, individual loans, 117. Number of people who purchased one after, 30. Less than 30%. 117 in, if you're calling households and businesses households, we've got about 250,000 in Edinburgh. This is tiny. And if I think about change that happens in society, it can often happen very quickly. And it happens quickly on technological change that grabs people's interest in their mind or makes things cheaper and easier than it was before. This isn't grabbing that interest or change in that way. It is quite niche. We have to say that. Now, there might be a wish to see more of it. But I do think there will be far more people looking at electric vans than there will at cargo bikes because it's simply easier for longer journeys and so on. And I kind of look at this in the same way that we used to subsidise the car club. Now, the car club has grown over the years. We subsidised it for a very long time to make it viable in the city. It's grown, but it's not universal. It's still quite niche in terms of the population. And I really believe that if things are going to change dramatically, they will do that organically by themselves. I also wonder about putting further money into an organisation which has gone along on some heroic assumptions about funding and then come to a crunch point and not had a business plan to get itself forward. And I am really concerned about that. It's public money. Taxpayers are paying for it. And then finally, convener, I don't think at this stage we should be reading our other cycling budgets, which affect far more people and have a far bigger influence on travel in various ways across the city, just to fund this one thing. Now, having said all that, I'm not saying officers shouldn't support them. I think there is a role there to do that, and that can be about getting the scale in place and working towards a more sustainable footing. But that has to be carefully managed. And finally, convener, on the issue of reserves. I would not go near reserves for this. We have a huge budget deficit coming in the next two or three years, and any time there's a financial crisis in a partner organisation, there's someone bringing an amendment saying we need to go and look at reserves. We have to stop doing that. We simply cannot afford it. And the long run will mean, instead of allowing other organisations to eventually live within their means, we'll end up not living within our means and making people redundant and cutting services. So we have to hold those reserves for the rainy day they're intended. So I move the amendment convener. Thank you, convener. I don't need to reiterate what Councillor Whitehouse said because he's put it so eloquently, but our amendment is not saying the cargo bike movement is not something that is useful and that people are passionate about, as we heard with the deputation. But we are being asked by a business to give them £42,500 of taxpayers' money to basically help them out. So our amendment is very clear. We're just suggesting delaying any decision on giving money to the cargo bike movement business until we have such time as it is known whether or not they have succeeded in securing the funding from paths for all. And I would like to -- pardon, sorry, convener, sorry. And with that I would like to second our amendment. Thank you very much, convener. So Councillor Moore, I think that's what we're doing. We're only going to provide the money if they can match it. That's the plan. So apologies, I should have said this in my summing up. So I'm happy to move the report, of course, and accept the amendments from Liberal Democrats and the green addendum as -- the green addendum as an addendum to the Lib Dem amendment. That's me, that's a sentence. But I'll have to decline the Conservative amendment. So does that make sense? Does that make sense to her? Yep. Okay. So Councillor Dix-Diney and Councillor Bandel, are you happy with that and don't want to press yours individually? I'm happy with that. Yeah, happy with that. Thank you. I assume Councillor Aston and Councillor White want to press yours separately too. Thank you. So we have one motion, which is the report accepting the Liberal Democrat and green amendments. Amendment one will be the SNP group addendum by Councillor Aston and amendment two will be the Conservative amendment by Councillor White. Could I please have votes for the motion first by Councillor Arthur? Six. Thank you. For amendment one by Councillor Aston, please. Three. Thank you. And for amendment two by Councillor White, please. Two. Thank you. The motion is carried. Thank you. I think I'm going to try and squeeze in some dog fowling before lunchtime, if that's okay. Because I'm hoping we won't be spending too long. It's better than after, I think. Hopefully we won't spend too long debating. It is an important issue, but I'm hopeful we won't spend too long debating it. So this is 8.1, which is the report on dog fowling enforcement. There's a Conservative group addendum, which is circulated and Gavin Brown is here. Afternoon committee. Nothing to add to the report, but happy to take questions. Do we have any questions for Mr Brown? Councillor White. Convenor, thank you. I suppose my questions are around the dog fowling Scotland Act 2003. And as Ross mentioned earlier, I have a long memory. I remember being part of Keith Harding's, the then MSP, his team that drafted that legislation as a member's bill in the Scottish Parliament way back in those early years of the Scottish Parliament. I handed it on to someone else and it eventually became law that envisaged a much wider use of officers by councils to enforce dog fowling in this particular case. But I think that it was a good example of what might be done on wider things around litter, fly tipping and so on. How many people do we have trained that can do this for 19000 workers? Thanks, Councillor White. Every single one of the street enforcement officers are trained in the enforcement of this particular legislation. So that's 18 that we currently have. But I very much take your point. I think there is an opportunity for myself and Jackie, who manages the street enforcement team, to reach out to colleagues across the council and see if there is an opportunity for us to train up colleagues to take on the additional role of carrying out this type of enforcement. That's something that I would be happy to do. I can see that Gareth's primed to come in, so I'll let him speak. Thanks, Gavin. You've got better eyes than me. So you're right, Councillor White, as I'd expect, because you're involved in it. But this is a strange piece of legislation because actually the dog fell in Scotland Act says a council should have at least one person, which isn't like any other legislation we've got. And certainly it's something I'm aware of because I've done it in the past, is that there are two things. There's the authorisation to issue a fixed penalty notice, and then there is the witnessing of an offence. And I think what we need to look at, to be fair, there's a lot of, understandably, I can think people might think, well, we've got lots of street cleansing staff, for example. We have, but clearly, in fairness to those colleagues, we pay them a different grade and we expect different functions of them. So handling aggression and violence and issuing fixed penalty notices, for example, might not be one of the things we'd ask them to do. But actually being a professional witness for certain offences is something that could happen. Therefore, I'd be keen, and I think Gavin and I have spoke about, is broadening, certainly broadening the number of issuing offices we can have that can issue an FBN, which requires a scheme of delegation issue that we address. But also then training up more staff to be professional witnesses who can then provide a witness statement onto colleagues who are authorised to issue. So I think between those two lines of inquiry, that's what we're going to take away and look at. Thank you. That's helpful. Is the question the last and then because of agenda? Thanks, convener, and thanks for the report. I just wanted to get an understanding of, I often see, well, actually, not as often as I would like, as you'll get from where I'm going with this question. But I sometimes see stencils on the pavement or whatever, where presumably complaints have come because of lots of dog fouling on the pavement. I just want to understand why that's not deployed more often, I guess, and how much it costs and whether the barrier to doing it essentially is cost or if there are some other barriers there. Thanks, Councillor Aston. Believe it or not, when we did use stencils, which haven't been used for nearly a decade, I believe, there were complaints would come in about the use of the stencils and the fact that they made the footpaths unsightly, etc. Which I've got to say, obviously, I would disagree, because obviously dog fouling is a far more unsightly and unhealthy thing to have on the footways. It's something that we could certainly recommend doing and it's something that we could tie in with a wider awareness campaign and a communications campaign around dog fouling. It's certainly something that we've not completely been signed to not doing again. But I believe, and it's long before I was involved with the team, that it wasn't as successful as we'd hoped it would be. Councillor Aston, I'd like you to follow up first. I'm so tempted to step in here, but I'd like you to go first. Step in what? Thanks for that, Gavin. I literally can't believe that that's been nearly a decade since that was done. I actually think it works and I personally would be very keen to see that being resumed because I can think of some really bad spots, for instance, in my ward, certainly, where it's very difficult for signs to be attached to lampposts or whatever. There may be just one lamppost in a long lane with no other bits of public street furniture if you'd like to attach a sign to. And so the obvious candidate is putting something on the ground. So if there's something future coming back in relation to this, it would be really good to know whether it's possible to recommence with the street stenciling. Yeah, of course, we'll definitely look into that. I do know that some members of the public were taking it upon themselves, Councillor Aston, to put very bright spray paint round incidents of dog fouling. So that may be some of the things that you've seen more recently. And I do agree it can be effective. We've also obviously had campaigns where we have put things on lampposts, et cetera, saying there's dog fouling in this area. But as you say, if that's not particularly effective in streets where there's nowhere to erect those signs, then yes, certainly I'll speak to the team and I think it's something we could look at again. So Gavin, my recollection is that in the 2012 to '17 administration, Councillors could get access to these stencils and under controlled circumstances were able to use them themselves. So I think Councillor White's amendment to this report is going to result in an update to a future report. It would be good if alongside that we could get consideration of that, because I think they're actually a really important way of showing residents that Councillors and the Council think this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. So it would be good if we could capture that. Perhaps we can deal with that in summing up. Did somebody else have a question? Sorry, Councillor Pottender first, then Councillor Lange. Yeah, thank you for this report and I now know more about DNA than I expected to as a Councillor. Now, one of the things I was thinking about is that in areas where we do have really quite bad dog fouling, it tends to be actually quite a few, it's not that many dogs that are doing it and everybody knows who the dogs are as well. So we don't need to use a lot of detective skills to kind of trace them, but it's getting the community involved, maybe. And I mean, that's something that I've been doing is I've been really encouraging people to use the council website to report every time they see it. Just, you know, report, report, report so that we can really see the scale of the problem. But I wondered maybe if we could take a more imaginative approach to also the campaign so that we could get communities and even schools involved in some really direct messages, because I think it's the same as with litter. There's no point in actually mincing our words. So if people are behaving in a really bad way, you know, we should be maybe, you know, pushing the boundaries of what we see on our posters, you know, like, you know, stop doing this. You know, I'm not going to say that I would write here because I don't want to give away my secret. But like I say, it's sort of, you know, maybe if we went to schools, we could use that as a way of, you see, what would you say to people who don't clear up after your dogs? You know, that kind of thing, you know, just to get some, make it a big campaign is really what I'm trying to say. I think it's the only solution is to, you know, get, you know, have the community not just complaining, but on side with us and working with us. I think that's something that we could definitely work on. And as you say, you know, from the mouth of babes, we could probably utilise those words. And they'd probably be more direct than what we maybe would be able to come up with ourselves. So I think that that is a good idea. But I think there's also something that we need to do, an exercise and perhaps informing the public on how best to give us the right information to take action, because we often get complaints or information about dog fouling incidents and the information is scant. People aren't always willing to tell tales on neighbours, for instance, that type of thing. So we just need to make sure that we can be very clear about the information that we need in order to take action. But I definitely think engaging with communities and schools is a good idea and one that we could take forward. OK, Councillor Lai and then Councillor Munro. Thank you very much. And Gavin, as always, I'm very keen to look at things that we know will make a difference. And so to that end, I'm just keen to understand what, if any, evidence or data we have on the difference that signage or stenciling makes. And I ask that just because I'm open to doing it, but as always, I get worried that we end up spending time and effort and money on things that don't actually make a difference, but just make us feel a little bit better about the fact that we're doing something. And so have we got any actual evidence on what is proven to actually discourage people? Because picking up a point that was made before, these people know they're doing the wrong thing. And I just question whether a sign telling them is actually going to make any difference. Thanks, Councillor Lange. I think anything that we put out there advising people of their antisocial behaviour and the effect that that behaviour has on the wider public is only going to be a benefit. But I do agree with you that if people are going to be irresponsible enough to let their dog fowl, then they maybe are not going to pay attention to that type of campaign. I don't believe that we do have data that would be able to demonstrate how successful particular campaigns have been. However, I would always encourage that we continue doing the campaigns, but I think we need to do that in tandem with being tougher in our ability to enforce, looking at the options that Gareth expressed earlier on and maybe, you know, having more targeted approach and seeing how that may have a benefit. But I don't believe that we have the type of data that you are requesting, but I'll ask the team and if there is that data available, I'll make sure that I provide it to you and to the committee. Just to add, I think it's a fair point, Councillor. I would agree. A lot of the research would say that the effect of signage, if it's refreshed regularly, is actually it gives the impression the street is being watched and actually the main deterrent psychologically is that there is a public presence paying attention to the situation and the likelihood that you may be caught. So actually, I think that's the one thing we need to take out of the strategy. That's what we want to achieve as opposed to let's put some signs up. I would say that's probably good for reputation and satisfaction because it allows you to let the concerned few that we're doing something about, but in terms of a deterrent strategy, I think that's the bit we need to take away. So the use of data, as you say, is something we need to be more timely on. And the link between Gavin's team and Andy's team, unfortunately Andy's team being the team that have to clean up this area, there's a lot of intelligence within our front line workforce that can tell us where these are and I think what we'd find if we spoke to them is the correlation of the workload our street cleansing team have versus the number of times people complain is probably outweighed by a significant factor. I.e. there's just generally an apathy of certain unfortunate tolerance of dog fouling that I do think we need to change. So we'll take that away and certainly the points members have made today is something we'll factor into a plan going forward. Thank you very much, Kim Veener. I'm a huge dog lover. There's lots of people that have dogs in Edinburgh who are extremely responsible. What I would like to say is, yes, we need more enforcement. We need a more targeted approach, but also for those dog owners who are responsible, who do pick up their dog poo. Just only the other day, I had numerous pieces of correspondence for residents regarding the hermitage of breed, where the bins were absolutely overflowing with dog poo bags to the point where one parent got in contact with me and said I told my daughter to put a rubbish in the bin. She put her hand in the bin. She came out covered in dog excrement. So if we're going to get people who are responsible to put their dog poo in bags and put them in the bins, we have to empty the bins. And also, I don't know if we can look at which other councils have done in Scotland is where we have more bins that actually have dog poo bags, because I've witnessed it myself. People walk around, they go, I don't have a bag. I'm just going to let my dog fowl because maybe they've forgotten to bring a bag. Is that something we could look into? Is that a possibility? But I think we need the bins emptied regularly as well. I'll maybe come in to be fair to Gavin. Gavin's not got responsibility for emptying the bins. That's not acceptable, Councillor, so I'll maybe pick up that for the offline and just get those details because we need to learn from that and make sure it doesn't happen. Again, my view on bag provision is a bit like the earlier point that I forget which Councillor made, but I think those people that know how to pick up after their dog leave the house every day with bags. And I don't believe that I was putting bags out in the public domain at a cost to the public, but this would change the behaviour of those people that have left the house with the intention of. I accept there are sometimes genuine errors that are well-meaning dog walkers, but knowing some of those myself, they tend to find a way and speak to other dog walkers in the area and say, can I borrow a bag from you or something? So I think I agree with you, Councillor. The vast, vast majority of dog walkers are responsible. It's just we need to find a strategy to target the very, very small percentage that have a disproportionately big impact on local communities. So if there's no further questions, there's more than I expected to be honest, I am happy to move this report. It's actually been, although the DoggyDNA idea didn't really go anywhere, it's actually been a useful report in terms of issues which we can take forward and obviously we've all learned a little bit from it. So I'm happy to move the report. Councillor Ficenda. I formally second. Councillor White, I think it is. Thank you, convener. It's an addendum. I think Councillor Cowdy, who brought the original motion about the DNA, would probably be a little disappointed in the initial report, although I have to say, given the costs involved, I can understand why officers have brought us the report in the way they have. That said, it doesn't take away, as we've all heard, from the issue of dog filing and doing something about it. And it strikes me that the real issue here isn't our campaigning and our telling the public, it's enforcing against the small number of members of the public who consistently refuse to do the right thing and pick up after their dog. There's not a lot of data in this report, but there is a table at appendix 2 which shows that something happened in 2020. We had a pandemic, we stopped having officers out in the street enforcing things and we dropped from 19 fixed penalty notices, which was the same in 2019 and in 2018, to one. It has risen slightly. It's gone back up to five. But it suggests we don't yet have teams out at hot spots, catching those who are committing this antisocial behaviour and doing something about it. And it strikes me that 18 officers trained to issue those fixed penalty notices is a very small number for a city the size of Edinburgh. It's 0.01% or thereabout of our workforce. And we probably need to be a bit more proactive on this. So it has exposed how little the council is able to do about it under current regime. Mr Barwell's talked about helpfully coming back with a future report that addresses some of that and that's what we're seeking to do with this addendum to make sure that we do address that, that we have more people out there able to enforce this and back up the campaigns. I think our campaigns are very successful in so far as they go. The one on the side of the bin with the dog sitting on the toilet reading the newspaper is probably one of the most amusing but instructive campaigns I've seen for a long time from a local government source. But it doesn't solve the problem. And we have to back up with the stick as well as the carrot in those particular areas where it's an issue. So I hope that you'll accept the addendum convener and get the further report. Councillor Munro. Second convener. So thank you. So I'm just getting my notes in front of me. So I'm quite happy to accept your addendum Councillor Wright, but I think we said, I can't open up my iPad for some reason. I think I said what we'll say is we'll incorporate that into the next street cleansing report. And I was really pleased to hear Gavin Brown and Gary Burwell's response to your addendum. But I think we have to acknowledge that when that report comes, that may just be the starting point of something rather than the end point, because I think this does involve working cross team. And I'm also aware that a lot of our staff who are out and about every day are actually extremely busy already. And so trying to do more with less isn't always easy. And in perhaps an ill-informed point, I would be around the numbers you were talking about. Certainly I know that in my ward, I found it more difficult to engage with this issue since we lost the environmental wardens and went over to street enforcement. I think right across the piece, I think, although I do accept that was a saving that had to be made. I think that's certainly as a Councillor, I felt the impact there. And I would also ask just if we could do this verbally, that is part of the report, is it when it comes back, that we also give consideration of the use of stencils and other similar items. Consideration. So it's not a demand. Taking a point, Councillor Lange's point is it might feel good to have that kind of spray paint in the stencil in your garage or shed, but it's only worth it if it makes sense. And hopefully we're all happy with that. OK, good, approved. Is that OK, Rachel? Right, can I tempt fate? Do we have any questions on the leaf blower report? Do we have questions on it? OK, we'll do it after lunch. That's fine. So I think we can just get my right watch on. We'll come back at five past one. So this was just over half an hour. Five past two. OK, thanks for your patience. I think we're ready to get started. And we're on 8.2. Yep, 8.2 is a report on ending the use of fossil fuel powered leaf blowers and Scott Miller is here on teams to speak to the report. You're very welcome, Scott. Do you have anything you want to say? Just that you can assume we've read the report. Anything you want to add to it? Nothing further to add. Happy to take any questions. Now, I understand Councillor Munro has a question to this one. Thank you, convener. Quite like a leaf blower. I've been reading the report and I know that we've been asked to know that at present the council lacks the power to prohibit fossil fuel powered leaf blowers in the city. But that said, I just wanted to ask you about the emissions. Could you tell me whether you have statistics to estimate the scale of the emissions produced by the fossil fuel powered leaf blowers within the city? And furthermore, what percentage of the city's total emissions these might represent in order we might judge the matter in proportion, please. Thank you very much. Simple answer to that is we currently don't have any information on what sort of emissions output would be generated from this group of equipment. Happy to take it away and look into that further. I think it's sufficient to say that overall emissions output is going to be very minimal in comparison to what is generated within the city area. But happy to look into that further. That's most kind and I really appreciate that, Scott. Another just one quick one. Have you conducted a comparative cost benefit analysis comparing the cost of maintaining the present stock of leaf blowers and replacing as their operational lifespan comes to an end and the cost of replacing the whole remaining stock. Now, when is not unlikely that there will be further improvements in efficiency over the coming years and possibly also reductions in costs. So ultimately, the equipment that we have at the minute is largely end of life and naturally at its required replacement period. I don't have the figures to hand, but crudely, there's two parts to this, if you like. There's not only an investment in the tools, but there's an investment in the batteries required and then infrastructure behind that in terms of if we're going to be purchasing a large number of these are going to be based at a depot, then we need charging stations to be able to keep the batteries on charge. And there's a lot of additional costs that make the initial investment a lot more expensive. But saying that, crudely guesstimating that these units are about twice the price of what the petrol equivalent is to purchase upfront, the benefit that we then see longer term is that if we're buying a product with, if we're buying more hand tools, for example, stimmers, chainsaws, anything like that, that could be compatible with these batteries that we're purchasing now and the charging systems, then actually we could buy that equipment in the future at a much cheaper price. Do you have any more questions on this? I was wondering, just as we go forward in future decisions, is that the same for some of the other types of equipment that you would use, that the electric ones would, that's white fingers in the HEVS, so people who lose sensation in their hands. So the reason I'm just looking at that is because obviously we're looking at this from a sort of net zero point of view, but I can see for me that it's a really compelling, if it's better for the health and safety of the operators, that is a really, really good reason that we should be transitioning to these electric ones. Yes, that's correct in what you say. So hand and arm vibration syndrome is a real issue for operators of this type of equipment. Traditional combustion powered equipment exhibits a lot more vibration in its operation and we already have electric equipment that has been tested and it doesn't completely eliminate vibration, but in some applications it significantly reduces it to the extent that the levels are so low that we don't even see a risk to actually having to monitor. So we have a better operators vibration and then we have some operators who hand and arm vibration is sort of measured in different stages in terms of the disease and if someone is at an advanced stage then they can, it's recommended they should only be exposed for a limited or further limited amount of vibration. So in terms of having lower vibration equipment, they can extend their operation time of the equipment. So it allows those who are maybe restricted in what tasks they can do to actually be able to carry out more tasks for longer periods of time as well. Do you have any further questions? Okay, I think we're ready to approve this report. Okay, approved. Rachel? Thank you. Item 8.3 is the Street Cleansing Performance Report. Andy Williams is here to speak to it and there is an SNP group addendum and Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments. Over to you, Andy. Thank you. If I could just provide a brief introduction to the report and maybe pick out three main points. The first is our LEMES results for 23/24, which again have shown positive improvement. I think, particularly with the most recent set of results, it showed good improvement in SIMD quintiles one and two. So the most deprived areas of the city, which in respect of historical LEMES results have always shown to be quite challenging for us. The report also shows good sustained performance against our own KPIs in relation to dealing with kind of fly tipping and dumping and dog fouling. So the average number of days where we're taking to respond to those kind of inquiries as well within the current timescales that we've set. So I'm mindful we're due to report back again on cleansing performance in December. And within that report, we'll be setting out changes to those timescales. The last point I particularly kind of wanted to bring out was in relation to the paragraph around additional funding that we received for 24/25. We recently undertook an initiative which was kind of termed a week of action in the Dummy Dykes area in Ward 11 that brought together a number of different parts of my service to undertake a deep clean of the area and also extended to replacing and refreshing bins. I think the approach and the results appear to have been very, very well received. And we are now looking at adopting that model going forward for the additional Scrub My Streets funding. Unfortunately, the week of action came after kind of cut off points for drafting the report. So we've got a recruitment exercise is currently ongoing for the cleansing service and we're expecting to conclude that hopefully in the early part of July. And then in terms of the kind of that week of action or Scrub My Streets approach, we'll be looking to target the kind of areas of highest deprivation first. Happy to take any questions. So thank you for that. Questions from Councillor Bando, Aston, Dobbin, Laing, Munro, then White. Thanks for the report. I had a question on bulky uplifts. It was saying that they are free now for people with council tax reductions. How have we communicated that to residents that are eligible for that? It's been quite a soft launch in fairness. If a resident goes on the website to book an uplift, there's some information on those landing pages. We haven't done any kind of outwardly facing comms at the moment because we wanted to ensure that when a resident who is in receipt of those benefits goes to book an uplift. The system was kind of seamlessly integrating with other systems within the council. So it has been a soft launch. And I think what we can now look to do is do some more proactive communications about that benefit. That would be much appreciated. Thank you. Oh, good. Thank you. Councillor Aston. Thanks, Kevin. And thanks, Andy. I've got two questions. Hopefully that's OK. So the first one is about the recycling site at Silvernough's Golf Club. I'm just so first of all, I'm a bit confused why vermin are being attracted by trade waste, because when I think of trade waste, I think mainly of builder's waste, basically. So, you know, lumps of plasterboard, broken sinks, that kind of stuff. And secondly, I'd like to get an understanding of why you think that just taking the bins away is going to solve that problem, because the majority of trade waste that I see dumped, particularly actually outside of Edinburgh, if I'm just going for a walk in the country, is just in a quiet bit, you know, maybe an entrance to a farmer's field or whatever. Basically, it happens where people think no one is watching. And I assume that's what's happening here. So that, you know, why do you think it will work just removing the bins? A lot of people have already become accustomed to dumping their trade waste here by the signs of it. And secondly, what measures could be used, whether the recycling facility is removed or not, in terms of, I don't know, putting up a camera or at least a sign saying we've put up a camera to deter that kind of behaviour? It is, in fairness, very difficult to commit to removal of those bins, stopping the problem. I think we've had an issue at this site for a number of years. It became worse through Covid. I think particularly immediately after the festive season, some of the pictures were quite shocking in terms of the level of kind of dumping. I do also acknowledge a point around trade waste. There's clearly a mix of stuff being dumped at this location, some of which will likely be household in nature. And we know that, you know, from previous kind of waste compositional analysis, that kind of food waste services across the city are not currently being used to their full capacity. I think with this particular one, you know, we have been engaging with colleagues in pest control and equally colleagues from Edinburgh Leisure, you know, given it's a kind of car park for a clubhouse at the golf course, have raised concerns about the continual dumping and fly tipping that happens. The bins themselves are kind of slightly hidden away from the car park mine, some vegetation or at least some of those bins are. But when we look to the wider area, all of that area has a full set of recycling provision. And we think that just by removing it, we still believe that for a period thereafter, we will have to continue to monitor it and clear it up. But the current issue that we have is that obviously waste collection crews are going in there to service the bins. But in terms of the resource implications for the cleansing service at the moment, they are in there on a daily basis, clearing away quite substantial accumulations in respect of camera or CCTV cameras. I noted Jackie was on the call, but I don't think she's she's there anymore. So maybe Gavin could come in on the ability to actually do that. It would be helpful. So we do have redeployable cameras in the CCTV stock, so that's something we can do. Obviously, we're covered by RIPSA, which is a regulatory power to make sure if we're doing direct surveillance. So I think it's a fair point that that could detect some of the commercial waste abuse. I guess the the the reason we are bringing this forward and recognize this is an important issue, but is that the bring sites like the one itself and ours would set up a long, long time ago when the council generally had on street communal bins for residual waste. But then more local bring sites for what was expected to be a lot less recycling in those days. And as times have moved on, as I said, we've put recycling on on every street in the area onto every curbside property. So the view the need for these has an RV reduced because we've bolstered the curbside service. However, I accept certain councils have made points around the excess waste that people may have and generally the household waste recycling plant is designed for that function. I guess the point on whether some of this commercial waste is being done that deliberate and whether some is actually through ignorance, because actually we've we've done previous checks in certain parts of the city where commercial waste contracts were not that prevalent, shall I say? And that's been reported in committee in the past in some streets, maybe as much as 50 percent of the properties, commercial properties didn't have a contract. So I do suspect some of these businesses may be doing that because they think it's OK. It's definitely not. It's not been that been legal since 1990 for what it's worth. The question I ask myself is if that if that brings out in itself, we're not attracting it, then you'd be expecting to your point. Can't see lots of other sites in the nearby vicinity that are also being covered in commercial waste flight of being. But they're not because I think people are attracted to that bring site as a hub and it's defeating the object of what we as a council put it in there for. So that's why we as officers of knowledge and the questions we get asked have brought forward and said, we do think this is still the right way to go. But if members decide otherwise, then, you know, clearly looking at things like RIPSA and CCTV surveillance is something we can do. Thanks. Thanks for that. So my second question is not strictly within the scope of the report, but because it's about street cleansing. But there are waste and recycling elements within the report. So can you, Gareth or Andy, in this public forum, give an explanation which, despite the regular updates that the councillors have been receiving in relation to this, I don't think has really addressed what's been going on on the east side of the city in terms of waste collection over the last few weeks. It's been very vague. And that's to us as elected members. You know, the residents of the city of the east side of the city as a whole feel that even more keenly. So I'm giving you this opportunity to tell us what's been happening. Thanks. OK, so there's been there's been quite a substantial amount of work going on in the service, looking at a range of different data sets. And that is something that we would we would normally pull together when we are looking at kind of rerouting exercises. We are currently looking at a number of rerouting exercises across many of our waste streams we collect. And we also have an eye on looking at a wider kind of curbside redesign, which was referenced earlier on in the business bulletin for the waste collection best value activities. So when we've drawn together many of those strands of information, we identified that in some cases there were some crews and certainly not all that were commencing routes earlier than they should be and therefore finishing earlier than they should be. It also raised some concerns as to whether general kind of general risk assessments, route risk assessments and safe working procedures were being fully adhered to. On the back of that, there was there was a communication to staff that said the defined shift working times had to be adhered to. And that included all staff reporting back to the depot. And it also extended that crew leaders, our drivers, should be ensuring that safe working procedures were being followed. Councilor Aston, you referenced that it was an issue for us in the east of the city and that is correct. But what I would say is that within the kind of wider context of overall waste collection staffing numbers, it was a small minority and they sought to disrupt services by working slowly. We engaged with union colleagues and they firmly assured us that the disruption from that kind of small minority was not something that they were supporting or instructing. And I would say that many of our frontline collection staff have kind of continued to work as they have done throughout COVID and more recently and haven't kind of participated in any of those actions that have brought the council into disrepute. I think our ability to recover the situation as quickly as we would have liked was hampered a little. We schedule annual leave across waste collection services and a number of staff were obviously on annual leave at the time, which included some of the substantive kind of supervisors. We do at the moment have quite high levels of sickness absence as well and whilst we've been engaging with agency contractors around ability to bring in additional staff, they've currently not been able to supply. So we took that decision to suspend one of our services glass and that was a decision on a city wide basis, which then allowed us to draw a number of crews from the west to kind of work in the east. And we did redeploy some staff from our cleansing services as well. There was an element of kind of route familiarity, particularly for those cleansing staff, which did kind of hamper I think the ability to recover full routes as quickly as possible. I think kind of recognizing some of the recent difficulties we have in attracting new drivers into the service and particularly the agency ability to provide us with drivers. We are going to be looking again at an upskilling exercise for staff that are interested in going through HGV. For the employees that have brought the council into disrepute, they are being dealt with in line with the appropriate HR policies. So thanks for that Andy. Myself and the council leader and the trade union reps and probably Gareth Barwell are going to get together quite soon to talk through some of the issues which have arisen of that. Because I think along the way some reasonable points have been made and we'll explore them and no doubt that will come back to this committee or somewhere else in the fullness of time. Because there's particular issues around routing etc. where I think it's quite important that we do listen to staff to some extent. Mr. Barwell. Just to add, as Andy just talked to one, we are dealing with this within HR policies and procedures but in fairness to those colleagues, clearly elected members, I'm sure those watching will respect the fact that therefore we can't really talk too openly on that. But I do think it's important to highlight that the absolute vast majority of the department have carried on doing their job very, very well over this period. Equally the caseload members have had. I recognise in the east of the city is huge but when you're doing 26 million collections a year, just a few weeks of disruption, unfortunately that's the kind of ripple of impact it has. So clearly I'm aware maybe political questions may be asked but this is an operational issue in fairness so it's my job to apologise for the disruption that's been caused. We are working on it and I think in fairness to colleagues on trade unions, there is a good working relationship, improvements are being made. I have to acknowledge there are clearly some pockets of streets that we're having to still catch up on which as Andy says is because unfamiliar crews have, let's be honest, they've missed those streets so we'll continue to focus on that. But yeah, there are things we're doing to move forward but I do think I don't want it to get lost in the whole discussion that I'm going to say 90, I don't know, someone will do the maths on this when they work out of workforce but 99% probably, I'm not far off that maybe, 95 to 99% of our workforce have just gone about their job. And that's why I think actually members in the west of the city, I acknowledge we'll have seen disruption probably principally on food and the fact that we've stood down glass collections but those collections have carried on as normal as have many other collections. So yeah, apologies Councillors that can't go fully into details because the ongoing HR issues but I do think it's important that all of the colleagues within that service aren't seen as having contributed to this issue. Okay, so Dublin you had a question? I do, thank you, thank you for the report. Very briefly if I may on Sylvan House first, there's a lot of capacity up there and if the bins are coming to be cleared on a daily basis with a lot of mess, I would have thought it would be reasonably straightforward to use some mobile cameras to identify the people or those that are involved. Those that are involved in this and perhaps places of enforcement but there is a lot of capacity so I find it really difficult to imagine how all that stuff's getting dumped. But if I can move on to Weed Control 4.21 and reading the update that was provided back in March 22, there was a lot of discussion in the update about the impact of detritus cleat building up in the streets. I know particularly along kerbsides and as a result, the plan was to increase the number of mechanical streamers and weed drippers and to increase mechanical sweeping. In 4.22, additional small mechanical sweeping routing has been deployed. From my wanderings around Royston, Wardyburn, Grunton, Pilton, West Pilton and even into Muir House, they're clearly not there so I'm really interested to understand how many operators are there, how many machines are there, where they're being deployed. And that's eventually going to lead to my addendum later about an action plan please to let us understand how we get on top of this because the amount of biodiversity in our kerbs in these high areas of high deprivation is quite extraordinary. And just as a smaller site, we've got a lot of biodiversity just up and down the road here at the security gates would be nice if that could be cleaned away and tidied up. Thank you. Thanks for the question. So in terms of those sweeper routes, we can share those. I'm quite happy to do so. The approach to weeds is obviously linked to other reports we've brought forward around glyphosate removal. What we're doing at the moment, or glyphosate reduction, what we're doing at the moment is when we receive an inquiry or a complaint about weeds, then a supervisor or street inspector will go out and inspect. And if they deem it to be causing a kind of trip hazard, they'll deal with it there and then. And if they don't deem it to require immediate action, then it will be held over until the next time a crew is visiting. In terms of numbers of small mechanical sweepers, we've got of my 16 vehicles and we also have three larger sweepers, which are just for kind of routes and channels. All of those vehicles are operated on a four on four off shift pattern. So there is seven day coverage for those vehicles as well. If I may, it just seems to me that if we ignore the problem, and I understood certainly from reading the March 2022 update that the investment in mechanical sweeping stimmers, etc, was to cover for the fact that we're reducing use of glyphosate. But it just seems to be out of control and particularly in areas that are predominantly HRA areas. It seems to me that if it doesn't look like the council cares about the area, then we talked about dog fouling earlier. Why are the residents going to do it? I just feel that the whole level of growth in these streets is exploited and out of control. So I would share that observation that there's more weeds now and we've not reached the peak of summer yet, but this is the trajectory the committee agreed, I think, two cycles ago when we agreed to really ease off glyphosate use, particularly off key routes and outside our town centres. So this is the implication of what this committee as a whole supported. I think I'm right in saying Andy? Yes, and we did also commit to, we'll be bringing back a report probably autumn, I think it's scheduled for on what we think the impact of that phase reduction has been. I mean, we are, the use of glyphosate has been our traditional approach to weed control, whether that's spot treatment application or whether that's longer routes that are run by quad bikes. All of our mechanical sweepers do have slightly harder brushes on them for weed control, so they can deal with those weeds as well as kind of sweeping up litter at the same time. I mean, as I said, I'm more than happy for us as a service to share our roots and share our frequency of sweeping as well and more than happy to have a walk around those particular areas you've highlighted, Councillor Dobbin. Okay, thank you. May I just come back please, briefly? Very briefly, because we've only got 12 minutes to this item left. I'll be very quick. I don't accept what you said that this is a natural, in fact, this is a natural outcome of an earlier decision. If we refer back to the report in March 2022, which seems to state very clearly that mechanical sweeping and getting rid of detritus in the streets, detritus that builds up is a technique that will prevent or reduce the rapid growth and spread of weeds along curbside in particular. And it seems to me that that's not been addressed. So there's been reports since 2022. I think it was two cycles of the weather report here and we approved on reducing the weed killer use. I can never say the chemical name. So that's maybe the place to start, Councillor Lange. Yeah, I do have questions and they're really short questions and I think hopefully we can get really short answers. So my first question is how many signs are in place at the Silvernose recycling point to discourage and deter fly tipping and illegal dumping? I don't know the answer to that question. Okay, thank you. The answer is none. My second question is on how many occasions has CCTV been used at the site to try and identify dumpers? My understanding is none, although Gavin might comment on that. Okay, it's just the answer. If it's none, that's fine. We'll move on. At any point were the bins relocated to a more visible part of the site to try and deter dumping? Some of those bins have been moved in front of the hedgerow, but there are some that still remain behind it. So some of them have. Yeah, I don't think any have been moved to the front of the site, which is the most visible site. And my final question is at what consultation has been carried out with the Davis's Mains and Silvernose Association about the removal of the site? And if they were consulted, what feedback did you get? I'm not aware of them having been consulted. Thank you very much. I'll make my questions very short as well. I've got weeds in my ward that are taller than me. Are you prioritising roots where we've got very large weeds, school roots in particular, because I've got schools in my ward where the weeds are so tall and some of them are thistles and children are going by? And I mean, literally, I've got pictures of weeds the height of me. Are you prioritising certain roots over others? OK, thank you. And a question that probably Gareth, I'm concerned about the operational problems we've got with the pickups of bins. It's affected my ward as well. I'm concerned that this may happen again over some of the busiest periods that our city sees during the festivals. And we only saw a couple of years ago that our city literally looked like a rubbish dump. Can you give us any assurances that this might not be happening or if it is going to happen, we've got a backup plan? So I'm I'm very confident that the circumstances we've just seen won't happen again. It's a matter of public record that there are, of course, outstanding ballot issues for trade unions, for national pay discussions. And as that stands, that ballot is looking for a mandate from, I think, the 1st of July. So I think it's in the public record that there is every there's a potential that there may be industrial action during the period you referred to. Councilman Roman clearly have a joint recognition agreement as a council. So that's something we'll have to manage as we did in 2022. You know, that's that's out with our control in terms of national pay discussions. But actually, in terms of the say the small but disruptive issue we've dealt with recently, I'm very, very confident with putting in place measures to stop that happening again. OK, thank you very much. I'll be a reassurance to the public who obviously don't want to see this. Thank you. And one good piece of news I was reading that I note that the council had applied for the keep Britain tidy chewing gum task force. And we've got some money, which I think is great. So when I was reading it, you're planning to use some of the monies on a specialist low water flow and chemical free cleaning equipment to address chewing gum on the streets and the removal of graffiti, which is great. Just wondering when you're going to get it and when it's going to be used. It has been ordered. Obviously, we had to wait for confirmation of our successful bid. I would like to think that the equipment will be with us within a couple of months. Linked to that funding. But there is a kind of project area, if you like. But once we've delivered on that project area, the equipment stays with us and we can use it on a on a citywide basis. Right. Thank you, convener. I'll try to keep this very short. Lotto and lottery are specific terms associated with the type of licensed gambling product. Have we taken any advice from the Gambling Commission regarding letter lotto? And are we confident it doesn't require a license? I'm not aware of us having taken any any information or had any discussions with Gambling Commission. I can certainly pick up that with colleagues and make sure. I mean, the scheme itself is is a national scheme and another. There are a number of other local authorities that that have signed up and we signed up on the back of on the back of those. So we were approached by the letter Lotto. But I can certainly take that question away, Councillor White, and just provide confirmation on that. OK, thank you. And the other one is at three five, you tell us about Scrub My Streets. More information in the main report that doesn't seem to be anything anywhere else. I've put in an addendum. Have you taken any steps at all to use the the parts of that initiative, which were about encouraging the public to get in contact with us about their streets and where they wanted action taken? And so, as I as I kind of mentioned in my introduction, we're we're in the process of recruiting into that team. We have tested our model that was that was in that dummy likes area. It did include engagement with with residents and ward councillors. So some residents came out and took part in community letter packs. So we did reach out to residents to address specific concerns that both residents and ward councillors had raised with us in that area. So my I guess my vision for for that particular initiative or that team would be that the ward councillors or residents could contact us. And we could we could set up those initiatives in those areas. OK, are we all questioned, I hope, I think. So I shouldn't say that. Are we all questioned? OK, good. So I'm happy to move this report. And I think it's good. And I think I'm sure we all welcome the supported improvement in street cleanliness. And I think it shows that where we invest in our staff and our systems, that we are rewarded. And it's great to see that. And I'm sure we look forward to seeing continued progress in the coming years. I think that around Councillor Dubbins point and I think Councillor O'Neill's point as well around weeds, it was always going to be a difficult few months as we as we try to transition away from the use of that chemical. And I think the move the move away from the chemical, I think, is something that's been welcomed across the city. But of course, we do have to keep the city onside by actually delivering the kind of streetscape that people want to see. And I don't doubt when we hear this about this again in the committee, we'll also hear about what the public's responses to how this is when. But nonetheless, I think good progress across the board. With that, I'm happy to move the report agenda. And formally second. Councillor Stuart Dubbins, sorry, I was trying to figure out whose initials that was. Thank you, Convenor. So I don't believe that the answer to becoming overwhelmed by weeds is to go back to glyphosate. I think glyphosate absolutely should never be deployed or should not be deployed in any excessive quantities in our urban environment. It is disappointing from my reading of the March 22 update that we had a plan. It seemed to me then to sweep, to remove detritus, to use mechanical means to rip down and rip out the weeds. So really what I'm asking for in this, in my addendum, is to understand what actions are going to be taken to change the trajectory we're on. Without resorting to glyphosate or any other herbicide. And then what's the ongoing maintenance programme going to be? Because one of the reasons it seems to me for reading the reports that the weeds have gotten so bad is because the detritus at the side of the road, the build up of dirt and earth, isn't being cleared away. That's it. Thank you. And I'm happy to take into the addendum the Liberal Democrat Amendment. Thank you. Really on the basis of all the questions that were asked by my two colleagues on either side of me. Formally. So before I go to Councillor Lamb, on his amendment, what I would say is that I think in your amendment, it seems almost like your suggestion would do nothing. Whereas I think perhaps doing nothing isn't really what you intend. I hope it's not what you intend. Because I think something needs to be done. It's over now. OK, great. Thank you for that. And so the council operates a number of BRING sites across the city. And I have to say, listening to Mr Barwell, if officers want to bring forward a proposal to remove BRING sites across the city, bring forward a report to remove BRING sites across the city. But I do feel that this site, which is in my ward, where there are issues unquestionably, is being picked on. Now, as I asked in the questions earlier on, and this has been an ongoing issue for a number of years, I have suggested as a ward member putting up signage. It's never happened. I have suggested trying to use CCTV. Never happened. I suggested relocating the bins to the very front of the car park, which is more open and visible. People will be seen more. No experiment has ever been done. And I know the Davis's Means and Silver Nows Association are against this. Because actually, this is an important facility which my constituents in Silver Nows use. So if there's want to be consistency across the city, bring forward a proposal to remove all the BRING sites. But I don't even really feel we have tried properly, properly to address the issues here. And I feel like what we've got here is a recommendation, which is the easy answer, which is simply remove the facility and remove the service that is available for people who do also use it responsibly. So I don't think we should be progressing with this. And in response to your precursor, if officers want to bring forward proposals, I think they've got operational responsibility. We keep being told, don't get into a level of operational detail. I think there's a whole ton of things officers can do without any requirement for a decision from this committee to get on and try to improve the situation before the answer is simply getting rid of the site. All together, I move. Formally. Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong place. Councillor Wright, sorry. Thank you, convener. I've got an amendment, but it's really kind of an addendum in the sense that it asks for something extra. It asks for a report on the eight hundred ninety two thousand pounds that came through the budget process as a result of my group putting forward a suggestion that we have a scrub my streets initiative. That initiative was about involving the public. It said so in the council papers that were agreed by a broad cross-section of the council. And we don't have any detail of that in the report. And while we heard about a proof of concept and dummy diets and I'm sure the residents of dummy diets are pleased and would have come forward in any case, we'd like to extend that across the city. So this is about getting a report to ensure that that part is happening and it's happening in line with with what we envisaged and what the council approved. So I hope you will be able to accept that and put it that forward. Convener, I can say that I'm in a lot of agreement with Councillor Doblin and his addendum as well. The bit I disagree with this, I don't think it's just areas of significant multiple deprivation where this problem is a problem. It's a problem that is much wider across the city. And it's interesting that Councillor Doblin mentions the March 2022 report at the tail end of the last council administration where we already had a significant weed problem, although your predecessor often tried to deny that convener. And the problem is, if we're not going to use glyphosate, then we really do have to take alternative action. And it's quite right, we're not seeing that alternative action. Now, I didn't ask a question about the deep cleans, but the deep cleans, there's a deep clean happened near my house in the last couple of weeks. It was really interesting because the cones came and the signs came and nothing happened and no vehicles were removed. And then about a week later, a team turned up one afternoon and did a little bit of poking around and sweeping. And then they came back the next afternoon and did the same. And then they came back the third afternoon. So it seemed a very inefficient way of clearing the detritus, which is quite a lot of it's still there. So we need to perfect these things if they're going to be effective for us. And just to give you a concept of why this is important, this isn't just important by how the streets look. This is important because it breaks up our roads and pavements. But more importantly, convener, the weeds spread, not just at ground level. They end up high up on buildings. They break buildings up. They cause falls of material that is highly dangerous. And so we have to do this job properly. So I agree with Councillor Dobbin as well on what he's brought forward. And I hope that we can bring all this together. And I hope you will also look carefully at what Councillor Lange has said, given the need to cover something for the residents in Silvernose. Formerly second. Thank you, convener. Do we have any other comments here on this? So on weeds, first of all, I mean, my understanding from the report, I'm going to have to go back and read it, but perhaps not right now, is that there was an acceptance that we were going to go through a transition. And in some parts of the city, weeds were going to become more acceptable than they were last year or the year before. But there was also an acceptance that we had to keep people safe by removing weeds along curb lines, trip hazards, weeds that were going to damage the fabric, et cetera. But there was an acceptance, because of the finances involved, that we were in a transition. And that's why we will be reporting back on its end of the year. But I accept. I mean, I'm probably one of these people who would like to see, well, let's not get into my personal views. On server news, so I see the tension here. And actually, when this has been discussed earlier, I'd say to Mr Barrow, your point, Councillor Lange, why is this coming here? Surely this is just something the council officers should just be getting on with in terms of managing the site. Why does it have to come to the committee to decide the future of the site? So I think you're right. This is an operational issue. So perhaps we should pass it to the council officers. So what I'll ask Rachel, if we could do verbally, is we'll just add to your text, if you don't mind, Councillor Lange, saying that we expect the council officers to manage this site at an operational level and to try to reduce some of the anti-social issues that are there and report back via business building before the end of the year and how it's performing. So it's not about retaining it. It's not about removing it. It's about managing it better in the coming months. So going through the options you're talking about, Councillor Lange, signage, perhaps CCTV, almost certainly speaking to local community, doing all those things between now and the end of the year and then figuring out what's worked and what hasn't. Please do, please do. Actually, to be fair, a previous committee agreed that any closure of a site has to come to this committee for decision. So that was fair. So can I just check through what we're saying is that the site could not be closed. So basically we'll hand over the site, it will stay within GAR's team for the coming months. They will try some of the issues we've talked about and then we'll report back at the end of the year. But right now it's costing the council quite a lot of money to operate and it sounds like, I've not seen it, but it doesn't sound like the best part of Edinburgh. So I think it has to be resolved one way or another and we have to resolve it within the current budget. So let's be pragmatic with this. To be honest, I think the fact that the community don't feel that they've had their voice heard on this I think is quite important. Because I do know the local residents association is a community council really, isn't it? It operates, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think it's quite important to keep them on board with this actually. Okay, are we happy with that? Let me check the rest of the others actually, sorry. So except SMP addendum as a business building update rather than the report, bearing in mind the report is going to come back on the performance of this service that the changes went through. [Inaudible] The key thing I'm interested in is the action plan that tells us what we're going to do when we're going to do it by. And if a business building is a better way of doing that, I'm happy for that to be the case. Okay, I can do that. Yes, so a business building. And likewise for yourself, Councillor Wright, business building update. I think I can accept that if we gain consensus convener. Okay. On the Scrub My Streets initiative, I can remember, I'm sure it was debated in this committee since the budget, and we did agree that there was a balance to be had between need and calls from residents for action to be taken. And I think that's come through in what Andy's been talking about. So it's important we get that balance right. I'm happy to agree that convener. I think the issue is we haven't actually gone out and asked communities about the need at all yet. And I think that's part of the wider set of data that we bring together. Okay, thank you. I think we've agreed something. Rachel? Yeah, so I have the report accepting all three of the amendments. The SNP one adjusted to change report to a business bulletin, same as the Conservative one, and Liberal Democrat one, adding an extra line for officers to continue to manage the site using alternative methods to improve the issues and report back in a business bulletin by the end of 2024. Thank you. Item 8.4 is the report from GRBV on the safety of council operated heavy vehicles with the Liberal Democrat addendum and Scott Miller is here. Okay, Scott, welcome back. Twice in one day after not seeing you here for a long time. Yes, happy to be here and happy to take any questions. So having been very grumpy in the last item, I promise to be much more positive on this one because didn't notice, cheeky. I thought this was a really great report. And obviously, given the issues that led to it, I want to thank officers because they've really responded very positively and thoroughly to all of the issues that came out from the motion back in March and in April at full council. So thank you for that. I did have a question around 4.17 of the report which talked about how waste collection colleagues are advised not to operate within the area of schools during peak times of the day. I'm just trying to understand and I appreciate this can be quite a subjective thing. What is defined as an area of a school? Because I think in some cases, we do need to try and nail that down because that's a very subjective term. And then people can get confused thinking, well, you said it's not within the area of a school, but I think that's the area of a school. So how do we actually define that? I think we could better define it, Councillor Lang, if I'm being honest. We obviously have looked at the kind of area recently around Crammond and we've tried to identify streets where we don't want vehicles to go into. I think some of it for me probably links into the school kind of streets initiatives as well. But I absolutely would acknowledge that we do need to better define those kind of ring fenced areas. I know this would not be a really quick piece of work, I'm quite realistic about this Andy, but would you then envisage that effectively being like a red line boundary that you would have for each school? Yes. So I suppose it is partially linked to the following paragraph, I think, which talks about the kind of in-cab technology. The procurement timeline for that technology was, I think, defined earlier this week. So we're hoping to have awarded that contract by the end of August. One of the suppliers we spoke to kind of earlier on in the process showed us some of their technology, which allows you to effectively draw a fence around certain areas. And if a vehicle enters that kind of geofence at certain prohibited times, which could be set by us, then the driver would get an audible warning to turn around and kind of exit that area. That requirement for any new in-cab system has now formed part of the procurement specification. And as part of that procurement approach for the shortlisted suppliers, we'll be asking them to come in and demo their kind of in-cab offering and back office offering as well. So Andy, in terms of that work around schools, is there a report in line back to the committee on this? Not to my knowledge, not specifically about that, I don't think. So when do you expect that work to be completed then? Well, I think as part of purchasing and deploying that new in-cab system, then the ability to draw geofences around locations, we would need to define that in the system anyway. So I'm mindful of that procurement program being throughout the kind of height of summer and might be impacted by some elements of kind of annual leave. But if we can work towards awarding that contract at the back end of August or the early part of September, then I think we can start to move towards deploying that technology, probably on a waystream by waystream basis, towards certainly starting towards the end of the calendar year. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Councillor Aston. Thanks convener. And I also like, oh Scott's got his hand up, by the way, I don't know if he wanted something to add. Sorry, thanks, appreciate letting me come in here. I think it's just also worth mentioning, you know, part of the biggest challenge when there's a new type of technology that's being utilised in a fleet like this is actually finding an opportunity where there's downtime with the vehicle that's not impacting on the service to actually get the hardware or software installed in it. We do have quite a significant amount of the waste fleet that is being replaced later on this year. It could be a good opportunity just to align that together with this new technology so that it is installed in a much quicker fashion. Councillor Aston. Yeah, thanks convener. I'd also like to say thanks to Scott and Andy for this report. So when I brought an addendum to Councillor Lange's motion back in March, I noted at that point that obviously it's very important that the council does everything it can do in terms of ensuring that our fleet is, you know, the very best it can be in terms of safety for other road users. But we acknowledge obviously that the majority of HGVs driving on the streets of Edinburgh are not owned or operated by the council. There was a recent business building update, I can't remember exactly which committee, which committee it came to, on communication between council officers and Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government about moving towards implementing the regime in London with a direct vision standard as a requirement for all HGVs regardless of operator. I was just wondering if there was any kind of update beyond what was given then it sounded like things, you know, it's been fairly positively received. Just wondering if things are any further forward on that. I'll say that one. So I'm not aware of any update, Councillor, but certainly it's something we would be keen to further look out in all areas of the city, whether it's city centre, whether it's school streets or high street areas, there are lots of areas where mitigation of HGV risk is something we want to do and whether that's traffic regulation orders or an accreditation scheme as you set out. As you point out, and the discussion at that point is we don't have that power now that the Scottish Government right now, but we'll keep that dialogue going because I do think that would be a code of practice that we could hold external fleet operators to account to. As has been seen in London, it seems to be very effective and it's caused a significant shift in fleet design through the introduction of that standard. Okay, thank you. Do we have any other questions on this? No? So I'm happy to move this report and I think it's quite a useful piece of work actually and it's good to see how technology is moving quite so fast and we're able to take advantage of it. Councillor Ficenda? I formally second. Now, Councillor Lange. Yep, thank you for that. So I do want to stress again, I think this was a really positive report and actually the ability to deliver the advanced emergency braking system by the end of the year was way better than I thought we were going to get to. So I think that was really encouraging and positive to see. Obviously, there's quite a few things I've already been agreed and we expect that to happen. Equally, I was conscious that there were areas that officers were still looking to explore further and that's why I thought it would be helpful to go back to your point around the reporting back mechanism computer that we just ensured that there was an appropriate business built and update at the first meeting of 2025, which hopefully gives enough time for these things to actually be taken through and agreed. So that we are sited on where things do get to in those areas where officers rightly and understandably wanted a bit more time to see what was possible and what was deliverable. But I'll finish where I started and thank officers for the very positive and constructive way in which they've responded to the motion, both at this committee and also the one at full council, which I think not just people on this committee appreciate, but I know many residents who've been deeply affected by the tragic incidents that we've seen. I think hopefully they will find this information very reassuring. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Okay, good. So I'm happy to accept the addendum and of course that will contain information around the schools which we're talking about earlier, which is fantastic. So I think we're all agreed. Agreed. Don't get too excited. So now we're on to section nine. So normally when we go to motions, normally we just go straight to opposing them, but we do have an opportunity to ask Councillor officers about the content of the motion. I think the Conservatives raised a really interesting point about the role of the regulatory committee in this in terms of the tables and chairs permits. So I just wanted to ask Councillor Barwell if he could explain how this works in terms of committee powers and also delegated authority to officers. Thanks convenient. So the tables and chairs are granted a permit as opposed to a license. So actually it's a permit that the Roads Authority grants as opposed to a license that council would normally give under say the civic government Scotland Act. But that's fine reading and in fairness to Councillor White I think amendment that refers to the regulatory committee and it's a matter of fact that in committee terms of reference regulatory regulatory committee has the delegated function of effectively dealing with applications that are refused. We have a bit of a conflict however in the scheme of delegation to officers that that also then gives power for officers to accept or refuse permits for road occupations including tables and chairs. So I don't think it changes the wording of any motion agreed it's just to make members aware that we'll need to take it away in the background and just figure out the right governance route that this takes because actually the two documents right now are slightly conflicting each other. But I thought it was important that members knew that before you debate and we can't talk anymore. Now do you have any questions for Mr. Barrett on that quite detailed point. I don't think it changes anything because I think my expectation is Councillor Bandel's report will still come back to this committee and once we get the report we can decide what to do with it. Okay so over to you now Councillor Bandel. Great thank you very much. Yeah we've got this hopefully uncontroversial motion about reducing street furniture that gets in the way of people walking and wheeling specifically here about tables and chairs because we've now noticed a number of cases where these tables and chairs have been encroaching on the footway to the point that they have caused pedestrian congestion. We've already got guidance on how much pavement is supposed to be kept free in street sign guidance. There is a desirable minimum of two metres and the preferred clear zone of three metres in areas of high footfall. But I understand that the officers deciding on these licenses were not fully aware of the guidance and for that reason have been approving some tables and chairs permits that leave less than one point five metres of free space which is set out as the absolute minimum. I'm not quite sure why we have two different minimums by the way. I think that doesn't make sense. Anyway so what we are asking for in this motion is for officers to provide a list of the permits that have been approved in the past year. And if they meet the standards set out and street design guidance formalize which streets are considered to have high footfall and should therefore have the three metre clear zone perhaps drawing on the work that has been done by Sean Gilchrist's team as part of the footway investment prioritization scheme and see remain recommend any potential adjustments to our policy and guidance. So the first point on this update of the street design guidance on this matter was in 2018 and I would like to know if there are any changes officers would recommend to create better conditions for people who walk and wheel. On the addenda I'm happy to accept the S&P addendum which I think is helpful and I'm happy to accept the first point of the conservative addendum on referring this to regulatory for information. On the second point I think it makes more sense if transport officers respond to this motion come back to us with a report and we can then make a decision to refer it on to planning to formalize it. But yeah that's me literally on this committee. Bye. You've still to do some summing up. Councillor Neill. Formally thanks. Councillor White. I'm happy to move fairly formally convener Councillor Pandal has said she accepts the first part. I can understand I think the planning part may may well come later. We need some clarity across the work of the committees and the delegation to officers but very much in favour of the principal because I know of some tables and chairs permits that I've raised because I didn't think the premise could have been had a permit because it took up so much of the pavement and then found out it did have a permit so yeah we need to get this action properly. It's taken formally. Sorry. Thanks. Yet thank you to Councillor Bandel for for bringing this motion. I know not all Councillors agree with this but I think that the increasing frequency of the increasing numbers of of tables and chairs outside hospitality businesses is actually a really good thing for our city on the whole. You know it is is is good for for our economy. Many of the hospitality businesses which get the permits are are are small and locally run. And I think often it can make streets safer and certainly make them feel more vibrant as well. So and of course you know businesses who are applying for this are are paying the cost of the processing of it through through through the permit fee not the license fee as a as I said in my addendum. Thanks for clarifying that but but but the permit fee. So obviously apart from the pedantic first part of our addendum the main part of our addendum focuses on something that is completely uncontrolled which is the businesses many of which are on this very street that we're on at the moment who clutter up our our pavements with merchandising stands. You know we just at the start of this year we unanimously introduced enforcement of pavement parking which has has been a very good thing. Overall and yet there's still lots of impediments that appear on our foot ways that we we aren't tackling properly and the merchandising stands are certainly one of them. I know for a fact that my my colleague who represents the city centre ward Councillor Macfarlane has been fighting a desperate and valiant rear guard action to try and encourage enforcement of it but with extremely limited success. So really this is a strong plea to officers to come back in in the report that's going to come back with how how the council can respond to repeated cluttering of our streets with often to be honest and and to finally do something about it. So I move our addendum. Formal thank you. Do you have any other contributions? That all sounds good to me. Over and out. Okay so I think I think we're in agreement here aren't we? Yeah good good good. Yes. No sorry what did you what did you say what did you accept from the Conservatives? Rachel didn't quite catch it. The point one about regulatory. But not their point two. Are you happy with point two being removed from that thing? Yeah we can always move that when the report comes back if it becomes necessary. Great thank you. Cheers. Okay so if we go to point one point eleven point one we would have to clear the gallery if there's questions to this but I don't know if people do have questions to this report. Are we happy to approve the support? There's going to be a further report on the content anyway. Do you want to you have a question to it? It's absolutely fine if you do. I can maybe ask it without referring to anything in the report convener. It was just really about the timescales of everything because there's the odd was finished on the 5th of April or something. We're told there'll be management action by the end of the month but is that when will that then be reported to us because time starts to slip and it is suggested relatively urgent action needs to be taken. Do you want to answer that Laura? Absolutely. So currently the plan is that we would bring it back to the September GRBB because it'll come back as part of the annual report and opinion for internal audit because it's part of the 2023-24 audit plan. So the plan is that we will bring the report back with all the management actions so that members can see what officers have agreed to do. There is a lot of activity in the background at the moment to pull together the different things that are going on and the board has been established so I hope that helps. Gareth might be able to add something more from an officer point of view. There are a number of actions that members will have seen and officers are working in the background implementing those. I think it's fair to say business impact assessments and resilience protocols that are being worked on in the background so that's the main substance and that's the timescale that Laura set out is what we're working towards. Sorry, we've approved the report Laura. I forgot to switch my microphone on. Thank you for being able to answer that question. So I know it feels like it's much later but it's only half past three. I know, I know. This is because it's Eula's last day. We've finished early, we've finished early. Okay, have a great rest of the day people. Bye for now.