Transcript

We're going to get started. Can I just double check with David's French online that he can hear us OK? Light and clear, right? Roy, thank you, David. Oh, sorry, Marta. Amy says she's waiting to come in, so if someone could let her into the meeting. [INAUDIBLE] Well, we can maybe get started, and then if Amy's struggling to get on the next five minutes or so, we can take a pause. Everyone keep on? OK. Roy, OK, right, good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to the planning committee. This meeting's being held in the Dean of Gold Court room. And the city chamber's high street eden brought in what was by Microsoft Teams. It'll be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast by the Council website. The Council's a data controller under the Data Protection-- Regulation 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. Members are reminded that cameras are activated by the Sun system, and they must switch on microphone to when speaking of when speaking. Taylor, can you take us on to order of business, please? Yeah, thank you, Regina. So the main agenda, sorry, has been issued. In version two of the meeting papers were published on the 23rd of April, 2024. We've had two adaptation requests that have been received on items 11.1 and 8.1 if members agree to hear these interpretations. Happy to greet. Thank you. Thank you. Motions and amendments have been circulated electronically are unavailable to view by members of the public on the Council's website alongside the papers for this meeting. If members are planning to substitute for other members at any point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who is left and who has joined the meeting. And all votes will be taken by show of hands. Just to note that as per Standing Order 22.16, each item is subject to a four-minute time limit, unless agreed by committing under the order of business. So does the convener happy to? Yeah, I'm happy to stick to the 40-minute room. Thank you. So move on to section two now of the agenda, which is the declarations of interest. The Councillors could have conducted, requires members to publicly declare interest and items being considered at today's meeting. These interests can be financial or non-financial. Do the members have anything they wish to declare? Councillor MATIS, quill. Thank you. Just to clarify, I'm a member of spokes. Thank you. Councillor Beel? I'm also a member of spokes as well. That's right, thank you, anyone else? Nope, don't think so, that's fine. Okay, thanks, Taylor. Can I just confirm, sorry, we're those transparency statements. Sorry, yeah, I never get the name right. But that's okay, thank you. Thank you for clarifying. So move on to section three now in the agenda, which is deputations. At 3.1, we have a deputation from spokes. I believe David French is online. It's in relation to, I'm 11.1 on the agenda, which is motion by Councillor Booth on cycle parking. David, hello, nice to see you virtually. You'll have five minutes to meet your presentation to committee. There'll be one question from each political group if members like to ask you a question. So please start when you're ready. Thank you. We spokes welcome moves to setting up the guidance around cycle parking. The current fact sheet is a huge improvement on what was there before, but there do continue to be some issues with it, which we are currently discussing with officers. And another problem we often see is that applications, planning applications come through, which don't meet the guidance and end up being approved. Sometimes with reports from planning officers saying that the cycle parking does meet the guidance. So important to note there that simply improving the guidance won't solve all of the issues by itself, further action is also required. So buildings currently being built or soon to be built will hopefully still be in use in 40 or 50 or even more years time when hopefully Edinburgh has a safe and attractive cycle network that enables everyone who wants to cycle around the city to do so. Those people need to have somewhere safe and secure to keep their cycles, particularly as the council and the Scottish government enact policies to enable and encourage people to drive less. And there's a bit of a vicious cycle that some sometimes we get into where the argument is made that we can't reduce the amount of driving that people do because not everyone has a bike. And whilst also saying we don't need to build and improve cycling infrastructure because everyone is quite happy driving. And one of the only places we can break that vicious cycle is in new developments by providing secure space for everyone who wants to have a bike or a cycle to keep it safely and securely. So the new development aspect of this is really important. I'm just going to rattle through a few of the specific things we want to see that improved in the guidance from issues we've seen in the over the last couple of years at Development Management Subcommittee. Particularly welcome, they move to class five vertical and semi-vertical lap cycle racks alongside two tier racks as being inaccessible. Sheffield racks which have a two tier rack above them are also should be considered as two tier. We've seen applications approved using lockers for folding bikes as part of their quota and we don't think that should count. We want to see a bit more in the guidance on security in particular things like having a steel door instead of a wooden door, we know it's important to making people feel like their bikes are secure and that gets them to be used. And where there are particularly constrained sites, the compromise if one happens should be an absolute last resort. But it is preferable to compromise on the numbers rather than on the quality or the accessibility of the cycle parking, which is something that does seem to have been happening recently but it would be good to get that in writing in the guidance as well. I think that has covered everything. If anyone thinks I've missed anything, feel free to ask me about it. Thank you.

• Thank you, David. One minute to spirit, which is what we like to see. Okay, questions from members. Got Councillor Booth, Councillor Ozzler. Councillor Camping.
• Yep, got there in the end. Thanks for coming in. Thanks very much indeed, David, for the deputation. You said quite clearly in your deputation that if there's no alternative but to compromise, then it's preferable to compromise on the numbers rather than the accessibility or the quality. Can I just push you a wee bit? And obviously, we're not currently able to ask developers to consider on-street cycle lockers. But if that is something that could be considered in the future, do you think that that would have value in ensuring that overall the development does comply both with the numbers and the accessibility and quality?
• Certainly, by on-street cycle lockers, you mean things like the hangers?
• Yes, that's what I was referring to, thank you.
• Yeah, certainly these aren't quite as good as having the cycle parking within the building where it's a bit more secure and easy to access for residents. But yes, that would certainly be a good move. But you're suggesting, yes.
• Okay, thank you. We've got Councillor Ozzler. Thank you very much. Nice to see you again, David. My question is in reference to security, I note the fact that obviously you talk about the actual area being secure and being safe, but my question is more about the safety of individuals using that area. I note you mention about obviously a still door, but also having visibility. And I would like to press a bit more on your sort of feelings towards how we make areas appear more secure, but also they are visible so individuals utilising them aren't in a closed-in space that has no windows.
• Sorry, can you just read the question, sorry?
• It's more about how would you expect to see something designed so that, because there's an awful lot in this of requirement of the number of racks, accessibility, and also different types, but also they need to be safe. So it needs to be, so the individuals using these spaces feel safe to use them, not just that the bikes themselves are safe.
• I certainly agree. I want to pretend to be qualified to answer any of the detail on that. What I will say though, is that there are additional benefits to being visible and well-lit and all of that in that. They are more obvious for residents to find and therefore harder to miss, and people might be more inclined to say, oh, I will take my bike out today instead of the car, things like that.
• Okay, thank you, we've got Councillor Kerman and the Conservative Group and AC&P Group has told Councillor Kerman and Conservative Group if you want to. Okay, thank you, Councillor Kerman.
• Thank you very much, convener. Hello, David, nice to see you, it's been a wee while. My question relates to your very opening remarks where it talks about encouraging everyone who was just a cycle to do so safely, et cetera. And I'd like to ask what steps or what does spokes do in terms of trying to encourage and promote safe cycling? And, sorry, what done they do you get? Nothing again.
• Please continue, Councillor Kerman.
• Thank you, convener. And, you know, sorry, I've lost my train of thought. Do give me a second. Because it's something, it happens to be a constituent of mine, it's something that comes up more generally. So I appreciate and I applaud work that spokes are going to do in this regard. But I wonder what else we could do together as a council with groups such as spokes and other similar groups to help promote safe, responsible cycling. And I suppose the example I would give, which is the most obvious, is concerns around the way some couriers you're cycling to and from takeaway, you know, they behave responsibly. Not all of them, but that's a kind of clear example that I can give. And clearly we want all our road users to be safe. So what are your thoughts on that on behalf of spokes? What else could we do in order to promote that general safety and cycling in order to encourage people of all ages to take the bike instead of other modes of transport? Thank you. Yeah, it's fairly simple. The answer is to build safe cycling infrastructure and then people won't be doing things like cycling on the pavement as much.
• Shorn to the point, that's absolutely fine. Give it a council gardener.
• Thank you, convener and welcome to committee David. You talked about wanting to preserve the accessible cycling and I fully get it if we move to electric bikes that they are even heavier than the 15 or 18 kilograms. A normal bike would be which is quite a heavy thing to lift down off our racks. I fully understand the reasons why you're pushing for that to allow inclusivity in our city and it's right that that is taking account of. I wonder if you share my concern though about reduction in numbers, particularly for moving to a city that's going to be environmentally friendly, low carbon and which hopefully is the direction of travel and I do appreciate that what that can be on the street but that's public land and there would be fees for the user of those lockers. So I'm slightly concerned about overall reductions in numbers if our direction of travel is to increase cycling. I wonder if you want to comment on that, thank you.
• Yes. Compromising numbers should be a extreme last resort and in those situations it's preferable to compromise on the numbers than on the quality and accessibility but it should still be a very last resort on a small number of particular the constraint sites because we are building buildings which should cater for the cycle model share that we want to have in 40 or 50 years not the cycle model share that we currently have or in certain, as we see in some planning applications what we have had 10 years ago when surveys and similar things have been done. So yes, numbers of bikes in Edinburgh has to go up and that means we should be concerned about compromising on cycle parking numbers as well as all of these other issues but when it does have to happen it is preferable to compromising on the quality. I hope that's clear.
• Thanks very much and thank you, Kavina.
• Thanks, council gardener, don't think we have to group one task anything. I think it's been really interesting questions in terms of quantity versus quality and I think that quality is really key. I think for anything we do in planning it's that we have to create good quality places and spaces and then we'll find people and return, invest in that and use that and then we'll become successful. So thanks very much for coming along David. You're really welcome to watch the rest of planning committee via the webcast and I can sort of do some motion on this. It's not till the end of the day so you might have to wait a little bit longer but please feel free to sit and watch the fun but thanks again for coming along.
• Thank you.
• Taylor, can you take us on, please?
• Yeah, thank you, Kavina. So move on to item 3.2, which is a Deputation by Liv and Ren Edinburgh. It's in relation to item 8.1 of the agenda which is responsible construction. Our written submission has been circulated and published online for this deputation. So we'll just move on to section four of which is minutes. So item 4.1 is the planning committee minute of the 31st of January, 2024. Just to note that an updated version was circulated and published online yesterday and this subbed for approval was actually at record.
• I think that's great, thank you.
• Thank you. We'll move on to the next section at 5.1. We have the planning committee rule and actions log. Committee is asked to close the following actions. Action one, two, two. Action three, four, seven, one, 10, 13 and 14 and not the domain and outstanding actions.
• Councillor.
• Sorry, I have a question. I'm just trying to find that again, I've just lost it again. It's to do with the adaptation. There is a note on it, I can find it. Sorry, here it is. On three, it says to request a report as brought back to the planning committee in three cycles. The date on it is expected completion date is June 2024 and as obviously that's next month. I just would like to check with officers. Are we going to get a response in June?
• The work is certainly ongoing. We have been targeting June for that. Obviously June may be a very busy committee and we're looking at the arrangements from that as well to accommodate the extent of business. So that remains the intention, yes.
• Okay, Dolk. With that is, are we agreed with actions? We're agreed, okay, thanks, Taylor.
• Thank you. And at 5.2 we have the planning committee work programme and committee has asked to note the work programme.
• Happy to note.
• Councillor, what do you have?
• The reason I brought it up is it's not on the work programme. We can add that, I feel like, to the work programme as well.
• Good point, thank you very much. Okay, moving on to business built-in.
• Thank you, yes. So item 6.1 is the planning committee business built-in. David Kevin, in McFarland, Saudi will present the updates. I believe the first one is built-in standards performance.
• Okay, so I'll be brief. Building standards performance, you'll see from the data there the performance is holding up well. In planning, we have a similar situation with planning performance across most areas of the service. I'll pass over to Ian and Seafield in the city plan.
• Thanks, David. Seafield, a very brief update. We're still in discussions with SIPA to get to a position of agreement on levels. SIPA has asked for a further piece of work to be done a wave action study. And how that would inform development of the site. So we're looking at the coastal adaptation plan and whether that work could fit in with that, or whether we need to pursue it by other means. But we will be looking, we have reached sufficient agreement with SIPA that it's important to progress the project that we continue with the engagement process with communities and that we bring a consultative place brief and master plan documents to planning committee before September. And on city plan, the examination report long awaited. It was published on the 5th of April. We're currently assessing all the implications of that. And we will bring a full report to planning committee in June 2024. And that will need to be referred to the full council as due process in terms of resolving whether or not to adopt city plan 2030. And we're continuing our work on the evidence report for city plan 2040.
• Excellent, the next item is planning appeals. You'll see that there's a numerical summary of planning appeals, but this business building, we've also included a written summary of some of the recent appeals. The next item is on the George cinema in Bath Street. So following a decision of council in March, officers are now have now commenced investigating the condition of the building and are making arrangements to get access to it at the moment. And so we'll update planning committee and the word counselors further, once we're further forward with all of that. And the final item is on short term let's. You'll see that there has been a letter received from the minister from housing, Paul McClellan, who wrote to the council leader in the letter, in the letter, sorry, I should say, follows a meeting with the minister, government officials, council officers and the French society, where the issues around accommodation for the festivals were discussed and the confined effect of both the planning and the licensing regimes is seen as being particularly impactful on houses of multiple occupation being led over the summer period. So typically they're kind of the student housing, the student flats that were let out when they were unoccupied by the students. We go on in the business bulletin to explain that when the short term licensing policy was agreed, regulated committee exercise, the discussion it has to apply the mandatory condition, known as mandatory condition 13, to the requirement for temporary exemptions. So the mandatory condition 13 links the licensing regime to the planning regime in effect. And it requires the holder of a license to either have applied for or have planning permission in place in circumstances where planning permission is required. And so what the minister does in the letter is confirms that the council could decide if it's so chose to disapply that mandatory condition to the temporary exemptions. So if that were to be done, that would be a decision of regulatory committee. On that front, if regulatory committee were to make any change, we would report back to planning committee on any consideration of how we should approach all of that. And you'll see again that the minister's going on to note that we have power to exercise our discretion, or we can exercise our enforcement discretion in relation to these uses. So again, if the particularly if the regulator would be committed to make a change, I think we would want to report back to planning committee on how we should approach that issue. A couple of other little updates on short-term let's, just to note that the short-term let working group was held on the 22nd of March, and it did consider the ESSC proposal and also the issue of the festival let's, which is in part highlighted in the minister's letter, just discussed. And then members had also asked that we update on the work that planning and licensing services are doing and particularly how they work together. So I think the important thing there is to say that we are working closely, myself and my counterpart for regulatory services work closely together and the teams in licensing and planning are working to ensure that all the appropriate information is being exchanged and that we're discussing issues as they arise and making sure that we're kind of both abreast of the relevant issues to each of our teams. And that's making sure that all the operational matters are properly being addressed and we get efficient use of our resources including staff time.
• Okay, questions, Councillor, also Councillor Jones.
• Thank you very much indeed. And thank you very much indeed, everybody, for the business bulletin. It's not going to surprise you, David. My question is going to be for you and it's about the letter that you've received. I appreciate understanding what you say because obviously only one committee can kind of make an initial decision on what is said that this is mainly regulatory. But I note the fact that this is a weird decision that we made by regulatory, but I would just like clarification and also reassurance that obviously, even though a decision will be made by regulatory, there will be discussion with planning offices to talk about unintended consequences because obviously this would have an impact on planning if there were any changes.
• Yeah, I mean, as I said, as I was just highlighting there between officers, there's that discussion going on almost on a daily basis. So that's absolutely happening. I think on this issue, I think it has been the case in the past that in Edinburgh, particularly when there's the festival in August is happening, that lots of properties have been let out for short-term let purposes for a brief period. Certainly from a planning enforcement situation, we did receive inquiries from time to time and an approach at that time was to take a record of them and then to go investigate them on a kind of proportionate basis. So if we were getting a report that something was very kind of intensely being used and causing a lot of disruption, we would kind of go in and check it and then. But for many of the properties, what we were doing was going to view them in early September. And what we often find was they'd close down and we would close our enforcement investigations. And we're trying to do that in a proportionate way that was used in our time, officer time responsibly. I think the link between the mandatory condition is meaning that where that is applied, it means that people who've then got a license on a temporary exemption to the licensing system, if that mandatory condition is in force, does mean that they should have planning permission in place. And I think it creates a more kind of complex situation for how we should approach planning enforcement from that simple and I think proportionate way that we did in the past. So as I say, if the mandatory condition were to be dis-applied, I think we would just want to explore that a little bit further and potentially bring a report back to committee on our thoughts. I thought around all of that.
• Can I maybe just have a very quick follow-up, sorry, comes to those to that. I'm aware some members of regulatory may be indeed a short-term like working group weren't aware of this later until it came out in the business building that was made public. So can we make sure there's sort of a formal way of making sure that those committees and working to get that in case they feel they need to be?
• Yeah, we'll certainly get that circulated. I think when was the letter received, the 12th, so it's not quite two weeks ago. But we thought it was important to get that letter before members as quickly as possible. So obviously it was published, I think Thursday last week, but we'll certainly make sure that that's circulated to the members of the working group. And did you see that?
• Particularly to the committee as well, we'll do that.
• Okay, thank you, David, Councillor Jones.
• Yes, my question relates to the George cinema and first of all, thank you to the convener who's actually met with the friends of George and I know that conversation's being had and I realize this is a very complex issue. However, I wonder if you could just give me some clarity about what actually is, what are we looking for in respect of this inspection, what's holding it up and what are the possible outcomes, please?
• Okay, so what we would be looking for is to conduct a survey of the building where we were able to go inside and see if there are any obvious issues that would cause us to believe that the building was deteriorating. So to do that, we can certainly see the outside of the building and we know that there's been some changes that have been made there. For example, render has been taken off of ironwork or steelwork columns that exist almost on the surface of the building. So there's been an external change but what we don't know is about the inside of the building, the difficulty that we have is that the building has got asbestos within it. So in order for us to go inside, we need to make sure that that's gonna be done in a safe way for officers. So we've been in contact with the council's asbestos manager who's advised that the way that that can be done is for tests of samples of the air to be taken at particular points within the building. And that enables us to understand the level of personal protective equipment or PPE that's required for anybody entering the building. So we've been going through that process and we now have got clarity on how we could get that test on and we're now in contact with the agent for the owners of the building to make arrangements to get inside the building. And my colleague has been pursuing this quite vigorously, I think, to make sure that we can get that access. But at the moment, as we sit here this afternoon, I don't have a date for when that's gonna happen but I can provide the committee, the students that we are, we're not losing sight of this issue, we're absolutely focused on making sure that we can get that access and understand. So that once we get into the building, we can understand if there are any issues that we think it's appropriate that the council should address, in some way, potentially, if required by serving a notice. There's a few steps for us to go through before we get to that stage of deciding, making a decision like that. And if we do serve, if we were to go through that, process of serving a notice, we would have to be sure we were absolutely doing it for the correct and right reasons.
• Okay, just a quick follow up. Yes, thank you for that clarification and which I know will be very much appreciated by the residents. I just, if you don't mind, I'd like to push you on, in terms of what sort of notice are you, do you have in mind?
• Well, I'm gonna be careful about how to answer that. I think I don't have in mind what notice I would think is appropriate and until we understand what the issues are, but we are looking at the powers that are available to us under the Planning Act, particularly in relation to the list of Building and Conservation Area Act, where there are different notices and different processes that can be explored, for example, enforcement notices, for example, I think Repairs notices. But also looking at the Building Scotland Act. And so we're looking at the powers that are available to us. So that's a sort of, I suppose, a desktop exercise 'cause we don't know what the condition of the building is, is like yet, but once we understand the condition of the building, I think then the question would be, is it appropriate for us to take any action under those processes? And if we were to do that, then we would need to consider what powers are available to us under Delegated Authority. And if we have those, whether we should exercise those directly or whether we should return to committee, or if we don't think we've got the Delegated powers, then obviously then that would need to be come back to committee, potentially this committee or Development Management Subcommittee, depending on which power it is and how that sits within the committee terms, is it committee terms of reference? Yeah.
• Thank you for that. And maybe just to very quickly follow up on that, the first meeting I had this morning was with David and officers to discuss the George, so it's certainly not going out of anyone's minds, and I think maybe one of the suggestions that we're going to discuss this morning is sending weekly updates to board members, just to make sure they're 100% kept in the loop. So just to say, I know the process has taken a little longer, but it's not for lack of trying, I think.
• Committee, that's very helpful, thank you.
• Great, thank you, Councilor George. I think Councilor Cameron, Council Member.
• Thanks, yeah, my questions relate to the George cinemas well. So the kind of teeny question is, Do we have an in-house asbestos manager? I thought all that was.
• Yeah, there's a Council asbestos manager, yeah.
• So we do, okay. Yeah, so as a result of, and this is no disrespect to colleagues in the ward, but as a result of this coming to Council, and obviously it's a pool on resources, has there been any other similar requests coming forward from anybody about any other buildings? Because it really isn't. I'm just surprised, and I appreciate your responding to a motion that Council, and that's a Council decision. But in terms of-
• I don't know the answer to that. I can't-
• My answer would be I can't recall that there's been a similar situation where something's come to us from Council in this way. That said, it came via Council, but it was something that we were already considering because there had been, I think, quite a strong level of interest within the community around the building. So we were looking at that at perhaps the Council decision has catalyzed what we would have been doing anyway. But I think we would be going through the same process in any case. But I think it certainly did reinforce, in my mind, the importance of the issue for the people within the community. I think I do need to stress though that before we're looking at the issue, it's there is no decision yet made, and any decision that I would make either under-delegated powers or people before committee and a recommendation to make does need to be very carefully considered. So I think it's important to reinforce that aspect. When we're in these processes, we need to go through them step by step and not rush into anything because we consider that there's a certain head of steam building up around an issue in what we want to do things properly and professionally and give you the best advice if it's a decision that you as members need to take.
• Do you have a follow-up?
• Yeah, sorry, it's just very briefly. I suppose just to articulate, perhaps more clearly, my concern, my concern is that, as elected members more generally, that we don't see, you know, if there's a building causing concern locally, that when we've all got buildings in our boards that are in various states, that we don't get a rush of either motions to council, but also really what I was supposed to be asking was, as a result of that decision, are you getting requests from like community councils or other community groups directly to you, not through elected members to take emotions to council? That's where I'm concerned that it could have kicked that off.
• Often.
• And that would be a big question.
• Yeah, I don't think there's, I probably need to go back to my colleagues in enforcement and find out is there, I do think there's a particular sort of number of additional cases coming into us, but normally what's happening is community bodies, often councillors are reporting things to us and what we'll do is we'll channel them and through the, most often through the enforcement team to look at in the first instance. And sometimes they'll be able to in standards issue that might go in that direction, but most often it's through the enforcement team that we'll try and channel things. And I think for yourselves, if there are enforcement inquiries being raised by your constituents, it's always encouraged that that people are able to use the online report function 'cause that enables us to get all the right information and it helps just kind of smooth the process and make up you a bit more efficient.
• Thank you very much, that's really helpful, thanks.
• Thanks Councilor Kerman.
• Councilor Mountain, Councilor Gardner, council member.
• Thank you.
• Yes, moving on to the figures that you've reported about the average time for householder and local planning applications. I see that the trend of fewer applications coming in, but the processing time staying pretty much on a straight line continues. And I just wondered if you could talk about why if we've got fewer applications, we're not seeing an increased time where the pressures are coming on the department because I was recently informed by a constituent that they put in an application for a householder application and were sent a letter saying that case issues meant that they were processing times were delayed which gives them concern because they're trying to engage in a restoration of that with their own personal money of quite a significant building in the city but it is still a local householder application but it's a fairly large building that they are restoring and they're programming that work is going to become increasingly difficult. They can't get tenuous responses to what a fairly straightforward applications to do with refurbishing windows and things but they've had the response that this is taking time. Now I have raised this department and I haven't had a response which is why I'm bringing it to committee but I noticed this trend is continuing and it has continued since the middle of 2122 of reducing numbers of applications but absolutely no reduction in processing times which I would expect to see.
• On the householder applications you'll see from this quarter the average is 7.9 weeks. It's been 7.7 previously and then before that 7.3 it was up at 9.25. One in relation to that I think we think that is a reasonable time to be progressing those applications that means that the average is shorter than the statutory two month period that we've got to determine the applications within that because it's an average there will be some cases that go on a bit longer but there will also be cases that are dealt with and advance that in a shorter period. It is difficult to shorten those periods much because there are processes that need to be gone through to get a decision made so you have an intake and registration, a validation period at the start of the process which can take a little bit of time then the case will be ultimately allocated to the officer, there's a period once it's been validated where it's being neighbor notified or advertised as the case may be and then once the officers have kind of formed their assessment of it the reports are finalized and then that goes through a sign off process. So I think I would be looking at this, when I'm looking at performance I am looking at the performance of the service as a whole we obviously break it down type by type we can see if we look at the local applications which aren't how soldiers are short-term let's. We are up at 15.4 weeks there but that is a kind of shorter period than that sort of peak that we had around the start of this financial year and the end of last financial year but then we go on if you look at the stats and we see that the short-term let's are as you know they've been very high numbers of those and at the moment because of all the complexity of those applications that is taking up some of our resorts so we are trying to balance I guess all of that but I think when we look at the householders as I say I don't think we can do we might be able to get down to that average of maybe 7.3 weeks but going much beyond that I think there would be a sort of law of diminishing returns to really try and improve on something much beyond that. I don't know if that's I'm not sure that's answering your question but.
• I suppose that the number of the question which I probably didn't express myself particularly is that we have been sending letters out to people in March saying that we're experiencing an unusually high volume of applications and to manage this new system as being trialed. Now if we are managing to do this within the two month period that's fine. The question is does that letter indicate they're going to be for a standard householder or disbuilding it are we looking at longer than that because of other pressures on the system and is that pressure just the short term let's is that pressure mainly down to the short term let's.
• There's definitely a pressure as a result of the short term let's there's no shining are we from that in terms of that letter I need to take that back and discuss with colleagues that 'cause I suspect that's a letter that's being generated and I think we need to I just need to be clear about why we're saying that that perhaps if I could report back to you separately on that if there's a to explain why that is and then if it's not the right letter that we're sending out we need to stop that and so I'll make sure that that happens. But I think you know from I think the point you're making there is we're saying that we're receiving an unusually high volume of applications but that graph doesn't show that and so that in my mind isn't the correct thing that we should be saying there may be other reasons why we're saying that and that could be within the context of the overall number because of the short term let's but I think we potentially need to be clear about our communications on this front.
• Thank you, Councillor Gartner and Councillor Bith.
• Thank you and just before I ask the question I do note that the building warrant percentage that's gone back up which is very welcome and I know you're looking to maintain and improve on that so I think it's worth noting when things are going the right direction as well so that that's very welcome convener and David. So it was just a quick question a bit related to the George but in general owners of listed buildings legally must maintain them in good condition. Can you confirm if that is the case and then specifically on the George just wondering if it's on the building at risk register or do you need to do the field work to establish if it is at risk before putting it on that register if that's appropriate, thank you.
• There's a general point that anyone that's got a building is responsible for it and they should keep it in as a good condition particularly when you think about aspects such as, which is another part of money around dangerous buildings. So yeah, people do have our responsibility. I think I'd need to come back to you on precisely what the building act says around that and the second part your question sorry.
• It's just about the building at risk register. I know we don't have too many on it anymore but I was just wondering if the George was on that and again, if you don't know that for now I'm sure you can share that committee.
• Yeah, I'll need to come back to you on that and clarify that, yep.
• Okay, thank you. I've got Councillor Booth then also our name we might wrap up for questions so Councillor--
• Sorry, sorry, apologies. And I was just confirming that yes it is on the buildings at risk register.
• That saves an email, thank you Anna, thank you David.
• Thank you, Councillor Booth.
• Thanks for coming in. My question goes back to the issue of short-term let's and I'm just double checking that I've understood correctly. So our STL licensing policy currently allow exemptions but it requires that exemptions should comply with all of the mandatory conditions including mandatory condition 13. Am I right in thinking that if obviously it's a decision for regulatory committee but if they were to decide to remove that that they would have to go to consultation on that removal, my reading of section 6 of schedule 2, I think it is, of the licensing regulations say that they have to consult if they're changing that. Have I understood that correctly?
• I'm gonna say that that's gonna be a matter for a regulatory committee. Do you think I'm competent to answer whether it or it should not require a consultation, yep.
• Okay, thank you, Councillor Osler.
• Thank you very much indeed. I just wanna have a quick understanding of the difference between what's going on with those certificates of lawfulness and obviously our short-term let the applications. Obviously, we have a limited number who are actually applying for the actual change of use versus a very large number indeed in terms of a certificate of a... Bear in mind the fact that obviously everybody should expect their applications we were reminded by the Minister to have them review within a timely fashion. Is there a thought about what you've seen so far of some common errors or something that where people have probably misunderstood what's difficult or what? I'm just wondering how we could try to sort of ease what seems to be a very, very large backlog where if there are any common sort of issues that are cropping up that are not relevant to a certificate or where you could possibly pit act more information so that people who are probably waiting to get a decision might have a better understanding of whether they have applied correctly or not.
• So if I can come in and perhaps Elizabeth want to clarify or correct what I see. But in terms of the certificates of lawfulness application we received a very, very large number in around the end of September and at the very, very start of October. Many of those applications were not valid applications and we needed to write back to the applicants or the regents to explain why often the fee hadn't been paid or there were some other issues with the applications. What that's meant is those issues have been resolved. Those cases have now flowed back into the system. So the numbers of applications that you're seeing in quarter four is actually potentially some of those applications that we're coming in earlier on just going through that process. So at the moment, I think it's likely that we're going to receive many pure of the certificates of lawfulness applications than we did back in, as I say, September, early October. I think as you'll see in one of the other reports today a certificate of lawfulness application if a certificate lawfulness is granted what that does is say that the use or the development is lawful. And the reasons for that in terms of a use can be that the use has been in place for continuously for more than a 10 year period or the use is not a material change of use. So effectively we've got a whole number of applications some of which will have been in place for more than 10 years and therefore we get a certificate because of that and I think there's applications that have been granted over the course of the last few months on that basis and then we have other applications which we're now having to consider very carefully. And I think later today we're going to go on to discuss the report on the ESSE proposal but that has been one of the factors is that we've been looking at the ESSE proposal very carefully and as we've been doing that we haven't generally been issuing decisions on those cases that are effectively the subject of the ESSE proposal. So you've then, you've got certificate lawfulness and as you said you've got planning application they are different things with different considerations. So if certificates of lawfulness are refused there's a potential that we may go on to receive a planning application. We may get appeals on either of those types of applications. So as I say I don't anticipate that we're going to receive very large numbers of further certificates lawfulness applications but we may receive further planning applications. But Elizabeth I don't know if you'd want to add anything to that.
• I think in response to your question Councillor Rosario to say that as a team we've been putting a lot of work into what information we can put online. So on the website we do have a large title now with short term lets it goes through what our requirements are for planning and for certificates of lawfulness and as part of that as we meet very frequently as a team and going through what are the combinations we're experiencing to try and sort of refine that information online. Not everyone reads that information online and we do have a large volume of applications that are providing a huge amount of data and information that we have to go through in various different formats as well. So it's not easy to get through quickly. There's certainly some applications that are better put together than other ones and that makes it easier to go through. But it does take up time. We do try and provide quick clean information online. We do direct people to that information as well. And yeah, I think we're doing as much as we can on that front.
• Thank you, that's all I wanted to know and you've given me massive reassurance. Thank you very much indeed.
• Okay, thank you very much. If we don't have any further questions we'll just ask that committee notes the business building. Yeah, happy with that. And maybe see let's try and get through M7.1, M7.2 and then maybe go for a break but we'll move on, so let's go on.
• Thank you. So we'll move on now to section seven on the agenda which is planning policy at 7.1. We have the annual review of guidance report which is by the executive director of PLACE and Anna Grant will speak to this report.
• Thank you. So we have a review of our planning guidance each year really to make sure it's up to date and it reflects the council's aims with the fairly recent adoption of National Planning Framework for and the recent publication of the report of examination for City Plan 2030. We really now have quite clear policies and outcomes that we want to achieve and these need to be translated into our planning guidance to add detail and an Edinburgh context to the development plan policies including those of National Planning Framework for. As a result, you'll see that Appendix One that accompanies the report contains quite an extensive work programme which we are seeking to achieve over the next year. Not just the work involved in terms of writing the guidance and developing it but also what will be also quite extensive engagement and consultation on that work as well. And for brevity, I'm not going to go through Appendix One. It's a relatively self-explanatory but obviously happy to take any questions you have on the programme or on the individual guidelines. Thank you.
• Councillor Beal, Councillor Oslow, thank you, Anna.
• Yeah, so thanks. It's really good to see what the outline is but I noticed in terms of the local centre plans you've gotten here, I mean, they're obviously not planned to update them. It's the time when they're going to be invalid because obviously after 10 years or so, are they really going to be useful or something that people would use as part of the planning process? Thanks.
• In terms of town centre guidance, I think it's something that we're really going to be having to think about what we do with those because they won't be statutory guidance after Stop City Plan 2030. So that's why we've kind of said that we're just going to be thinking about them. I think it's probably the best way to say. We're thinking about them in the context of a place-based plan for City Plan 2040, some of the work of our colleagues in the 20-minute neighbourhood team. We've got the changes to the article four directions about use-class orders. So there's quite a lot going on where I think we're just going to take some time to think about what we need from those and what we want them to achieve in that kind of place-based next stage of planning.
• Yeah, I think there's just an immediate action we would have once the plan's adopted that we would just stop the website just to explain what the status is and then thereafter, as I was saying, we can't do what the next steps are.
• Councillor Osler.
• And I think Councillor Millet?
• Yeah, I mean, there's obviously an awful lot in here, so I really don't envy you. It's to do, obviously, with the consultation going out, how are we going to explain to individuals? Because actually, this would be quite a lot, especially for people like our community councils and everybody else, and being bombarded by data. The other thing as well is, obviously, some of the issues we've had recently is about consultation with plans and things being missed off them. I give examples of the bridge that we dealt with recently. I just wondered how we're going to make sure that we can tidy up with colleagues and make sure that everything is included within our various guidance, because I'm just slightly concerned, if we consult an awful lot, if we make small changes to some, what would be the knock-on impact to others? Because if it comes back in terms of a consultation, that this bit might be changed here, how will that feed into other guidance?
• There's quite a bit of a question in terms of unpacking that. I think just in terms of engagement, I think we're learning that we have to be a bit smarter in how we engage. We're getting the feedback that people are getting a bit overloaded by being consulted and engaged, and yes, it often falls onto community councils. So what we're trying to do is try and package engagement up. So, for example, we have got the Edinburgh design guidance, we've got the guidance for businesses, so guidance for householders and guidance for listed buildings. They will go out together as an engagement package, so people then can see that whole suite and then they can choose which one they actually want to comment on, because some people will want to be more interested than the other. So I think we know that there is a burden, but we also are obliged and we want to consult extensively as well, so it's how we're doing it smarter. And I think the new consultation advisory panel that we've got set up is a really useful body to link us up with other engagements and to make sure that we're thinking about it better and doing it better. The other bit is your question that we do. I suppose as officers, we just talk to each other all the time, so we're kind of aware of what's happening and a lot of people have got oversight across the different guidelines, so we know where those kind of things are popping up to make sure that they are all talking to each other and those changes are taken into account. But certainly it is a big work program and we're aware of that. But I think it does that answer all your bits of your... I suppose it's the ratios, if you change some, some are overriding to the policy recommendations that have an impact on other documents, it's trying to make sure that if we make changes in some, that it does filter its way through. Yes, I mean, I think we do have that oversight. Yes. Councillors, I can't say a moment. Well, so you've noticed, and I've now got three questions. Sorry, as a result of that, I've had one. So if I can run there, they're quite short questions, if the convener will indulge me. The first one is, what consultation or what questions have you asked people about wrapping up consultations into three items? Because we have this recently with a load of transport stuff and it, you know, for people who are already over-burdened by consultation, that was possibly the last straw to get such enormous documents that they really struggled to work out what they were being asked. So I think the consultation panel needs to think about whether sticking three big items out is actually helpful or not and work out who are going to do that. So the second one is, I mean, I don't find, that's great, the officers are talking to each other. That's better than them being in silos. But how do you audit that trail for yourselves and coming back? Because it has to be something other than the officers are talking to each other to audit that because I'm slightly concerned about that, so for tracking that, and the real question that I was going to ask is about student housing. Given the concerns that have been raised about the census data and we don't know what it's going to come back, are we checking student numbers in any other ways against, with those people who provide services for students? Universities, sorry, sorry, real word blindness there. But the universities and colleges, are we talking to them about their student numbers so that we will be able to sense check that against the census data when it comes back? Because that could be an area where we've got low return census data that we might be very low return. So I think we might need to, sorry. Just in terms of wrapping up, I think there is always a difficulty if you create three pieces of guidance. For example, like the Edinburgh design guidance, the guidance for the buildings, the guidance for the householders, they are three things that people will have to look through and make comment on. I think the skill really is in probably the communications and how we're actually messaging out to people, how straightforward the questionnaire is, is that for asking for people. I think the idea of wrapping them up in together is the fact that we're thinking really for those three items, is it's going to be the same people who are interested in all three? So if you're an architect who is doing development work and particularly in listed buildings or whatever, you're going to want to look at all three. So it makes sense to channel them together so people can pick out what they're particularly interested in. And also, otherwise you're going out again to the same people for three separate times for effectively the same audience. So I think we're trying to think that we need to engage smartly. So engaging the same audience, can we engage on different things at the same time to save their time as well as ours? Because there's no question that doing good engagement is officer time heavy and organisational heavy and cost heavy. So there's those things to think about. Take a point about that. I don't think we have that audit trail. I think we are just working across and we already produce guidelines so I think we have to take a point and reflect on that of how we can make sure that everything is aligning up together. I think somebody else will answer your student housing one. On the student question, yeah, we've always worked with the universities to understand what the likely student numbers are. The universities themselves have organised themselves into a working group which hadn't happened previously so we're tapping into that as well. And as you'll recall for the evidence report for City Club in 2040, we do need to produce evidence on student needing demand for housing. So as part of all of that, we're bringing that all together to work with all the educational establishments, not just universities, to get as much clarity as we can from them on their projected student numbers and that will inform all the work we do. The guidance on student housing but also future policy considerations for City Plan 24 to as well. Can I have just one come back? It's just on the student housing one. Yes, we know the universities have got a working group. Yes, the universities have also come and spoken to us but know the universities have not provided the information that we have asked for on a number of occasions about student numbers. So forgive me if I have little faith in this, but I think we need to formally be double checking that with them and producing that information, reiterating our request for that information up till this stage because I think it's important. We'll be pushing for that because obviously the evidence report will be subject to a gateway check by a reporter who will consider the sufficiency of the evidence in that report on all aspects of it. So we need to make sure that what we're submitting at that stage of the process for City Plan 24 to is robust and well informed. So we can't do that without their help but they need to really push themselves to ensure they're providing sufficient information for us to get a clear picture of student numbers and how that translates into demand for accommodation going forward. And that's one of the actions we're pursuing at the moment for the evidence report. All right, thank you. Councillor Boothing, Councillor Gardner. Thanks for coming in. My question is about the Enra Design Guidance and specifically Section 4 of that is the Street Design Guidance. And I note the timetable for the consultation on that which is set out in the report. I understand from conversation with David earlier on that consideration is being given to perhaps combining some of the fact sheets into this which makes me a little bit nervous because obviously there's quite a lot of detail on the fact sheets. So can you just let me know what is the current thinking about are we going to, are we looking at potentially combining the fact sheets into that? And if so, presumably that will be consulted on as well. But what's the current thinking on that, please? Well, I think the thinking is what is the purpose of guidance? Guidance is there to support our policy and to explain it and to effectively kind of put more flesh on the bones that people understand how the policy is going to be interpreted by us. I think the onus on us as a council is to do that and is succinct and as clear as possible. And I think if we take this issue of cycle parking, see the C7 fact sheet is a separate document. I think it's around 30 or 37 pages long. It's quite a long document but a very specific issue. And there's a question in my mind about whether documents like that could effectively be distilled down. And so you grab the essence of them and you put them in the main bit of guidance. And in that way, you might be writing less words, you might have fewer diagrams or pictures or whatever, but you might actually get your message across more strongly and more clearly than if you've got a document that's, you know, sitting in a couple of tears below the policy itself because it's a sort of subset of guidance. If we were to do that, that's something that we would have to bring to committee and see our proposal is to omit that piece of guidance or that fact sheet, sorry. And here's what we're doing to address the matters that it's raised because I think there are aspects of it that we heard earlier on are very useful. But that would be the kind of line of thinking. But at the moment, I'm not saying that we will or we won't delete that and replace it with the guidance, but it is something that we're looking at. But that would be the philosophy that the idea of just trying to make things a bit clearer but more succinct and try and get our message across more perfectly as a result. Thanks, that's helpful. And I would agree with you on clarity and succinctness and it gives me some reassurance that that would be brought back to committee. I understand that there is a potentially a meeting in the diary with spokes and other relevant stakeholders to talk about what the Edmund design guidance talks about in terms of cycle parking. Would it be possible to extend that invitation to councillors on this committee as well? Understanding, of course, that from your perspective, I'm really keen to get this out to coming back to committee in June, if possible. Yeah, we are trying, as I say, we are trying to get it to the earliest committee possible and we're trying to get it to June committee. I can't absolutely guarantee that. If we are in the process of setting a meeting up with spokes just to discuss the matters further with them, there's already been a meeting. I'd be happy to open that invitation to councillors. One thing I'm conscious of when we've discussed these sorts of things in the past is that the council diary is very full and what I would be concerned about is if I needed to coordinate to find out a fee space in the council diary so that all councillors of this committee could attend. I think that might be a bit of a challenge and that could be a thing that, if we were needing to do that, could put the design guidance into Delhi. That said, there is the potential that, for other reasons, we just can't get it to the June committee so that might be a bit of an academic point and that circumstance. Thank you. Councillor GARDNER. Yeah, thank you. I note the updates to the town centre, policy guidance. My colleague, Councillor HESELP, had a motion that was brought to full council about South Queensbury and considering that to be a town centre, I think for City Plan 2040. In the light of that, and the City Plan 2030, seeking more mixed use, will then be a design guidance, not just consider these town centres, but also the wider implications of mixed use and protecting and enhancing mixed use in the city, including maybe even light industrial, if that's possible. Obviously, I'll leave it to officers, but also protecting local retail and things like that. Just anecdotally, the development management subcommittee dealt with an application in South Queensbury by chance, where the retail element was shoved right to the edge of the development furthest away from the rest of Queensbury and it was next to a motorway junction. I think there was guidance on the table, but it was rejected in that application. It's a convoluted question, it's just seeking a bit of reassurance that these matters will be considered in the design guidance. If not, do we need to get something else on the table to look at that, a separate piece of guidance? It's one measure for, I'll take the answer from however, thank you. I suppose a key way that this manifests itself now is in the issue of 20 minute neighbourhoods and the idea that you don't have sort of mono uses that don't have all the kind of services and things that people need, so the design guidance is exploring that aspect, but we need to see the design guidance in the context of the policy as a whole, so we've got NPF policy, we've got our local development plan, our city plan policies to consider, and then as Anna was outlining before, we've got the town centre guidance for those that are the town centres where there is current guidance, so all of that needs to be looked at holistically when we're making planning decisions, so I think there is absolutely a role for design guidance and I think you mentioned maybe industrial land there, that is again something that's looked at through the prism of the policy in the city plan, where housing uses are being brought in, we are looking for a mix, so it is something that will be considered as part of the design guidance, but I would say that that's not the end of the story, it's part of that bigger picture. Just a brief follow up then, do you think you need an extra resource to consider that, and you might need to go out to bring in somebody to assist you with that, but it's not fully in the design guidance, I wasn't quite sure where you're going with that. Well, we've not finalised the design guidance, the draft yet, and I think it is our intention to bring that back to committee via training session or some sort of engagement in advance to give you a handle on what we're proposing and seek your feedback and input, so there's an opportunity there. I think I need to take away what you're saying and reflect on it with the team as to what extent that's currently in the ambit of what we're looking at, and I think in terms of the resource aspect, I don't think we need additional resource, I think it is something that we can look at with the resource that we have as the team that we have to look at these things. I'm just aware that it was a piece that was done about 15 years ago where an external consultant was involved, that probably needs substantially updated, but thank you for your answer, thank you, Kavita. Thank you. I have a slightly random question which could either make a lot of sense or no sense at all, but I'm going to ask it anyway. So we obviously were going through the examination process with State Plan 2030, if, or coming out towards the end of that, and the Council was to resolve to adopt it. I know it would go back to Scottish Government Ministers. I'm thinking a little bit ahead in that scenario, when we do get it back in State Plan 2030, it becomes our active LDP, and obviously there'll be some policies that development management on that. What would happen in the scenario that we are still working through the programme of design guidance? So we have a new active LDP at worst session planning applications on, but we've got guidance that it needs to be amended. I'm just wondering for a little bit, what would happen in that situation? Yeah, so if you think about development management subcommittee, what you'll receive are reports that set out the considerations as to whether or not a proposal accords with the development plan or not, and development plan being NPF, and currently the local development plan in the future, hopefully, City Plan 2030. So that bit of the report, which remains effectively or the kind of intact, in a sense, we need to look at it through that prism of whatever the live development plan is at the time. I think if we're then relying on guidance to support our considerations in respect to that, we need to be careful to make sure that the guidance does relate to those particular policies. So at the moment, the Edinburgh design guidance, I don't think makes any reference to City Plan, because when it was an updated City Plan, I don't think it was even a proposed stage. So, but many of the policies, for example, the policy on tall buildings, there remains a policy on, that would remain a policy on that, and that is explored in detail in the guidance. And I would anticipate that we wouldn't change our thinking around that, we'd say, okay, that that still remains very relevant. So I think it's, there's probably going to be a bit case-by-case on individual applications, just need to consider what the particular issues are. But I would imagine that a lot of the guidance will remain applicable, even though we're saying we need to go out and refresh it and update it. That's useful. Thank you, David. We've got any more questions? No, that's fine. So, I'm happy to move to Port Frankana, and the team for the work on it. You know, this review will be key to ensure that, you know, effective guidance is in place to support Plan and policy aims. So, yeah, with that, happy to move to the report. Committee agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much. Taylor, let's move us on to the next item. Then we'll probably get a break. Thank you. Thank you, here's the next item on the agenda is item 7.2, which is the Scottish Government Consultations on Development Plan Regulations, Master Plan Consent Area Regulations and Resourcing Planning. It's a report by the Executive Director of Place and Ian McFarland will speak to this report. I think the report's pretty full in terms of what it covers and includes appendices which give the draft consultation responses. But happy to take any questions on those. Any questions? Gwen, Gwen, Gwen. That's fine. Oh, sorry, Council Member, missed you there. Sorry. Yeah, it was just a clarification. In your, sorry, in your note, you say that it doesn't really, it's silent about, sorry, I have to flick between two bits of the report, which is really irritating for whom. But at 4.5, you say it's silent on how the housing figures for the MPF4 might be addressed. But in the background paper for the consultation at Paragraph 9, it does say that MPF4 will be reviewed every 10 years, which is a full review. But what we're looking at is, and that implies, at Paragraph 32, that the MAFLA figures could be altered via an amendment. And it was just in the report. We had this discussion at the APM that we sort of were concerned about how we might. The overriding concern about the response to this seemed to be, well, we could be left with a situation that you could have like 14, 17-year-old MAFLA housing figures, which would be really concerning, I think, for everyone doing planning in Edinburgh. But I didn't get that from the report when I went into the documentation. It seemed that there was a provision for that in the paper. I just wondered if that was your interpretation to be with my interpretation about that, so I could stop worrying about this, basically. I mean, I think certainly for a full review, there are the provisions of the Act in relation to that for National Planning Framework 4. For an amendment, I didn't pick up on any particular mechanism on amending the housing figures. But I can double-check that and clarify that reference if that's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? Nope, that's fine. Okay, committee, I'm happy to move the report. It's a committee happy to read the recommendations of the report. Pretty, that's fine. Members, do we want a break now, or? I see, I see, yes. Okay, that's fine. Let's come back half past then, so that's eight minutes. Thank you. Do you want a bit? Okay, 25-2 then. [inaudible] [silence] [silence] [silence] Good afternoon, committee. Shall we get started on 8.2 please, Taylor? Oh, can I just double-check it? Councilor Beanie's making can hear us all right? Good stuff on your go, Taylor. Thank you. So we'll move on now to section eight on the agenda, which is planning process. At 8.1, we have the ASSC proposal on short-term let's report. It's by the executive director of place. There's a green group amendment that's been circulated on this item, and David Givin will speak to the report. Thanks, Taylor. Thanks, convener. So this is the report in the ASSC proposal, which is, as a matter of policy, that any P short-term let control the property and existing use for short-term let purposes that is not subject to a complaint or enforcement is not considered to be a material change of use and therefore does not require planning permission and a certificate of lawfulness can be granted. So we set that letter out in appendix one, so you can see that in detail. The ASSC proposal arises, I think, because the ASSC believe that the policy objectives in regulating the short-term let sector are being achieved. You'll see in the report that we do think there has been a marked reduction in short-term let properties from five years ago back in 2019. So the report itself sets out the benefits and risks of the ASSC proposal. In terms of benefits, we think that for operators of the short-term let properties, there are clear circumstances for granting certificates of lawful use. Those that are not subject to complaints or enforcement would be granted, so that would be many of those properties that are currently in existence and for which we have applications that have not yet been decided. It does reduce the potential for further judicial reviews from those particular operators or groups they're of, and it does reduce the administrative burden for the council in administering these types of applications, because that part of the consideration is that material or not becomes much simpler, don't need to do the fact and degree assessment that we go on to the report and the report to describe, potentially there are fewer appeals, so there's a number of advantages there. But in terms of risks, we think that by consequence we no longer be doing the fact and degree assessment, the case-by-case assessment that we do for these types of applications, the certificates of lawfulness applications, as a matter of course, as in any kind of certificate of lawfulness, that's the process that we go through when we're considering whether there's been a material change of use. So that's the approach that we normally use at the moment, and that is the approach we've used in the past for other types of applications and of course for short-term let's. The court decision, the judicial review itself, implies that section 26, sub-section 1, of the act should be used, which in turn implies that a fact and degree assessment should be considered, or by implication should be considered. We think that creating a blanket approach in the way that is proposed could result in cases that are actually material changes of use being deemed not to involve a material change of use, and it would effectively define what is a material change of use in a procedural policy, and we consider that such a procedural policy is proposed cannot make something that is relevant, that is a relevant consideration, irrelevant, or an irrelevant consideration, relevant. So the report then goes on to look at the benefits, the risks of the fact and degree assessment. We think that the fact and degree assessment is consistent with what the previous court cases have said, and they're cited in the report, and also flows from the planning judicial review. The disadvantage of the fact and degree assessment is potentially we will receive more withdrawals of applications creating an unclear position for those particular properties, and there could be further legal challenges. On balance, we don't consider that the SSE proposal would be acceptable, principally because it doesn't involve that case-by-case fact and degree assessment that we consider is required for considering the issue of the materiality of change. We conclude by saying that we are required to bring forward a further report as a result of a previous committee decision on options for guidance once city plan is adopted. In relation to that, we've been looking closely at what the examination report says around the housing loss policy, where it actually proposes to delete that. So we are giving consideration to whether we could bring that report forward earlier than city plan adoption. When we do bring that forward, we would give further consideration to the concerns raised by the ASSC. So in summary, we are asking committee to note the ASSC proposal, and we're asking you to note that for the reason set out in this report, that the proposal is not acceptable, but we are noting that that further report would be brought forward to give consideration to these concerns raised by the ASSC. Okay, thank you, David. Do we have questions from members on this report? No questions? Just checking. No, that's okay. Okay, I'll move to -- I'll just wait one second. It's not to be fair. It's not the worst-ranked one of her, David, so that's okay. So obviously, I would just say, we've introduced, just to my members, introduced the short-term light control area to help us manage the numbers and locations of short-term lights across the city. I think it's important to strike a right balance between promoting the visitor economy while looking after residents who live here all year round. And our current policies is to determine the material change of use. It's occurred for short-term lights operating before the control area came in in line with our planning legislation and the recent ruling from the judicial review. And as David said, it's been determined that STL is operating before the control area came in. It was the lead planning permission to be considered on a case-by-case basis. If implemented, the ASSE proposal could continue -- could lead to accusations of unfairness for operators who have been subject to previous refusals of planning permission for certificate of lawful use. There is also a need to have in place a fair and balanced approach to the regulations of short-term light properties within Edinburgh. And we'd be concerned that if we were going to accept the ASSE proposals, that Edinburgh could be -- or Edinburgh Council could further be open to, and other judicial reviews as we have straight away from the ruling that we received in December and the fact of degree basis that we as SSTL applications on M should remain our policy. As David mentioned, the going forward will bring forward another report to planning committee on MPA national planning framework 4 and set a plan to make their to determine if we need to make any other further changes. For me, the matter of the ASSE proposal is settled. We now have to continue to have a focus on making our policy. And I think fair to remind everyone that policy has been a poorly written policy. It's been passed into Councils to try and implement -- to try and make that work as basic hands for the residents of our city. And with that, I'll move the report and ask for Councillor CUMM. Thank you, Councillor CUMM. Thank you, Councillor CUMM. Councillor BOOF, your amendment. Thanks for actually indeed convener, and I agree with you that the ASSE and I'm grateful to officers for their report and agree with you that the ASSE proposal should not proceed. What our amendment seeks to do is simply to say that if we are, you know, responding to sort of concerns that have been expressed, that those should not just be the concerns expressed by the ASSE, there are a number of other stakeholders to name just to the Coburn Association and Living Rent who have engaged on this issue a considerable amount. And if we are to create a balance, reset the balance between the needs of the tourist economy and the needs of residents, it's important that we listen to all sides. So that's what we are seeking to do in our amendment. I would, with your permission, convener, just like to make a slight verbal adjustment, which is to delete two cycles and insert three cycles at the end of our amendment. But with that, I move, I'm grateful for you to you convener for indicating that you're prepared to accept this, and I hope it's also acceptable to other colleagues as well. Thank you, Councillor BOOF, and you're happy to accept the three cycles of State of Two. Councillor Staneforth. Yeah, I think, Convener, you mentioned being fair and balanced, and in that regard, it is important that we do consider the needs and comments of all stakeholders with regard to this. We can't single out the ASSC simply because they approached us separately with this suggestion. So I'm very happy to second this amendment. Thank you, Councillor Staneforth. I'll open up to contributions from the members of the first two Canadians. Councillor MURPHY. Yes, I'm very grateful to Councillor BOOF for explaining what his amendment did, because it was, I have to say, so convoluted in its writing, that I've missed that he was all just adding in a timescale and additional stakeholders. I personally think it's entirely unnecessary, because I think all that we're saying here is that in this, we were responding to a particular concern. I personally felt it was very important to respond to that concern given the slightly fractious relationships and the difficulties that go along with introducing new legislation and a new burden on a sector of the community. And I felt it was important that we should respond openly in public, and I thank officers for the report, which I think is very full. It does that, and it states the position very clearly. And I have no problems with the position that has been arrived at. But I do think that when we're in the situation where what is regarded by those operators as an onerous burden, and who have been quite willing to challenge the new legislative regime that has been set up by between ourselves and Hollywood, that we do so in as open and straightforward a way as possible to show that. So, I mean, I don't think that the Greens Amendment is necessary. I'm not going to bother to move the report as implicit and quibble with it. I would say that if you are going to amend something fractal, you might want to amend the grammatical errors at the same time. That would just be me. But I think the most important thing that mustn't lose sight of here is the very full and careful way that this report has been prepared, and I do thank officers for that, and there will be opportunities. And as it will be as part of the MPF4 and the city plan, there will be other people who have the opportunity to express their concerns and feed into those decisions as part of our normal processes. Thank you, Councillor Mckin. I've got Councillor Nees Meakin and then Councillor Gartner. Thank you, Karina. I just wanted to state my support. I didn't sort of drill down into any grammatical issues, but I think the principle is what we should concentrate on. We've had a very detailed input from the association or short term wedding, but the input of living rent, corporate association and others is also very valid. So I welcome it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gartner. Yes, sorry. I missed Councillor Booth's verbal. Was that to state living rent and the co-burn? I don't see that in the actual amendment. No. So just to confirm, Councillor Gartner, it strikes out the final paragraph. It strikes out the ASSE and puts in any relevant stakeholders and report be presented to committee in its originally two cycles, but we're mending that to three cycles. So do we need to actually name who Councillor Booth wishes to include, for the record, living rent and the co-burn? Happy to have them as stakeholders, but it is a wee bit open-ended for officers, et cetera. So do we want to restrict it to them or that's my thoughts, but happy in principle to get this white or the relevant white stakeholder group, given that the ASSE have had their shot at it quite rightly. So it's appropriate to hear from others and whether we want to name them might be helpful. Okay, just for a second, we'll go back to any other comments that members want to, no, that's fine. Well, I mean, I think Councillor Booth has his time for changes to his verbal amendment. I'm happy to keep it really open-ended at the moment because, of course, we can name a few organisations that we'd like to have involved, but I'm sure we've more thought there might be others. So I'm happy just to part of that and leave it for a moment and then have a more detailed thought about who we get involved. So I'm happy with that, Councillor Booth, I see a nod from you. You're quite happy to keep to this. Just a confirmed convener. I'm moving my amendment as set out and I would just respond in terms of Councillor Malice's point. My apologies, the initial version of the amendments that were circulated did not include all of the formatting. And I hope that version two does include all of the formatting, including grammatical errors. But just to clarify, I'm moving it as circulated with the only variation being to delete two cycles and to insert three cycles. That leaves it open. Okay, that was fine. Let's keep to that then. I suppose just in the very quick work of the pie, I think I missed a bit just to thank officers for the hard work on it. I know it's quite sensitive issue and you've had to take a lot of time to think about and deliberate with planners, legal and all the rest. I know you've put a huge amount of work to come to the outcome. We have so thanks for that. So, like I said, happy to move the report. Happy to accept the Green Amendment with that for both change on the cycles. Committee, we agree to that. Okay, agreed. Thank you. Can you move us on, please? Yeah, thank you, convener. So, I'm on item 8.2 now, which is the responsible construction report. It's by the Executive Director of Place. There is a Green Group Addendum that has been circulated on this item, and David Givin will speak to this report. Thanks, Celar. Thanks, convener. So, the responsible construction working group, there was two meetings that were held in March. They were held with elected members, community council reps, members from the development forum and officers from planning, transport and environmental health. I think they were very productive meetings. Appendix 4 in this report sets out the legislative framework covering those matters of planning, transport and environmental health and gives you some of the detail there. Importantly, what we're asking committee to do is to note the contents of the report and agree that the report discharges the remit set by Planning Committee in November last year. But importantly, to note our next steps, which are to improve information, including legislative responsibilities and the council's expectations, and to communicate those through the life of design development and construction in practice. What we mean by that is from planning pre-application stage onwards, where we're being clear as a planning service, but also with our colleagues who are the rights involved, so colleagues from transport and so on. And we're given consistent messages about what the expectations are. And thirdly, to promote the registration of construction sites against the Considered Contractor Scheme, because we believe that's a good scheme for looking at these types of issues. Thank you David. Any questions? No questions, that's fine. Well, I'm happy to move the report and obviously thank officers for their work and for members engaging on the working group. I think the report recommendations are commitment to trying further balance the needs of new developments in Edinburgh in a sustainable manner and trying safeguard the amenities of established communities as well as new communities that have been built. So welcome the commitment from officers to continue to communicate across the wider service to improve communications with the users of our services and hopefully those benefits will benefit in a sustainable way. So yes, I'm happy to move that. So maybe just say something Thor comes up with to think about when moving his Green Amendment that might be persuadable to remove the and annually thereafter and I only say it is I think we've got it's good that we have a 12 month commitment, but might get a little bit onerous for the long term. So I'll let you think about that. I'll move the report. Councillor CUMMING you to second. Seconding you, Councillor Dibbins. Thank you, Councillor Booth. Thanks, CUMMING. Thanks very much indeed to officers for the report. And I'd like to also put on my on record my thanks to everybody who's involved in the working group, Council officers, members of the development community, but also community councils and residents as well. I'm grateful to Councillor MAYOR as well for standing in for me at the second meeting when I couldn't couldn't convene it. I'm happy what my amendment seeks to do is just to sort of make sure that it doesn't entirely drop off our agenda so that we do get an update in 12 months time. That doesn't necessarily need to be a report. It could just be something in the business bulletin. And I'm happy convener to drop the last three words and annually thereafter. It's obviously up to a committee in 12 months time to consider whether a further report is needed. If there is further work to be done, we will obviously, as local Councillors, we will obviously listen to our local residents to see whether they feel that it's making an impact. If it's not making an impact then perhaps we need to look at it again, but let's come back to it in 12 months to do that. So, yep, thanks, CUMMING. With that, I'm happy to move the adjusted agenda. Thanks, Councillor Booth. Councillor Stineforth. Thank you, CUMMING. Yes, obviously, it is very frustrating the limitations of our powers over construction. At the moment in my own ward, I'm dealing with the construction of something that people have likened to the Berlin Wall, making a very narrow path. And indeed, it is something to see if you see the pictures of it. Hopefully, by encouraging responsible construction, we can avoid things like this in the future, and construction can be something that is not such a burden on communities. So, I'm very happy to second this. Thank you very much. Any other contributions from members, Councillor Osler? Yeah, I have several issues with this and by all at this present moment in time. Part of the difficulty, especially with our 2030 planning, obviously, is we're urban-led, so this is going to be something that's going to become more apparent. I think the other side of this we need to look at is what can we actually realistically do? I think that the difficulty we have quite a lot is there's such a long delay between a planning application being granted and something actually happening. That many people move into an area unaware of the fact that something's been granted permission, and their feeling is very strongly that suddenly, out of the blue, something pops up out of nowhere. So, I would hope as well that we would be able to find ways to sort of, you know, be able to have a better communication with residents about, you know, what to actually expect as well, and how we actually manage construction. Because in fairness, I do have operators in my ward, you know, developers of the board, who do try extremely hard, and they actually go above and beyond. But understandably, for some residents, there's still a massive impact on their amenity, because if you've got cranes and you've got things being delivered, that is going to be a huge impact. No one's going to enjoy that at all, no matter how well a site is managed, that is very, very impactful. And, you know, the most important factor out of this is to make sure that we have good dialogue between developers and residents, and we have realistic expectations of what actually can be achieved in what is a very difficult and not a very natural circumstance that nobody particularly wants on their doorstep. Thank you. Does I move it? Yeah, I wasn't going to come in, but I will come in. Actually, it was very useful, because there's probably more that can be done, and even if you read through the report and a bit of information at the back about all the different schedules and bits of powers that sit in peculiar places. That's actually a really useful crib sheet for both, I think, council and officers who weren't always having everyone in the room was a valuable exercise. And I think, you know, the number one takeaway, really, and the number one ask from communities was actually about improved communication and having that information gathered together. So it would be interesting to see if, over the year, we do improve things for anyone, but I think it is something that we have to be alive to, but what we'll be coming forward and we've got the report of examination of, for certainly the next four years, is going to be a plan that he's going to create, should it be built out in the way that it's envisaged, it is going to create a lot of disturbance for people already living in places, and in some places it will be incredibly burdensome. So hopefully that we can go a small way to making this, but that communication piece is probably the most important bit, but also us having that information so that when there are, because there are bodies within the council, it can help in a way that I think people don't entirely realise. So hopefully it will be a useful exercise, but I don't think anyone should underestimate the scale of the task and the impact that we will be agreeing ahead of us. Thank you. Any other contributions? No. Are we happy to note the recommendations in the report? Great. Thank you very much. Taylor, can you take us on please? Yes, I'm also accepting the, I should have said, the green at the end, I'm sorry, very rude of me, but just without the last three words, but I think that's a great. Thank you. So move on to item 8.3 now, which is the West Edinburgh Place Making Framework and Strategic Master Plan Report. Again, it's by the executive that it's replaced, and David Given will speak to this report. Thanks. So councillors, this report follows your decision in December on the west end, but a place making framework and strategic master plan. And that decision was that to approve the document for use once city plan was adopted or is adopted, I should see. The report stated that if the examination report was to make any changes in respect to West Edinburgh, that we would consider the impacts and come back to committee on those. So effectively what the report you have before you today is doing that. The report of examination on city plan sets out requirements for the West Edinburgh area and for a West Edinburgh planning framework. So it's very helpful in that it gives a firm basis for having a West Edinburgh Police Making Framework. In the examination report, it includes topic areas that are similar to the chapter headings that we've got within the current document. And so well, there's much that is similar. The examination report does set out areas where we consider that additional work is needed, particularly in relation to phasing and infrastructure delivery. And potentially on the Google Burned Event diversion and also on the airport boundary. In the report, we also set out that the airport's Edinburgh Airport have positions, the court's session for a judicial review of the West Edinburgh Police Making Framework and Strategic Master Plan. And the airport are concerned around the process for approving the guidance and the bus gate and on the airport road and signalised junctions. If you approve this report today where we're asking for authority to update the document to address the matters that the reporter has highlighted in the report of examination, that would also enable the airport to feedback on the issues that they have raised in their judicial review. So as I say, we're seeking authority to go out and consult. That would be for an eight-week period. Once we've considered that consultation, we bring the framework back to committee for your consideration. And we would hope to do that in the early part of the autumn. Okay, thank you David. Any questions from members? Can some of it? I suppose when we usually go out to consultation, we usually give them a draft document. So in this case, we will change the document in alignment in accordance with what the reporter of examination has recommended and send that draft out for consultation. Or are we sending out the original document plus the proposed changes? That may not sound like the same thing, but I suppose what I'm concerned about is that whoever we are consulting with, sees, understands what the changes are given that this document was only approved in December and understands why. So that will be contextualised for them and it will be very clear what has been changed for them to be consulted. I think that's a good point. We need to consider exactly how we do that. But I would anticipate, as I said, that the substantive change would be in and around infrastructure delivery and phasing. So I would expect there to be a significant augmentation if not rewrite of that chapter. And I think we could make it clear in the consultation that that's what we've done or that's what we will do. Then in relation to the Gugger burn, we need to give consideration about what more we can do to try and firm up the situation in respect to that. And again, on that, I would see that as being quite a contained piece of the guidance that, again, we could highlight that we've the extent to which we've changed. And in the other substantive matter, there may be other little bits and bobs. The other substantive matter was on the issue of the airport boundary. And we need to consider how we address what the reporters say in there. So, as I said, I think it's a very good point that you're making. And I think we would want to make very clear in the consultation what changes we are making. But what I would anticipate is that we go out to consult on a single whole document rather than the existing document and some additional changes which sit to the side of that. I think it would be better and clearer if we said, right, this is the document that we're proposing and ask what the thoughts are around that. So that would be my intention. And my intention would also be to consider carefully what you're seeing in respect of making it clear what the changes are. I have a follow-up, please, Karina. So, what's the time scale for the consultation? Because it's an eight-week consultation, but if the document needs to be amended and from what you've just said, I think I understand that the document hasn't been amended or updated yet. So, when are we looking at having an amended document and the start of the consultation period? So, the team are already considering what the implications are and we're effectively working on that at the moment. And obviously, if we get authority to proceed today, then they'll continue to do that. We'd anticipate, and this is an indicative time scale, but we would anticipate being out to consultation towards the end of me and then running an eight-week consultation date after. What we do consider is that we have had a detailed consultation already on the document as a whole. So, we think that that eight-week period is an appropriate period to enable people to feedback on the document as a whole and to feedback on the particular items that are changing given that context. Well, I suppose, can I have a third comment? No, it's a second supplementary, I think. I'm just wondering, given that these were recommendations that came out of the report of examination, is there any merit in going through the report of examination as in from the council's point of view about are we challenging them and having that conversation before we put this out to consultation so that this isn't subject? I don't know that it will be subject to any changes, but I just wonder, given that we've been out in, we had a large consultation, produced a document in December, received the report of examination which recommends some changes. Should we not sort of bottom that out whether we think there's any changes in that before going out to consultation? Just so we don't have to alter this a third time, or is there any disadvantage in holding that consultation back just until the council end of that process, not the ministerial end, but the council end of that process has been tied up? The disadvantage is one of time scales, so if we were to do that, we wouldn't be able to go out to consult until after council had made its decision on the plan and what we would like to do is to try and get a report back to committee for the early autumn. As you're aware, there are two significant applications that have been received for the west end of the area and we would like to be able to determine those with a finalised version of the guidance in place, and obviously for every period in which we delay going out to consultation, that means there's more time needed at the end of the process, that's one of the drivers for trying to do this over the period that I just indicated. There is a risk that if council was to decide, it didn't wish to adopt the plan with the reporters' recommendations that this work would be a part of, so there is a risk there, the development plan team are very carefully working through all of the recommendations at the moment as a whole and making sure that those are being addressed properly In respect to west end, we've looked carefully at the recommendations that we think are relevant to the west end but a place making framework and I think we are content, there aren't elements within that that cause us on dual arm on that front, the idea that there would be some issue with them that would mean that they shouldn't be incorporated into the plan and I think as Ian has outlined before, we have to be very careful about how we address the reporters' recommendations and there's a limited scope within which the council can make any changes to what the reporter has recommended and those are principally around if there is some issues where we consider there could be a legal flaw in proceeding with what the reporters have recommended, so yeah, I think in terms of the question you asked, there is an element of risk there but there's also the potential that if we don't proceed as I've indicated that it deletes our ability to make decisions on applications Councillor Osler, Councillor Beaubin, Councillor Gardner, Councillor Osler? It's a really simple question because you also have one of my other questions, luckily in that bit, very simple question which is obviously we're going out to consult for a specific reason, for the majority of individuals they don't really understand what's happening or what's happened or what's going on we'll be explaining right at the beginning of the consultation precisely why we're going back out to because I'm slightly worried that individuals will look at this and kind of go, Hey, I'll have a sec, haven't I just seen this already? and we just done this, they don't necessarily understand the final machinations of what this is about, so I would ask, but I would ask in very clear English if possible that we try to explain to individuals exactly why we're doing this because I think that would centre people's focus a bit better because it is quite a massive document. Yeah, I think that's actually important that we explain in a simple story what's happened, so committee approved a document that followed a consultation and we can link people to that so they can go and have a look at that if they want but we've made changes because the report of examination has said x, y, z and explain where those changes are and potentially highlight them in a different colour or whatever in the document so that people can see that and then I think what we would be doing in terms of the consultation is seeking feedback on those issues that have changed but also giving people the opportunity to comment on the document as a whole. And a small brief follow-up, in the original one we obviously could start with schools, we could start to require a lot of different groups, are we planning on doing the same thing or are we just planning on particularly to have a consultation? I think Anna could comment on that. I've been working with the CAP just to look at what the engagement programme is. I think we're looking at having really e-mailing out to those who already responded to the first time around we'll have a drop-in meeting so people can come and talk to us and we can better expect if they need it that better explanation of what's going on and we'll also do a question there in the consultation hub and a letter drop to those people living in the area that we capture everybody who would be affected. Similar to what we did last time, learning from what didn't work last time but also not going quite as extensive as we did before. That's good to know that's a great issue and thank you Anna. So mine's actually on the same kind of vein if you like it. Just in terms of if you are going to put full documents out then it's what weight are going to be allocated to the responses this time. The inter-group is going to have to respond in the same way they did last time with the same response. It seems to me again that in terms of council officers the question has to be clear but still how are you going to treat responses for people who are going to treat in the same way as you did in the first time. Do they need to resubmit to be kind of considered again? So if you could answer that thanks. Give me that. I guess in terms of the previous consultation the effect of that was for us to change the document and quite a substantive way to address what had been raised by that consultation. So if people want to pass comment again they'd be free to reiterate the same comments if they feel that those same comments still apply I guess. But effectively this is a fresh consultation, I think we would want to bring focus on the areas of change in the document and to ask about those. But I think it's also important because it's a document as a whole that people are given the opportunity to comment on the whole of it if they so choose or any individual aspect of it. So just a quick follow-up on that. Does that mean therefore this is going to be much delayed because obviously if you get a full level of response you have last time then this will also presumably need a lot of work in terms of dealing though so putting off the timings again. Yeah we did get a really good response last time and so that you know I've indicated I think we want to bring this back in the early part of the autumn. I think there is a potential depending on the volume and the detail and the particular issues that have been raised that that could delete things because there may be aspects that arise from that that we need to look at. Effectively more carefully and more slowly than we might otherwise hope but I think the timescale that we've outlined at the moment we think is realistic, relatively ambitious I think but it is I think a realistic timescale. Thank you. The last time it came to committee we delegated authority to officers to make minor changes and one thing that committee agreed upon was the one I'd raised about Googers Station Road and potentially a junction on the A8 at that point to relieve the dumbbells round about and allow easy access into rattle which obviously is the most disadvantage community in terms of public transport so can that be incorporated into what goes out to consultation again please I'm not sure if it has been or will be but I think it may be appropriate now given that you committed to do that to make sure that goes out to consultation. Thank you. We've certainly looked at the wording of the committee agreed last time which did change the document and we incorporated changes to that it may be worth just highlighting to those to you separately and showing you those. But yeah we did look at that and so that that we would anticipate that those would be incorporated as part of the document that now goes out to consultation because I don't foresee those elements from memory being changed by anything that the reporter has said. It's a very brief follow up so you've talked about the text that's extremely welcome and just in case the plan needs any of the plans or maps need to review can you just check that they reflect that as well please yeah but we'll do that. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much. I don't think I've got anyone down for any further questions. Okay that's final I'm happy to move the report and I think the first thing to say is you know since the site plan examination I think it's actually been quite positive in terms of result we've gotten back from West Edinburgh that the Scotch Government reports of I think on the vast majority of issues agreed with the direction of travel we're going in the city council and West Edinburgh. But I think as David you said in December now members and officers that you know this would have to come back if there are any changes that were needed changes were needed so this report isn't coming as a surprise. And I think by agreeing the report will give officers an opportunity to engage with a variety of stakeholders and internal stakeholders are able to make their views known so with that I'm happy to move the report. Committee will be agreed agreed. Thank you so there are no reports at section 9 or 10 on the agenda so move on section 11 which is motions. We have the motion by Councillor Booth on cycle parking at 11.1. There is an administration amendment and a conservative group amendment on the site as well and I'll pass over to Councillor Booth to move the motion. Thanks very much indeed convener I'm happy to move my motion I'm happy to accept the administration amendment I won't be accepting the conservative amendment. I think in most surveys as to what the main barriers are to people cycling more the number one is safer infrastructure but usually two or three on the list come up as somewhere safe and secure to store that bike at both ends of the journey both at home and at the destination. In fact surprisingly the National Institute for Care Excellence did a review of 47 papers which looked at what the barriers are to people participating in cycling and the number one barrier that they identified was the absence of adequate storage. So although many studies put it as number three on the list this one actually put it as number one on the list. So I think it's important that we get it right. Now we have seen significant steps forward in recent years with the publication of fact sheet C7 which is warmly welcome. But I suppose what my motion seeks to do it seeks first of all to build on and acknowledge the motion by Councillor Osler that was brought this time last year which specifically looks at the design guidance. And it seeks to build on that by saying we need to look not just at the design guidance but also fact sheet C7. And we need to highlight that there have been a number of issues that have come up recently both at DM sub and have been highlighted to us by stakeholders. Specifically this issue of should lockers for folding bikes be regarded as non-standard bikes. I feel that that is against the spirit of what is set out in C7 and perhaps we need to consult on changing that to make it explicit that that is not to be regarded as acceptable in that regard. And the other issue is two tier racks are important where there is a severe space constraint but I think we need to acknowledge that they do create problems for some people in terms of the accessibility. You know it needs a certain amount of height and a certain amount of upper body strength to be able to pull down the levers and putting your bike into the lower tier of a two tier rack to tall people or even moderately tall people can sometimes bang their head going in. So what my motion seeks to do is to seek to as I say build on the work from Council Ozzler's motion last year and to say we need to look not just at the guidance but also to ensure that decisions that are coming forward to DM sub are consistent with the guidance wherever possible and where that's not possible that there is an explanation of why that has not been possible. Finally convener, I know that at the moment there is no potential for us to sort of look outside the red line and to look at ask developers for a contribution if it can't be provided on site to consider off site provision of cycle storage. We do something similar already through the car club, you know developer contributions, this is looking at whether or not we could do that something like that. I think I would agree with stakeholders that it should be an absolute last resort that the preference is on site but I think it is something that we should consider. I accept the reservations that people have set out that obviously a cycle locker will need a fee but I would just point out that the car club operates on a similar basis you can't be a member of the car club unless you pay the fee. So I think it's something we should explore and I would be grateful to colleagues for their support for the amended motion. As I say I'm happy to accept your amendment to convener. Thank you Councillor. Thank you. I'm very happy to second this. I think it's about future proofing cycle parking so that it matches our aims for the city. As I commented to Councillor Booth the other day it's about building cycling parking for the amount of cycling you want, not the amount of cycling you have. And with that I'm very happy to second this novella that Councillor Booth has released. Thank you. Thank you Councillor for that. I'll just move the Administration amendment very quickly and thank Councillor Booth for accepting it. It was just again don't necessarily disagree with the destination it's just how we get there and just some of the wording in your original motion you were clearly quite impressed. I was going to say passionate mood there but it's not the right thing but you know you understand what I mean. So it was just to sort of change a little bit of the wording and obviously change reports to brief things and such like but with that I'll just move our Administration amendment as Councillor CUMMING to say. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to make a comment in that I really was surprised and disappointed by the answer I received to my question of the desperation earlier. I appreciate that building good infrastructure is absolutely paramount in terms of encouraging people to cycle but so to our efforts to take steps to discourage anti-social, anti-safety types of cycling that we're seeing. And it was a question asked in good faith and I do hope that spokes will reflect on that and taking good faith the kind of spirit in which the question was asked because I do think there's work to be done on that. And I do think that the current behaviours sadly are frightening for our residents and certainly it's incumbent upon us to do that and to work with other groups that want to create that safe environment that we all want to have. So with those remarks I second you. Thank you Councillor CUMMING and Councillor MOB would you like to move the Conservative amendment? Yeah thank you. I sort of you know my heart falls since when I see some of these motions coming forward especially when we had a briefing last week which was on something to say Councillor Garten. Can members just be mindful I didn't catch what was happening but just so we can keep quiet while the members are contributing. Sorry it was nothing to do with what you're saying Councillor MARRIOT but you have my full attention I apologise. Thank you. You know we have heard today that officers are under pressure we had a briefing on Friday about looking at cycle parking putting it in the Edinburgh design guidance. Now we can't, we could put it in city plan, put it in the MPF4, the next sort of piece in the planning hierarchy is the city design guidance. It is the Edinburgh design guidance and getting what our desires for parking, cycle parking right is there. Now I haven't said deletes all even though there's a lot of noting which I could have deleted but I've just said let's regard this as a consultation and a feeding in along with other people. Into the design guidance because officers are doing a lot of work on this looking at what's being used, what's appropriate and also there were asks of them to go back and do a little bit more work on assessing you know trying to work out why some of the cycle parking that's been built hasn't been used so we can get this right going forward. So I'm just disappointed that having had a very helpful and full briefing this motion which I appreciate for the cycle of committees have been prepared beforehand wasn't actually withdrawn and said we could just use this to feed into that rather than off asking for further reports when we have as we have seen today an incredibly busy schedule of reports in the policy area for officers to prepare. And we're asking for yet more work which I have to say that I think given that work is happening is unnecessary. Which is why I have put my amendment down and it's nothing to say that anything in this motion isn't important it's just that there isn't a more appropriate way in which to carry out this work in my view which would be easier for officers to then manage the without overburdening planning officers which I think we have to be mindful of when we're looking at resources and that is something that as Councillors we should all be thinking about. So I say move my amendment. Thank you Councillor. Councillor JOHNSTON seconded. And I really have nothing further to add to what Councillor MARX has already expressed so I'm going to second that formally. Thank you Councillor JOHNSTON. Any contributions from members? I saw Councillor GARDNER. So thank you convener and you mentioned that Councillor Booth brought some passion in it. I think I heard you right in his motion and I think that's totally appropriate over the years that I've been on this committee. Councillor Booth has always brought passion to the subject of cycling and so on. And I think it's brought a lot of us around to the importance of properly catering for cyclists not just now but as we heard from the deputation. Ensuring that there's good provision for increase in cycling. And so that was my question to David of the deputation that it would only be in extreme circumstances where we'll be actually looking for reductions in the numbers of cycles in schemes because we're actually looking to increase the number of cyclists in the city in the years ahead. So that's where I am on this. I'm happy to accept the green motion and your amendment. But just to note for the purposes of transport officers and I see Matthew in the room that we really are looking for schemes to fully provide what's being asked for. And it's only an exceptional circumstance because that would then have to be accommodated on public land and there would be the fee and I appreciate what Councillor Booth said about the car club. But let's try and get this right and let's try and move forward to meet those carbon targets that have had to be revised sadly. But we need to push forward because there is that overburdening climate emergency convener. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Osler. Thank you. Great for colleagues for what has been discussed so far. I do have some sympathy with what the Conservatives brought forward, but there is something we'd say to this is we have two choices. We either try to do something beforehand or we delay something by amending something afterwards. And I do think it's better to try to do something sort of before. The biggest issue that I have to do with the cycling bike, which is part of it but also added to the advert, is about the safety element of it. It isn't just about the safety element in terms of where the bikes are stored to be safe. It's about making the areas safe. We have a huge amount of pressure on this very, very prime area at the bottom of buildings, especially in urban areas going forward. You know, we need to make sure the fact that we utilize those spaces properly. And I am really, really pleased that we're going to have a look at this quantity versus quality. I appreciate the fact that this will be in particular cases because we are going to get constrained sites. We do need to think very carefully. And I'm sure like other colleagues, I was completely horrified looking at what has been provided. Not only because things not being fit for purpose is actually some of the spaces don't actually look, they look dangerous to be quite frank. And I think it's beholden on us to try to make improvements to that and to make sure that the fact that we can get something that's not only fit for purpose, that it will then be kept and it will then be utilized for what it's supposed to be rather than, as we saw, large empty spaces full of rubbish in some places. Okay, Council Member Squealer. Thank you, Convener. I think everyone is well aware of how many opportunities I have to say how I hate to interact. So, I welcome this motion from a petite person. It really isn't safe in so many ways. I take this opportunity also to, Car Club fees are quite low. So, obviously, if we could do without a fee, it would be perfect. But in the end of the day, I used to have a Car Club membership and I think I paid two pounds a month. So, we're talking about a really low amount. Going towards safety cycling and what my colleague said, we kind of have quite a few issues in our words. For instance, a short time ago, I've been in contact with, there's a cycling path that has no lights on and has been, it's now been sorted but took a while until the problem was sorted. And so, safety overall as well. So, also pointing out what Councillor Osles said. So, as a king cyclist and a hater of Tuttirak, admitted hater of Tuttirak, I do support and thank this motion. Okay, thanks very much. We'll move to Councillor Minnan to think about wrapping up this item. Councillor Minnan, you can. Thank you, Convener. It was just really to agree with what some of my colleagues have said, particularly around the importance of the quality of what we're doing and not being just a tick box. But I also wanted to add my agreement with Councillor Osler that the safety of spaces, not only the safety of spaces as you're cycling along the paths and making sure that they are visible that they're lit, but the safety at the other end of where you're actually locking up because it's one of the huge issues that women tell us is stopping them from cycling. So, that's going to be a huge issue in addressing climate change, but as well as in addressing equality and access to active travel. Okay, thank you very much. I'm seeing no further requests for contributions, so can spoof your rate of reply. Thanks very much indeed, Convener. Just very briefly to address some of the points raised by Councillor Merritt. I would just point out that I am accepting the administration amendment, which deletes the report to committee and replaces that instead with a briefing for members. In terms of the suggestion that my motion should be used as a consultation response, given that the consultation has not yet been published, I think that would be somewhat premature. So, I'm not prepared to accept that amendment. I don't agree with the tone of the question that Councillor CASSIDY raised to the deputation, but I don't think that perhaps today is the time to discuss this. I mean, I would just point you to the changes in the highway code, for example, last year that talk about hierarchy of responsibility. There is perhaps a conversation to be had on this, but I don't think that this is the appropriate time to have it. And I do think that the overall responsibility should be on the deliverer of the infrastructure to ensure that that is safe. And that there is hardly an issue at all with irresponsible cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark, for example, where the standard of infrastructure is very, very high. But happy to take this offline and discuss that with you further, Councillor CASSIDY. With that, I'm grateful for the support of the majority of colleagues and move the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Taylor, I think you need to come in just for a second. That was just to clarify, if you were happy to be touched into the motion. I am. Yeah, that's fine. Do you wish to pursue your amendment? Yes. Okay, that's fine. It looks like we have a division, so if you can take us to vote, please, Taylor. Yeah, thank you, Kevin. So in that case, we have two positions. We have the motion by Councillor, both seconded by Councillor stand-a-forth, which moves the kingdom motion and accepts the administration amendment. We have the amendment by Councillor, seconded by Councillor Rochorns, which moves the conservative group amendment. So we're going to have votes for the motion, please, by Councillor BIRTH. Thank you, and votes for the amendment, please. Thank you, so that is nine votes for the motion and two for the amendment, so the motion is carried. Okay, thank you very much. Last but not least, Councillor Biel, would you like to move your motion, please? I'm glad it was not least. Yeah, we've just been discussing the climate emergency, and obviously carbon is a very big part of that. And in terms of the part of the buildings playing that, clearly bricks need energy to make them stone, need to be cut, aluminium needs to be created, cement. All these things are highly intensive processes, and typically they use fossil fuels. Life cycle analysis, looking at different stages has been around for a long time, but I'm not sure that particularly answers the question. It's not being particularly systematic, because I think the key thing is, it doesn't matter what stage carbon is emitted over life cycle of a building or an element. We need to look at the whole thing in totality, which is what this kind of motion tries to address. And there is a solution to this, which is there's quite a number of publications and processes that actually provide a mechanism for calculating the actual carbon that is created or used to make a particular element, and they're quite systematic. You can end up with a final number, because you can actually measure it very well, and therefore if you can measure it, you can set targets, you can set benchmarks, and it gives you an idea of exactly how much carbon is being used in this building over its lifetime. And I think that is the way of actually dealing with it, to actually encourage people to use less carbon throughout the whole building life cycle. So that's really what this trying to, the motions trying to address, so we can look at what mechanisms are out there, which ones are potential to use, like this TM65 in particular for building services. And again, it looks at the thing in context in terms of the awesome environmental product sheets out there that give some information. So I guess this is trying to get that mechanism on a piece of paper, so then it can be incorporated into planning guidance in a sort of super way, and that's an open-ended how that could be done. So that's really what the motion is. Just to give an example, you know, in a restaurant, for example, something like 66% of the carbon used in that life cycle was in the embodied carbon, not in the use while the building was being operated. So I think that is a serious consideration when we're looking at reducing carbon. So with that, I'll propose this motion. Thanks, can we not? Thank you, Councillor Osler, two seconds. Slightly out of my comfort zone here. This is not something I know a huge amount about. But yeah, that's why I think this is really, really important, because we've got a new plan, we've got new policies, we've got new lots of things and so on. And this is always, you know, one of those scenarios where when we've got new policies and we've got a new plan, we really need to think about how we're going to enact them and what we're actually doing. I think it is really, really important also for our developers to also have an understanding as well of what level we're putting something on. When I read 3MPF4 and also our plan, there's lots of talk about sustainability and lots of talk about movement going forward. People look at these things in different ways as well, and sustainability can be looked at in a variety of different functions as so on. But if we don't actually deal with things like embedded or embodied carbon and so on, we've got quite a major problem because we can be sustainable, but if we're releasing carbon and things like that, we've got an additional issue. So quite frankly, I'm extremely grateful to my colleague to bring this forward because, you know, I personally would also find it incredibly useful to have an understanding about how we're actually going to have a look at this very, very, very important aspect. So with that, I will second this. Every day is a learning day in Council, and that's one of the beauties of it. Councillor HOWARD, would you like to move your amendment, please? Yeah, I mean, again, I don't actually have any argument with saying that this is important, that this is going to be an area we're going to have to look at. I think Councillor Beall is in danger of being ahead of everyone, including the officers at this stage, which is not necessarily a bad place to be, but given that National Planning Framework, MPF 4, as well as City Plan, both have references to this and MPF 4 has references to this, I would be expecting there to be both National Guidance and Building War on Guidance, and I think we probably need to scope the issue out. So I'm saying before we get a report, which asks officers to look at some very specific pieces of documentation, I think we need to do some horizon scanning and bring that back in a briefing or a business bulletin update and think about where we put this into our training program, because I have no doubt that this is going to be something that we are going to have to get familiar with, developers. I know the industry is looking at it, and the industry is thinking about it. I suspect it may be building standards that look at some of this as well as planning, and there's going to be an interplay and an interaction there. I just feel before we start getting reports about how we incorporate and set our own metrics up, we want to be saying what are we doing on a national scale, because this is, I think, a huge step change in how we construct this and how the building and development industry is going to have to adapt to this, that I sometimes worry that we might end up, as we have done actually in our local development plan and the reporter has come back saying, Actually, you're ahead of everyone. And the danger of being ahead of everyone is that people don't want to come and build in your city, and the one thing we all know is that we need people to be building and developing here, because we don't have enough houses to house people, and we have 5,000 people in temporary accommodation every night, and we can't build buildings to put them in so they can have permanent accommodation and settled homes if people won't come and build things, because we're not going to be doing all the building, because we don't have the resources to do that. So that's just my caution on this one, is that we do a bit of horizon scanning here before we get into the report, so that we can then work out how we are going to take this forward and when we put the metrics in and whether there's going to be Scottish Government metrics coming through or the building industries doing things, and because there's a whole industry response to MPF4 that needs to be coming forward. So it's not that this isn't a really important issue. I'm just saying horizon scam before we plunge into doing reports at this stage. Okay, can someone else just say? I've formally come in now. Okay, that's fine, we'll open up to debate. I've caught something, you can switch your hand, Councillor Gartner. Oh, sorry, is that me before Councillor Gartner? It is, yes, it is. Okay, thank you, thank you, Commander. Yeah, I just wanted to say, because I'm not sure that officers can say this for themselves, I think our officers like being challenged. So, like Councillor Biel, I've been very aware of these, a lot of these metrics, I suspect a lot of our officers are. And if they're not, I think they're probably going to be quite interested in being challenged. And us being at the forefront of this, I completely take on board. Councillor Maoitz point about the need for housing, but it is a climate emergency. This Council has agreed that it is an emergency. So, yeah, I would be concerned about waiting for somebody else to take the lead. We're the capital city, we've declared a climate emergency. I think this is very appropriate. Thank you very much, Councillor. I will not ask for officer comment on whether they enjoyed being grilled or pushed by us. I'll leave that to side. I've got Councillor Gartner, like to come in. Yes, I think I saw looking at officers mixed enthusiasm about being challenged. But I did note that Elizabeth, who was the adviser of the planning convener, helped enormously in the space exhibition at the fire station in Lawrence during COP26. I know her own enthusiasm and maybe it's just late in the day for some of the others who've had a lot of serious issues to deal with. To my pertinent point, I thank Councillor Booth, Beal even so it's late in the day for me for, again, showing passion and bringing this to committee. And I note also that you've referenced the embodied carbon primer in London. So, there is a lot of learning there from the capital of England, which we always can learn from. So, I think that's a good place to start. I don't think it has impacted on the development industry in London at all. So, it actually gives developers surety when we are clear about what we're asking for. That really helps the development community. So, I think that is the right way forward. And this is a bit of a horizon scan. One thing that I think we need to think about in doing this is existing buildings which capture a lot of embodied energy and how we deal with those. Your motion applies to new build and to existing buildings. So, I think it's important that we, the committee, somebody needs to evaluate whether it's more important to keep existing buildings because it's embodied carbon and usefulness, or whether it's appropriate to remove it. So, those are my comments. I look forward to the report and the substance of the motion. One, Andrew Korske, Venus, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Garmore, Councillor Booth. Nice to give you a yes. Likewise, thank you, Councillor Beel for bringing this. It's an extremely important issue. I think it is vital that if we are considering, as Councillor Beel has set out in his motion, if we are considering embodied energy and embodied carbon, that we know how to measure that. And that we know that, you know, that makes it something meaningful, that we can actually implement in terms of, because if we get applications that come to DM sub, and they say, oh, we've done an assessment, it's fine. You know, it's not an issue from the point of view of embodied carbon, unless we actually have something to measure them against. I think it's going to be very difficult for us as a DM sub, but also for officers to judge that against. So, I welcome the motion, and I think we would prefer to support it unamended. We will obviously listen to what the administration say in terms of the impact on officers, but I would prefer that we accept this unamended. I think the longer we delay in coming up with a detail of how embodied carbon is assessed, the more difficult it will be for us to implement that. So, yeah, and I would finally have convened it. Councillor Beel was perhaps too modest to mention this at the end, but he does have a professional background in this. He knows what he's talking about. And as somebody who myself used to work on energy efficiency policy, I would put a lot of faith in what Councillor Beel has put down here. So, I welcome it, and we would prefer to support it unamended. Are we okay? Councillors? Councillors, are we okay? I'm going to presume that we're okay. Councillor Beel, it's your transfer rate of replying if you could let me know if you won't accept the conservative amendment or not. Thanks for being there. No, because it doesn't really address the fundamental issues. This is trying to address in terms of getting a measurable specific thing out of it. And just to address some of the other points that were raised, though, I think this is raise the result of MPF 4 and 6'20'30'. Because it's very vague about how you define the embodied energy, and this is one way of actually dealing with, for example, a way of showing leadership, to be honest in Edinburgh, like they did in London by having a specific target, a specific number that they can actually head for. And that was a benchmark which they used to gauge applications. That is helpful. I mean, Council has been said to work on energy efficiency. You get a whole document, 250 pages, and to get that into a single figure is what is the result of those pages, and we can do that here as well. So, I think just in terms of Councillor Garden's issue, the motion does cover the whole lifecycle analysis, not just the embodied energy, but the first part covers the embodied energy and the operational life and the whole lifecycle. So, it does cover that. So, thanks, convenient. Okay, thank you, Councillor Beel. Councillor MOWIT, do you wish to pursue your amendment? Yes, please. Okay, thanks very much. Thank you. So, in that case, we have two positions. We have the motion by Councillor Beel, seconded by Councillor Osler, which is to move the Liberal Democrat motion. And we have the amendment by Councillor MOWIT, seconded by Councillor Jones, which is to move the Conservative Amendment. So, can I have votes for the motion by Councillor Beel, please? And for the amendment by Councillor MOWIT, please. Okay, sorry. So, that is nine votes for the motion. Two for the amendment, so the motion is carried. Okay, and I believe that's the end of business for today. Yeah, that's the end of today's business. All right, thank you, members. Councillors, if I could come in. There's a training session on Friday afternoon, I think at two o'clock, and I don't think we'll be using the whole two errors, two errors, but we