Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So good morning everyone and welcome to the April Transport Environment Committee meeting. This meeting has been held in the Dean of Guild courtroom, in the city chambers, house to Edinburgh and virtually by teams and we have two of the committee members today on teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the council's website. The council is a data controller under the general data protection regulation and data protection act 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the council's published policy. Generally these public seating areas will not be found however by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area you should be aware that you may be recorded and images and sound will be stored as above. Children will not be found although sound will be heard. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system and that they must switch microphones on when speaking and off when finished speaking. Okay so before I start today obviously we're doing lots of things for the first time today lots of interesting reports but there's something that's happening for the last time today and that is Daisy attending the committee. Because I think people know that, certainly some of us in the committee know that Daisy is now leaving the council I was going to say to go into better things but Edinburgh is the best city in the world so hardly. So I just wanted to say that over the last two years it's been really good working with Daisy actually and I've found her to be incredibly supportive of me and helpful and she's actually spent quite a long time with me on the telephone explaining how things work. And that's always been really useful for me and I think so I've benefited but I think the city's benefited as well from Daisy's three years in post and then there's a conment before that. I think she leaves out a legacy of projects both live and still planned which will really shape the city over the coming decade. But I think the bigger legacy that she's left behind is the people in her team who I know she's been keen to support right the way through and I think she's built a fantastic team around her which I think will continue to benefit from even after she leaves. And one small anecdote about Daisy is every time, no it's a good one Daisy you'd be glad to hear, is every single time I'm on a team's call with Daisy and her team doing a briefing etc. When a member of her team speaks she always sends me a direct message saying isn't that person utterly fantastic, always, always, always. And I think so our team really are privileged to have someone actually leading it who supports them so well. So I wish Daisy good luck, I know she's going to be staining Edinburgh, so I'll look out for her letters in the evening news coming to go and transport it and deputations as well. So thank you Daisy, thank you, good luck. Thank you convener item one is the order of business version two of the meeting papers were published on Monday the 22nd of April. Motions and amendments have been circulated electronically and are available to view by members of the public through the council's website along with the meeting papers. And we've received eight requests for deputations and six of the six of these other are verbal deputations. And from Westfield Street residents at item 6.1 from the NL RP 12 in relation to item 7.4 from community councils together on trams in relation to item 8.2 from new town and broken community council in relation to item 8.2 and from Windsor Street Elm Row Leopold Place and Montgomery Street West Association in relation to item 8.2. And from the Eddinger access panel are in IB Scotland and site Scotland in relation to 8.2 also are members minded to hear the deputations this morning. Thank you and the convener has indicated that we're going to change the running order of deputations to take the deputations in relation to item 8.2 first. So the three verbal deputations first followed by the deputation in relation to item 6.1, item 7.4. Under standing order 22.15 each item is subject to a 40 minute time limit unless otherwise agreed by committee under order of business. Any changes to that this morning? Thank you. Happy to move on? Yeah. Item 2 is declarations of interest. The council's code of conduct requires members to declare any interests. They have and the items being considered at today's meeting. These can be financial or non-financial. Do we have any declarations this morning? None. Thank you very much indeed. In which case it takes us to section 3 of the agenda which is deputations. The first deputation that we will hear is from community councils together on trams in relation to item 8.2 and Harold Toberman is here to speak. Please come forward. You are very welcome both of you. Thank you very much for taking us together as it were because our topics very much interleave and we promise to have a combined time of less than normal deputation so we'll make it speedy. Good morning everybody. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address you on the subject of trams. Again, my name is Harold Toberman. I am the spokesperson for the community councils together on trams, the coalition of the four community councils on the tram route. And in my other life I am amongst other things, vice convener of the central community council. My colleague Mike Burch here is the new town brought in community council rep on the coalition steering group and also the transport convener for new town brought in community council. We would describe ourselves, have described ourselves as a friend of the project. We share the project's key aims that is to make public transport so attractive that people leave their cars behind by choice. I think that's a very simple top aim and I think we can all subscribe to that. But we also a critical friend which is not the same as slowly falling in love with the trams, although we love our trams as well but not quite in love yet. And as such we have worked constructively and amicably with the key personnel of the project for whom we have great respect. Hannah is here today. We've seen a lot of each other over the last two or three years. We want this tram project to succeed. As we said way back in 2018 in our manifesto, this remains our main motivation. Turning to the report that is prompted us to come here today, we note it's no longer a close out report. While we welcome this acknowledgement, namely that the project is not finished, we regret that a good number of the issues that goes beyond defects in design problems have not been addressed with the same energy and momentum that was evident during the construction. That makes it costly, inconvenient and dangerous for the residents along the route and we would argue potentially for the council too. So what are our most pressing concerns? Number one, it is not clear what outstanding issues are still there. That's because nobody has seen a full database and there are countless what I would call hidden defects. So what is the true scale of the project and the task ahead? Secondly, who is the team that is tasked to identify and process the many complex outstanding issues? The report only refers loosely to a team but we would like to know is how big is a team? Is it adequately resourced and why was it not formally established from the start of the defects period? Valuable time has been lost. Number three, how do you explain to residents and businesses that after three years of construction preceded by the chaos of the tram one works, there are still so many unfinished issues for all to see ranging from lack of or unsuitable bus shelters on far to narrow pavements, delays to buses and trams caused by the faulty or incomplete signalling system, broken paved stones and a visibly decaying public realm, missing tactile paving, an inconveniently placed and downright ugly planters. That's our view. But how does the project measure up against the final business case at the task you set yourself? I won't go with the details. I refer you to the highlighted section in our written deputation. I think everyone involved will regret that the aims highlighted they have not been achieved and to date, there is no clear path to getting those issues resolved within a reasonable time frame. Mike will tell you now about our four big risks that we identified as a critical friend of the project. We would like to bring to your attention an evil delve into a few specific cases. Mike. Thank you Harold. Thank you everybody. So, four big risks that we identified in the written deputation first and foremost is safety. And I'm going to give you some examples really where I feel that we are. The project has a significant risk as a result of some work that remains to be done. There's also a financial matter. I mean clearly in order for this project to be closed out, there are discussions that need to take place with the contractor and we need to make sure that we're able to do that in a properly resourced manner. Reputation as well. There are, as Harold has alluded, a number of residents living along the tram route who have great concerns about what has been left from their point of view and is still complete. And clearly from a strategic point of view, given the aims that the council has in terms of expanding the tram network, what we can't afford is for issues that remain with the tram extension to be carried over in terms of people's judgments about how things will work in the future. But rather than talk about those broad issues, I really wanted to talk about three specific issues. These are not new issues. These were highlighted when we did a walkthrough of the tram route with the tram's team back in November 22. And they were again highlighted in a further walkthrough with Councillor DAY, Councillor Ather and indeed other Councillors in April last year. The fact that there's been so little progress made on these issues is disturbing. So firstly, those of you on the walkthrough in April will remember the powerful testimony from a resident, and I hadn't realised that Alan was going to be here, but he is here today, who is visually impaired, and he talked about the problems created by the lack of and the inconsistencies in the tactile paving in many areas along Leith walk. In particular, we highlighted the specific hazards for pedestrians of continuous footpaths across side streets. It was agreed by everyone at that walkthrough that this was a priority that needed action. But over a year has elapsed since then, and we still do not have tactile paving in place in many of the locations where it should be installed. The question is, do we have the resources in place to drive this work? Another of the issues that we highlighted was the potential interaction between cyclists and pedestrians travelling down Leith walk due to the narrow cycle paths, the pavements, and especially in the areas surrounding bus stops, many of which are floating. I recently visited a friend of my daughter in the major trauma unit at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. She'd come off her bike going down the Leith walk cycle path. She was told by the hospital staff that they had treated a large number of cyclists who had incurred accidents on this stretch of cycle path. As noted in the report, there are many defects relating to the cycle path that still need to be addressed, along with a broader review of the design of this public realm to ensure that it's safe for both pedestrians and cyclists. Again, do we have the right resources in place to progress this work? My final example about lack of progress is the completion of works at the junction of Blenheim Place and London Road. This junction was intended to be narrowed on both sides to improve pedestrian safety. A decision, though, was taken to remove the pavement build-out on the east side from the project's scope. It's not clear if this will be picked up by the council or will just not happen. Also, the TRO called for double-yellow lines to be installed on both sides of the junction to stop vehicles parking close to that junction. There are no lines on the west side of the junction and still only single lines on the east side, thus creating a hazard for other road users, but particularly for pedestrians trying to cross this junction. Is this a design change, a defect, or something that someone else needs to address? It doesn't appear on the outstanding defect list, so presumably it is no longer the responsibility of the project. Overall, the project does not provide the required visibility on this and many other issues which have been highlighted along the route. In conclusion from my section, I just wanted to say that the report demonstrates that the project is far from complete. It's not just the outstanding work on public realm and the resolution of the many defects. As we've identified, the Stage 3 Road Safety Audit has not been published despite being undertaken in June last year. As a result, we do not know whether the over 70 design issues identified in the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit that was undertaken in May 21 have been fully resolved or indeed whether new hazards have been introduced during the construction phase. These issues should be examined again as part of a Stage 4 Road Safety Audit to look at the final as-built status, but as far as we know, it's not yet taken place. The report fails to mention the status of these required independent audits. This is a significant gap given their importance to the safety of all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, and their role in allowing for a final closeout of the contract. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Thank you. Very briefly, Harold. I would like to add something to Mike's reference to the Road Safety Audit. You see in the footnotes in our appendix the significance of that. Without the Road Safety Audit in place and indeed acted upon Stage 3, if there is a serious accident or fatality, the Council is open to corporate manslaughter charges. I don't think you want to be in that position. I think you really want to ex-escalate that. And that means giving the team who will bring the project to a close, sufficient resources and focus. Our asks are in our written deputation as well. Just to remind you, just do what you said in your final business case. Deliver the lessons learned, listen with us, still to come and continue to engage with the communities along the road and listen to them. Thank you. Okay, so thank you both. And thank you for the detail and the time you've invested in your deputation. I think before we got your questions, I was really sorry to hear about the person who was injured, the cyclist, and what we'll try to do is contact NHS. We'll then to see if they have any data they can share with us. Do you have any questions for Mike and Harald? Mr Cody. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your deputation. Very clear and concise as usual. The report suggests that the team officers will report back to committee exceptionally from now on. You have cited that there are a lot of issues, still outstanding, particularly from your last visit to now. Things have not been done. I wondered what you thought about exceptional reporting back to committee or whether you would prefer something more regular. Let's put it this way. It's clearly a matter for Councillors to decide that. If I was responsible, I would like to have quite a lot of visibility, i.e. fairly regular reporting. Thank you. Do you have any other questions for Harald and Mike? Okay, thank you both. Thank you. Thank you, Convener. In relation to item 8.2, there is an Edinburgh bus users group written submission only, which has been circulated. The next deputation in relation to that item that are here is from Windsor Street, Elm Row, Leopold Place and Montgomery Street West Association. And Douglas Street and Mary McCookin are here to speak. Okay, you're very welcome. Good morning and thank you for allowing our deputation, Convener and Committee. Windsor Street, Elm Row, Leopold Place, Montgomery Street West. Well, yes, we are overwhelmed and underwhelmed, but the alternative was mule, so you'll see that we took the right decision in that. Our written submission, I hope, gives us a good idea of our main issues. And we were formed formally last year. However, our interaction for some of us with the Travis team goes back some years. And personally speaking, I've found that always to be very positive and helpful, but goalposts change, for example, Elm Row. And we are left with considerable concerns and issues. And we hope that what we are submitting is in the spirit of community engagement. You see we've made some proposals and, of course, some of these for reasons that we don't know might not fly. But we've given it a lot of thought and we're asking for that consideration. And I mentioned the main issues for us, which are the business deliveries and loading provision in our area. And I would ask, I know that this is one of the outstanding issues that will come to the next two committee meetings. In fact, most of our concerns are on the list of outstanding issues. And I would say that it would be really more than helpful to be able to engage with not just with Councillors who are very supportive. Our ward Councillors have been great, actually. But for example, business deliveries and loading provision, please imagine that your street in which you live has been closed off at one end and is then used for deliveries and loading by large vehicles, some double wagons. And they cannot exit other than reversing. And this has gone on for years and continues. So it's a very personal but impactful knock-on effect, which was not the original plan. So business deliveries and loading provision are dangerous driving at the end of Montgomery Street. And we've made proposals and continue to be in communication with the local authority. Plan redesign of Elm Road comes up in the outstanding issues still to be reported. And we have damage to the road surface and pavement to Montgomery Street and Upper Elm Road. Um, of course, stretch is not just the part that we think of as Elm Road, but the next block between Elm Road and Brunswick Street. So our focus today and for our minutes that remain is on community engagement at five, three. I think it says that community engagement will be ongoing. And I would ask committee, I would hold committee, to whether that is meaningful community engagement and whether it is given the time for meaningful community engagement. If some of our issues are going into feature in the next report in four weeks time, then the report will presumably need to be ready about three weeks from now. And, you know, our concern is when do we get this meaningful interaction? Before I pass over to Douglas, I would just say that at our general meeting in February, we had unanimous support for engaging with the local authority. And that is the spirit in which we've approached this. And I would hope that the opportunity would be taken so that we can influence in some way those of us that live and work in the area. And we're talking businesses, it's not just residents. Businesses, we've spoken to the delivery drivers. And so there is a well of interest and information that could be brought to bear. Thank you. So Douglas, you just have one minute. Yes. Okay. Just to draw down on one particular aspect of what Mary was talking about, Appendix C of the report gives lessons learned for future projects, including reserving funds to resolve unanticipated and outstanding issues, consideration of the impact on communities outside the project boundary as well as within the narrowly defined area. And also particularly the business needs need to be considered not only during construction but in the final design. And I think that's what's been missing in the current project. And we believe that many of the disturbance and safety issues that we still face are due to this inadequate business delivery facilities. And that's not really the business's fault, it's just the way it is. There's one small loading area and turning so cool at the end of Montgomery Street to serve more than 50 businesses along Enro. And it's just not enough, it's just not working. And even that area is not finished yet, it's incomplete, it hasn't been fully yellow lined, so there's cars parking everywhere. So it's just not working. And we understand that it can be difficult to consult with businesses because they're busy people and they don't often respond to public consultations or surveys, but we can help with that by going and talking to local businesses, gathering the information and feeding it back to you. And we stand ready to help in any way we can. Thank you. So thank you for that. I understand the report was coming to this in May, but we're just trying to get that clarified. But, Hannah's saying June, I understood it was May. But nonetheless, we will endeavour to ensure you have meaningful engagement ahead of that. And I am really pleased to hear you feel well supported by your work counsellors, and I'm sure they will make sure that that engagement does take place as well. Do I have any questions for Mary and Douglas this morning? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, committee. I was going to quickly introduce the Joint Deputation and then hand over to Alan Dudley to speak about his experience. I'd like to thank the committee for hearing the Joint Deputation, Comprising of City of Edinburgh Access Panel. Alan I B Scotland and site Scotland to hear our concerns. Consistency and street design and layout is crucial for blind and partially sighted people to get around safely and independently. In 2023, Alan I B Scotland published street credibility to summarise and highlight three key principles relating to making streets more accessible for people with sight loss. Since 2017, we have raised our concerns about the lack of detectable curves between the cycle path and the pavement. The need to cross the cycle path to access bus stops and the random and misleading use of tactile pavement on the slope. There has been a consistent concern about the use of tactile pavement, even as a delineator between the pavement and the cycle path. And more recently, as a marker for a continuous felt race, site Scotland has highlighted similar concerns, including low curves that guide dogs cannot detect and pure surface colour contrast. Site Scotland would also like to express concern at how feedback from the visually impaired community seems to have been overlooked during the design stage and subsequently have been raised after the completion of works. Feedback from blind and partially sighted people must be considered an evaluation of the Leithwalk project to avoid inaccessible designs being replicated and other areas of the city where developments are planned. We would urge the council to review the layout of Leithwalk, especially as the Trams to New Haven project is now complete and to your defect period opens, I will now hand over to Alan Dudley and an IB Scotland supporter. Thank you. Good morning everyone, nice to speak to this morning. I haven't got much time, so I'm going to have to go straight into it without any sort of niceties or introductions. I've really come here today to ask the council to change the way it uses tactile paving in areas where there is continuous paving because as currently on Leithwalk, it's very difficult to use. Traditionally, tactile paving was used, flights of stairs or roads to give blind people warning that they were approaching and then had reached a hazard. But unfortunately on Leithwalk, because for example you've placed the tactile paving at the building line on down many streets, there are still several pieces to the hazard, and it's difficult when you don't have any sight or have little sight to negotiate them because you don't know you might be standing on the road. Secondly, when you have poor sight on no sight, you cannot negotiate vehicles. You don't know what speed they're going at, you don't know where they are in relation to you, you don't know whether they're stopping or accelerating, and with the noise on Leithwalk, you can't hear that either. So you're very reliant on the public and/or drivers, and in fact really we're quite defenseless and vulnerable and must be open to injury or worse in a bad circumstance. So I'd like to accept that, that it is very difficult to negotiate with moving vehicles, and even one moving vehicle is a hazard when you don't see it. Thirdly, often many blind people use paving pavements to count so they know where they are in relation to other things, because we can't look up and see a building that we recognize or a street sign. And if I live on Jameson Place and I want to go to the brilliant Baker shop on Albert Street, I know my first road is down many streets, my next one is Iorna Street and the next one is Albert Street. But with the introduction of continuous paving, I could step over and not realize that I had passed the street, and so therefore it's difficult for me to calculate where I am, particularly coming down Leithwalk, I'm intending to walk home after this meeting, but it's very difficult because lots of curbs have gone. So at times I think, where am I? And I can't look and have to ask perhaps. Now, the public have been absolutely brilliant in helping because I'm not sure how it would have managed without, but it would really like the council to first of all accept the argument is difficult. I gather that one of the main things is that they're concerned that if they put tactile paving on the ramps, i.e. where the road starts, then drivers will misinterpret that and think, well, pedestrians will have to wait for us, because we all know there's a change in the highway code where drivers are supposed to give way for pedestrians. Now, I'm sure many drivers do, but I know some don't, we all know that. So perhaps what we could do is have the tactile paving up against the ramp, two tiles, there's plenty of warning, and have a give way sign, reminding drivers that they have to be careful about pedestrians. So sorry, no time for niceties and introductions, but I think I've actually sort of probably summed up what I was hoping to say. You were nice enough, Alan. Thank you very much. And thank you as well, Kirsty. And I would recommend people to look at that street credibility report, because it's entirely reasonable and pragmatic in its approach. Do you have any questions for Kirsty or Alan this morning? Okay, Alan and Kirsty, thank you. Thank you. The next reputation is from Westfield Street residents in relation to item 6.1 committee business bulletin, specifically the review of parking at Westfield Street. Grant, led studies here to speak. Thank you. Welcome back. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Simply, I'm here again today to make the very same plea as I did at the last meeting. It was just please, please, please ensure that this council-inflicted chaos in Westfield Street comes to an end by quarter two, as per the original timelines. I had hoped for some positive details today within the bulletin agenda, rather than just to meet up with the word councilors shortly after today's meeting, to discuss the details on S6 West actions and survey details. I just couldn't, I can't understand the hesitancy in that and not bringing it to today's meeting. But I do appreciate the five minutes or so that you spent the day before off record for a while you came in today. After last month's meeting, I actually requested a site visit, but the response was negative and it would not bear much fruit at that time. So let's see what happens after today's meeting with all the fingers crossed. I will again be requesting a local site meeting to fully engage with all the relevant parties involved. BMC, Sainsbury's, Bill Donaldson's, Houdin's, Jesse Mays, who all like myself want and need this chaos to end ASAP and fully fix to everyone's satisfaction. Similarly, I'm also not very confident that officers will make all the correct calls without forsaking all the views of those people that have been directly and adversely affected over the last seven months. Gavin did say today that he would come out and do a site visit. So why am I not very, very confident? You're probably saying, but let me allow you to elaborate and explain in reason. I requested a foundation of information data on permits in the current Gorgi zone, S6 East, and also requested a split between business and residential. Unfortunately, such a split doesn't exist. But the whole zone, the whole zone has 770 spaces. Permits is 646. This includes shared use, permit holders only, pain displayed, disabled, and car club base are not included in these figures. So it's a differential of 124 spaces. That's 124 free spaces when Westfield Street is jam-packed every day. And reliably informed, there's only one business permit has been issued, which is shotgun. Given credit, it's to the cobbler, Les MacBride, and he's probably the least one that could afford that in a smaller business. All other business owners seem to have not taken that option up. I could name and shame over a dozen businesses, covering 20 cars who are all serial nuisance parkers in Westfield Street, but I won't not hear today with the limited time. I could also name and shame around a dozen residents from afar as 119 Gorgi Road, which is opposite Tank Castle Arms, and Newton Street, who are serial parkers in Westfield Street every day. But I won't name everybody there because of the limited time either. But people come from afar as businesses and as residents, just abusing it. They're now known as squatters rather than nuisance parkers. That's how editable these people are. They've all been told about 10, 12 times, politely not to come back. All here in Westfield Street, simply because council at that time clearly told people they could park in Westfield Street for free after a chaotic unannounced split. Finally, just to wrap up, a couple of the smaller details that Gavin's here as well. On the Sainsbury fence issue, it was a boundary fence that Sainsbury's removed, not just a fence. It was a boundary fence. The same boundary fencing exists in Westfield road back gardens on the front entrance to Sainsbury's. It's the same type of wood, not the height at that side in Westfield Street. It was a smaller fence, but it's the same wood that was taken away. So Sainsbury's can and should do more to help the residents to redirect their car shoppers. Sainsbury's have no parking rights at the bank, but were still inundated with people nipping in Westfield Street, parking, same people, if you live in the gorgeria, take a car, but they should be using the Sainsbury's official car park. A vast Sainsbury's to do that. They were going to take it out with the head office. But again, it's another nuisance parkers. You can't grant us your five minutes. I'm just finishing up. On the strip issue, this was a donation from North British Distillery to the Lord Province of Edinburgh. So the council now know that they're on the strip. But why free? Obviously it was free with the intention I'm advised to provide parking for the council residents being the isolated and only residential block in the area. That's why that strip is there and why the fence was done as a boundary fence. You can check Google Street View currently. You can see the old fence if you go in there, which had the old fence and you can see and you can see your resident parking only notices attached to that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Grant. For going over these points some of them the first time. So good. Thank you. Do you have any questions for Grant this morning? Okay, Grant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, convener. That takes us to item 3.2, which is a Deputation in Relation to Item 7.1, Road Safety Delivery Plan for 2024-25. Let's call it in Community Council. They have submitted a written submission only, which takes us to item 3.3 on the agenda, which is in Relation to Item 7.4. Welcome back, John. Okay. Good morning, committee. Allow me to reiterate the figures I presented to the committee at the last meeting. Only 8.5% of unpaid carers in Edinburgh are in receipt of carers' deliverance. This seems to have been ignored and this committee is asked to approve a report knowing that fact. The figures I use come from, come to this percentage, are from the council's own publications presented to and passed by committees of this council, which state the number of unpaid carers and the number of people who are in receipt of carers' deliverance. The 8.5% is lower than the Scottish average, which is almost 10%. There are just over 800,000 unpaid carers in Scotland and the last figures available for recipients of carers allowance in Scotland from August 2023. And that number is according to Social Security Scotland report is 83,903, which is just under 10%. I see from the now amended report that's in front of you that carers credit is included. This benefit was new to me and I didn't even know it existed. After doing some research, I emailed Alan Gibson, the chief statistician at the Department of Work and Pensions to find out just how many people in Edinburgh claimed this benefit. I'm still awaiting his reply from Mr Gibson, however, in the meantime, the head of policy and public affairs at Cara Scotland managed to find me the latest number of recipients for the whole of the UK and that number is around 7000. I've worked that out for you as well. That is 100% of the UK population get that benefit. If we extrapolate that for Edinburgh, it comes to 56 people in this city claim that benefit every year. However, a lot has been based upon that. There are 67,147 unpaid carers in Edinburgh, according to this council's own papers. What that carers credit did show that on the last version that they brought here, they were going to give it for people with 20 hours. And it just so happens that that 20 hours is what you need to get Cara's credit, which 56 people in this city would be able to get. So with the addition of that carers credit, that takes 8.5% of the city's unpaid carers who would be able to apply for the permit all the way up to 8.51%, leaving the other 91.49% of the city's unpaid carers unable to apply for the permit that has been designed ostensibly for their benefit. I think that's worth repeating. 91.49% of the unpaid carers in this city will not qualify for a permit that was designed ostensibly for their benefit. Members of this committee will see from my addendum to this deputation online that I immediately, six weeks ago, reached out to senior officers and indeed the convener at the last meeting to offer lived experience, research experience and common sense so that we wouldn't be in a position that only 8.51% of the city's unpaid carers will be giving a chance to get a permit. I also reached out to Cara Scotland, the coalition of Cara's Scotland and Vocal, none of whom had been contacted on this permit prior to last week and it was only Vocal who had been contacted and it was only last week they were contacted. Now we get to the nomenclature of the past. I had requested to be called an unpaid carers permit and gave cogent reasons why this should be the case. Officers have decided that they want to call a personal carers permit. Live experience tells us that paid carers who come into our houses are called personal carers and they are sent in by social care to carry out personal care. We are unpaid carers. It was the chief executive vocal that reminded me this week that we are called unpaid carers in the legislation in the Cara Scotland Act 2016. Why would this council not call us by that? Call us by the same thing that legislation calls us. Indeed, in a direct quote from a senior member of a national carers organisation that states it sounds as though Edinburgh Council don't really understand what an unpaid carer is. This discrepancy raises concerns about the council's understanding of our roles and our identities. We are reminded regularly and continually that Edinburgh's economic powerhouse is Edinburgh's festivals, but that's not true. Edinburgh's real economic powerhouse is Edinburgh's unpaid carers because they take the Edinburgh festivals $407 million and raise it to a fully documented $1.341 billion more than three times as much. This brings us to cost. People who are in seat of carers' 11s are unlikely to be able to afford the permits. It will consume almost 10% of their annual 11s. Is this really how you wish to treat the city's real economic powerhouse, deepen the financial burden thereby exacerbating their exclusion? Then that 91.49% of unpaid carers who are unable to apply for the permit will increase because they won't be able to afford it. In conclusion, I leave you with a fundamental question. Who is this policy for? There exists a glaring disparity between the perceptions of professionals and the realities faced by service users. It is imperative that we bridge the SCAT and ensure that our policies align with the needs and realities of those they are meant to serve. You are proposing a pass where 91.49% of the people it is supposed to help are completely unable to apply. Thank you for your listening to me and I'll, if you have any questions, I'm quite happy to answer them. Thank you, John. Do we have any questions for John this morning? Okay, thank you. Not many questions at all. This morning from the committee. Thank you, convener. That takes us to item 4.1 in the agenda, which is the minute of the previous meeting held on the 7th of March 2024. That is submitted for approval as an accurate record. Are we happy to approve that? Approved? Thank you. It takes us to item 5.1, which is the committee's work program that is submitted for noting. Paul wants to suggest, if I can convener partly in relation to what was said by the deputations on the Tramster New Haven item. If you note in the Tramster New Haven report, which you'll discuss later, it talks about committee reports in May and June. And if you look carefully at the forward plan, it just talks about one in June. And as the convener, I think, hinted, we were just trying to have a conversation to see whether we could bring some aspects of that forward. So we could look at some of that in May and some of it in June to enable the necessary consultation and engagement that stakeholders refer to. So we'll just have a look at that and we may try and bring one in May and one in June as the report says. Any questions on that specific point? I think it's worth doing to see if we get as much work than it's possible before things get busier in the city, do the festivals, et cetera. Any other questions on the wider work program? Councillor Dhaben and Councillor Bandol. Sorry, just some clarification, please. I'm just curious about what appears to be duplication of activities. And I'm going to go this wrong. If you look at it in May, under the coming of Ben Review, there's includes mitigation of Ben noise, but then in June under Ben Hub's noise mitigation. Similarly, under, excuse me, network environmental service policies, the annual update includes acceleration of the phasing out of glyphosate. And a report in May and future plan for September, there's another item update on, excuse me, ceasing use of glyphosate. Just wondering why both items appear twice, is it? I'll listen to you to explain all sorts of things. And you might want to jump in. On the glyphosate item, I think there are two separate updates. There's an update to the policies, which is part of the neighbourhood environmental services policy update, which is coming in May. But there's an annual update on the use of glyphosate, which is due to come in September, so that's why they're on the work program twice. On the Ben noise mitigation, and you might be better placed on so. Yeah, so we've got the, as you say, Councillor Dobbins, we've got the comino bin update report coming in May, but rather than wrapping the noise mitigation options within that report, we're proposing to bring a separate report on that topic in June. So, and is it worth, is that because that's the best thing to do, or do you think you can justify combining these reports? I could feasibly look at combining them, I think, working through the range of differing kind of noise mitigation options. There are quite a number of them, and I think bringing that forward as a standalone report better allows us to explore each of those options, the pros and cons of each of those options, and just talk through our recommendation a little bit better than having it as part of the comino bin update report. Okay, understood, understood. Okay, do you happy with that, Councillor Dobbins? Okay, good, do we have any, Councillor Lyons, oh, sorry, Councillor Bandol, then Councillor Lange, sorry. Thank you, there are a lot of items on the work plan assigned to Daisy, which I think is a testament to how much work you've been leading on in this Council. When we have the info on cover, could we get an updated list of who to contact about these different items, please? Yeah, as you can imagine, Councillor, we're just having conversations now about how to make the succession seamless, so we'll let you know about that. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, so the, just a slight update on the work programme, so the full Council have asked all committees to look at the work programme in the round, and this has escaped me, it was a line in a report I probably voted for. This is the truth. So Rachel, who's not with us today, because she's got another commitment, she's going to set the meeting in June, we will come together and look through the work programme. I think what we'll conclude from that is that we're quite a busy committee with lots to do, but then the less, but perhaps we can find some efficiencies by taking time just to sit down and look at the work programme we'll run out of. Daniel. Thank you, Convener. That takes us item 5.2, which is the committee ruling actions log. We've got quite a few items that are recommended for closure today. Action 1, Action 11, Action 16.1, 21, 25.1, 4 and 5, 27.4, 28, 37.2, 41.3, 44.4, 45, 48.3, 51, 53.3, 55, 56.2, 60.1, 66.1 and 2, 70.1 and 3, 71.3, 73.2, 75, 76, 77, 78.3, 79.1, 80.4, 82.1 and 2, 88, 90.1 and 95. Committee's asked to note the other extending action. I think we should have issued bingo cards. Not a question on that. We do have, I feel, a creeping increase of the words ongoing and I would ask the officers try to have in here the expected completion dates. Otherwise I do think there's a risk that things just roll on from one month to the next. So if I could ask if officers can look at that, I appreciate in that column it's always a base case indicative things change. But I think we should try and be providing some sort of clarity around when we expect these actions to actually come to a conclusion. That's very fair, Councillor, and we'll look at that and try and edit that out as much as we can for next month's committee. Are we happy to agree? Councillor DUMMING. Just on the ongoing point, perhaps particular focus in item 81, which is causing great trams from granting to buy a quarter beyond. In particular, the optional routes, the public consultation is an ongoing and all the details. I think there's enough anxiety and concern in the community that we really need to nail down dates for these really important activities. I think you were aware of that, obviously there's a lot of discussion in the local community. What the team's been working on recently is to take the decision of committee when we brought our consultation report and to make sure that we are correctly in developing the scope to make sure that that consultation and the following SBC contains all the information you would expect. I think that what's certainly clear is that, and in fact it's common not just to this project, but actually to trans-development projects across the country, is that what the information that was traditionally put in an SBC is now inadequate. We need to do much more in terms of describing how future projects will interact with other council policies than we had to do, so I do appreciate that's taken a bit longer than any of this would have liked, but we'd expect to come back on it pretty shortly. If I can just add to that briefly, I mean, that first one under 81 councillors is a good example, so information on the ecological impact, that's not ongoing, I mean committees agreed that that's what we'll have to do. So it's not really an ongoing action, ongoing is not the kind of right description of it, it's, you know, we are now under an obligation to include that material, but the key thing I suspect members and the community want to know is when are we going to be going out and what's going to happen when. Now as soon as we'll do that, we'll let committee know and obviously Anna and many other colleagues are working on that hard just now, so I think it's kind of, you know, nailing the specific thing that members really need to know and being clear on that. Yes, it's about that commitment to having an open, transparent and data driven consultation process so people can reach of you, and I think we also have to be very, if we were to launch it right at the start of the summer, people might say, well, people will have missed it. So I think it's really important that no matter when we launch it, people have sufficient time to look at all that data and really reach of use. And it probably, you know, 12 weeks, not 12 months, it's really a weak consultation, which where people can look at all these different dimensions or different lenses through which you want to look at the project and reach their own conclusion. You have a follow-up point, Councillor. Yes, it's not about my comments, much less, it has to be done quickly, it's much more about, I think, the public, you know, it's when the actual dates. Councillor Aston. Thanks, Kavina. I just wanted to just follow up on something that Hannah said they're in passing about what had previously been considered adequate for strategic business cases for tram projects. And I guess a new view being taken off of that. Hannah, is that a direct consequence of the harder report recommendations? No, I don't think it is. I think that what is happening, I think it's probably a greater sophistication, if I can don't mean to be rude about anything we've done previously, but I think it's a greater sophistication about how we consider tram in the context of a wider transportation network. So if you take the example in Edinburgh, we can see that, you know, a strategic business case, we talk about a tram projects and what that is going to give. I think that now we don't talk about a tram project, we talk about a mobility project across an area. And we think about tram, we think about how it's going to interact with a wider public transport network, which of course was always in there, but we also talk about how it's going to interact with active travel. And then, of course, in the context of this project, we also need to think about how it interacts with wider council policy. So I think it's just, and I know that not only Edinburgh grappling with this, there's leads at a similar stage, and they're really thinking about how they integrate the entire project into the cityscape. So I think it's, you know, I think it's a good thing, but I think that we, and we have to do more work, and we have to make a greater sort of a speculative investment in our business case development in our other stage than we've maybe had to do in the past. Okay, thank you, Hannah. Councillor McFarland. Thanks, Commander. Just in relation to item 46, the phased reduction and use of glyphosate. In terms of the engagement with the community councils with getting involved with becoming a glyphosate-free area and what that entails, it said that it would take place ahead of the spring season, I guess, or the time that we do that. I was just wondering when that is, because I would have thought to it be kind of around now when the weather gets a bit drier that that takes place. I don't know if we can give us a wee bit of insight or an update. The dandelions are certainly starting to appear in my garden. Andy? Yeah, actually, Councillor McFarland. One of my colleagues who's developing that and leading on it is off this week, but he's back on the 29th. If I can come back to committee and just update that when he returns and gets me a bit of a briefing, that would be helpful. Excellent, thank you. Any other points or questions on this item? Okay, good. Daniel? Thank you. Convener, that takes us to item 6.1, the committee's business bulletin. There is an administration addendum and a Liberal Democrat group amendment on this item and Councillor Mackenzie is here to speak to committee. Thanks for having me. I won't be long. There are two items on the business bulletin I'd like to speak to. Mainly, because there's an absence of dates there next to them for future actions or reporting. And I'd be very grateful if any committee members would be willing to ask questions that may elicit timelines for action or commitments to future reporting. Firstly, on S6W and Westfield Street. CPZ S6E was introduced on the 23rd of October and Councillor HEAP brought a motion here on the 16th of November highlighting the impact that the dividing line was having on residents of Westfield Street. The report that came back here on the 11th of January stated is anticipated that a decision will be taken on the future of S6W in early 2024 and that this work could be undertaken as soon as Q2 2024. So we're about to hit May now and the decision hasn't been taken. So I'm wondering if the ambition to implement in Q2 still holds. Today's update on S6W states the analysis of monitoring surveys will be provided to ward Councillors shortly after this meeting along with a suggested course of action. I expected that to occur the other way round that ward Councillors would be briefed in advance of this meeting and that the decision to proceed would be formalised here today. So the questions there are when and how will that decision be made and what is the expected implementation date. The anecdotal analysis of displacement from S6E to S6W has been detailed by Mr Lidster earlier so I won't go into that much further except to say that I can confirm without seeing the data that there is significant displacement into the ward 7 areas of S6W and that is causing significant disruption to the lives of many people who live in that area. It's been six months now and it needs to be addressed earlier urgently and the sooner it's addressed the sooner you can be rid of myself and Grant coming here all the time to talk about. On the other item the T7 Longstone link there is a lot of encouraging stuff in that update but I do feel the need again to raise a couple of questions that people in the community have raised with me. For most there is the proposed width of the bridge and why five metres. I appreciate that the answers to that question is likely to be that a five metre bridge is required to get such transcending. But why are sustenance insisting on a five metre bridge and crucially why then was the developer contribution based on the cost of a three metre bridge. I think we're doing ourselves out of significant sum of money by not identifying that it was the five metre at that point. And finally when will we receive a further update on the progress of the Longstone link bridge application, whatever we're calling it. You might not be aware committee but you've just closed it on the roll in action log. Thanks again for having me. Thank you for that Councillor Mackenzie. Do you have any questions for Councillor Mackenzie this morning? Okay, thank you. I think we can return to the business building in Aetham itself and now the memory system right, Councillor Aston had to raise hand up for a question. Councillor Lai and Councillor Bandol then Councillor DUNY and Councillor MUNFORD as well. All right, so I've lost track now. We'll see here we go. Councillor Aston, you still have a question? I do. Thanks, Counvener. Yeah, well, I've got a couple. And so the first one is on supported bus services. I just wanted to see, I didn't know if Stuart is there. There is. Okay, nice, Stuart. Just in terms of, so the new routes at leading air into Portobello and the one to serve dummy dikes that they're not mentioned in the update. And obviously I've got a board interest in terms of the leading air and bus. And I'm really keen to know when you think that there might be an opportunity for local people to participate in, you know, having input in what that route might be like. Sure, Councillor McFarland has a similar question in relation to the dummy dikes route as well. Okay, thank you, Councillor. I've met with consultants this week are providing a bit of assistance with this or focus has been over the last few weeks, just on the west end of stuff. And we are conscious of this timeline to deliver something, leading air into the dikes and also revised or reviewed. And renewed service 13 contract needs to progress quickly. What we've done is we have compiled a list of contacts, community councils, other interested parties. And yourselves as Councillors work, Councillors, it's Jacobs that are working on this on my behalf. They'll be making contact probably within the next few days to arrange meetings with all interested parties to try and get some feedback and help us develop specifications for the routes. I suppose the short answer is it, imminently will be the opportunity for communities to feed into that process. Okay, thanks. I'd really appreciate it if you could, if you could drop me a line just like, you know, exactly what or roughly what imminently means. That'd be wonderful. Can we know if it's okay I've got another couple of questions. Don, if you don't mind, would you see if anybody else has a question about the supported bus services because there's clear people with questions and then we can come up. I'll come straight back to you. Any other, any, Councillor Lange. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. One of my questions was about supported buses. And so just seeking, hopefully, some certainty that it will be the next committee. That the approval of tenders for those five services will come forward. And if the committee was to approve those on the 23rd of May, when do officers anticipate those services actually starting. Thank you, Councillor. So, yes, definitely we will have a ready for for me. And I'll just check with shirt in terms of when it'll be starting, but I know that there are positive conversations as part of the process. Sure. A definite date on that will just need a little bit of input from procurement colleagues. And that will, let's make sure we detail that in the report and we have a definite date that we can work with. The contract award that will need to follow after committee. And then we will need to just confirm with the successful operators. How soon they can actually activate the resource. There is our registration process with the traffic commissioner to follow as well. So, we're just in the stage for analyzing the returns and we should be through that very soon and we will be able to report full detail in me. Okay, thank you. I did have one of the questions on something else. So, thanks for that. And we've got that cast down guarantee from Daisy there. It's going to come to the next committee. Even though she won't be here. So, we'll handle Daisy. Danny, back to you. Yeah, thanks for that. So, on the greenback to medals update, I just wanted to check. Will the before and after monitoring be including traffic speeds as well as numbers. And I'm happy to be the vehicle for cancel Mackenzie's questions. In terms of timeline for decision making and implementation on s six W. And the question about whether it's such trans that are requiring a five meter bridge and why. We stipulated in the section 75 for a three meter bridge as well. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, Andrews here. He's he's got the answers before I commit to anything else for me. Yeah, in terms of green bank to medals. Unfortunately, the regular project managers and extended absence at the moment. So, I'd need to speak to him to see what we have in terms of existing speed service. In the area that we could then replicate as part of the ongoing monitoring and evaluation. The service that we circulated are that have just been done that are mentioned in the the business bulletin. Our traffic volume service rather than traffic speed. Now, they will have picked up traffic speeds, but their junction counts. And obviously, junction counts taking place at a junction because it's a lot turning movements. You don't get like a free flow traffic speed out of it. So, if we were doing traffic monitoring specifically a modern vehicle speech, you would normally do those remote locations away from junctions to avoid that. So, if I have been speed counts done before, we would certainly replicate them again, but I need to check what has been done before. I am in regular contact over the project manager, so I can check that shortly after committee. And I'm quite happy to circle an update on that on what we have and what we can do. In terms of the two questions asked by Councillor Mckenzie about the long stone link and the long stone bridge. The reason that we would want to include a five meter wide bridge in any funding bit is because that would be the width of bridge. To provide to allow both cycling and walking set as set out and cycling by design, which is transport Scotland's national design standard effectively. The reason it's five meters is a shared path for walking and cycling should be four meters wide. And then where you have a vertical obstruction like a bridge pad a bit, you allow an extra half a meter adjacent to that so that people aren't cycling right hard up against the vertical obstruction. So, two half meters and then a four meter usable path. So, that's five meters if we didn't include that in the bids. There's two things. One, it's on our primary cycling network. So, it would be erecting a bridge that in theory is too narrow to be used for cycling and walking on a primary cycling network, a run primary cycling network, which doesn't look very clever. And two, we'd be very unlikely secure external design funding from transport Scotland, some of which comes via SUS trans. So, that's why the five meter bridge. We were engaged by colleagues in planning in advance of the section 75 discussions. I understand the driver behind the narrower width in the section 75 was one concerns about environmental impact. And I think that's likely more about the width of the approach paths to the bridge rather than the bridge itself. If you put a wider bridge in, you might have to widen the approach paths as well to match it. And also, as I understand the planning regulations, section 75 contributions have to be proportionate to the development. And I think there was a feeling that the additional cost of a five meter bridge might take that contribution out with what was considered proportionate. But we didn't actually conduct those negotiations. So, that's my understanding of it, I couldn't put my hand in heart and say that was the full reason. Okay, thanks for that, Andrew, as I've heard, lots of insight there. Gavin, do you want to come back on the parking point? Thank you. Yeah, yeah, Kearns, in regards to the S6W monitoring, that monitoring has been completed. And the briefing note for the elected members in the ward has been put together. So, we're hoping to have something put in the diary either next week or the week after to discuss that. If we get agreement on what's being proposed, then we can progress with the implementation of restrictions if that's what's decided. If there are any issues that need to be brought back to tech, then we will do so that we do have approval from tech to progress with the implementation without having to come back to committee. If we get agreement from all the relevant elected members. Okay, thanks for that. So, next on my list is Councillor Lange. Yep, thank you. So, I've got a question on the Queen Street High Street, delighted to see you, Mr. Dave Sinclair here, because this was added on after the motion at Council last month. The position set out in the business bulletin is effectively the position as it's been for well over a year. When are the traffic orders going to be published? Thank you, Councillor. I must admit, it's not my business bulletin and it's not my project at the moment. So, I can maybe pass over to Karen? I'll chip in, actually, to refer to Dave, Councillor Lange, Dave's now handed over the button to another colleague, and actually, you'd think this was set up, but an email that arrived in the inbox yesterday to just discuss final setting up on the budget, because the TROs are at a point of being ready to be progressed. So, the answer to that, I would aim to give yourself and other ward members as early as I can next week, if that's okay with you, just because that meeting's been set up. But, yeah, we are getting close to the point of being able to progress those orders. Councillor Bandel? Thank you very much. I have one question on the travel tracker app, the system update, and then something on the major Johnson's review. Firstly, will the change to bus trackers include wheelchair space availability information? I think that's something we asked for in a previous amendment, and it was mentioned in the update. You want to take that, Stuart? Yeah, Candie, can I touch on this? A previous committee, the difficulty we've got is getting live information of availability of spaces from operators. We can receive it, we can show what buses are wheelchair accessible, which is the mall now, really. What we're struggling with is giving live updates on availability of that space, and that requires input from a driver, unless we have some automated way of communicating that. What we'll always struggle with is showing availability of a space just a few seconds in advance, which somebody could then go upon at the previous stop with a wheelchair, and then that space is no longer available for somebody who's waiting at the following stop. It's something that both ourselves and operators are keenly aware of when we're looking at technology and ways that we can actually make that happen quickly. It's something that can work really well in longer distance services where there's a significant gap between stops. It's a different and more challenging problem for stops within the city. Thank you. And then my other questions were on the major junctions review. Dave, hi. In the report says that 1.4 million funding is required for package two, which includes design and intervention costs. And I wanted to ask you also mention that you need officers to manage the project, promote ETROs and work in procurement and contracts. Is that covered by the 1.4 million, or do we need additional resource for that? Thank you, Karen. The estimated design costs and construction costs would include the resources required to undertake both sites, so that would be the design element and the other resource I was making reference to was the delivery team to do. So within, I'm estimating within that 1.4 million budget. Great. And then I wanted to ask a question on back in February, obviously it sounded like there was political consensus that we wanted to speed up the delivery of Porte Junction, was that opportunity lost when we passed the budget? Or will that still form part of the update report on the major junctions review we are getting in the summer? So just to understand the question, the portbello, the kings. So that from the three actions from the January update report, that scheme is progressing. So we're going through the outline design stage at the moment. And we're undertaking consultation with public transport operators, looking at improvements for sort of bustling measures and the crossing facilities within the junction as well. The business building update notes a stakeholders update towards the end of this month. And then we will progress the traffic order process. I think the timeline remains the same. I think we have a fairly complex traffic order and redetermination process to go through. And we'll commence that once we've had concluded a stateful engagement. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Bandham, do you have to meet bus operators next week? So I'll mention that we will share the data issue with them. You can do so as well then. Councillor Dijk's are down here. Thank you, convenient. Yeah, I have a question about the bus tracker, so probably for Stuart. So Stuart, as I understand it, up to now we have a situation where the Laudium buses information is scheduled only. But as the business building says from May, there will be some Laudium buses where the real time information is displayed and these are the new fleet buses as I understand it. Some will still be displaying the scheduled information. I guess my question is in two parts, what percentage roughly is now going to be upgraded fleet? And what's going to still be the old fleet and therefore the scheduled information? And I guess more importantly, what mitigations are they going to be to help people, especially if this is going to be happening over the summer where there's a lot of people who are perhaps also familiar with the situation trying to use these buses and some buses will be displaying on time, so will be not. There will be sometimes, I guess, on the same route where there will be some new fleet and some old fleet. And I guess my concern is that this is now going to be an even more confusing situation than what we have in the moment. So what is this going to look like in terms of making people aware of what's going on over the next few months?

• Thank you. So I thank you, Councillor. I don't have a number and a percentage, but it's, I mean, the full completion of the new tracking equipment on all the universities will be complete by the end of the summer. So when we do have live information available on the signs, I'm putting a bit of an estimate on this, so I would expect that to be about 50% of the services when we start to show live information. We've gone through this in the past, even in the first iteration of Us Tracker back in 2004, we had a mix of live information and schedule information that was shown at the time as schedule information was highlighted with the master's concerns. I think there's more flexibility in the new signs to be a bit clearer with that. So it could be that we have schedule information shown as a time, rather than minutes, expected minutes. So it should be quite clear. I'll just need to confirm with the team what we have and availability and the configuration of the signs and make that clear to passengers of what their viewing is either scheduled or live. Thank you. I think that'll be very helpful. Thank you. So next question, Councillor Mumford, to be very patient. Thank you, Kavina, for letting me join the committee today. I've got a number of questions about the Green Bank tomatoes and quiet route for the business bulletin. If that's okay, I'm not sure which officer. But so first of his, can we make plans for detailed cycle count to be undertaken? We talked about traffic survey, but specifically of cyclists using the modal filter on braid avenue, including the type of cyclist, for example, children versus adults. I think that would be really helpful information. And secondly, there's been lots of concerns about idling traffic and once the filters are removed on braid avenue, is there any air pollution monitoring in place and other plans for that around the filters? And then finally, the bulletin says implementations planned for autumn. When and how will we see the detailed plans? And particularly, there's lots of concerns around parking around any speed mitigations that might be put in place and questions around cycle lane width, and how everything will work with this implementation. So any more information about that would be very helpful. Thank you. Andrew, you're going to take that? Sorry. Yeah, I was just making some notes. Yeah, again, that's probably things that, so in extent, I'll need to go away and discuss with the team and come back and I can include it in the update of already said said I'll do in speed service. In terms of the one thing which in terms of the implementation in the autumn is we will have to do a new experimental traffic regulation order. Or revising the scheme. And obviously, as part of that, that requires plans to be publicized, showing things like parking restrictions. Traffic order drawings don't normally show details like the width of cycle lanes. So that would need to consider if there's a need to come back. I mean, obviously, committee has effectively given us a decision to implement a certain option. So we need to be a little bit careful about how we do a consultation or an information sharing exercise on that, because effectively when we wouldn't be going back to the community, given the opportunity fundamentally changed the committee decision. We would just be effectively giving them a bit more details about how it's to be implemented, which is not really the same messages normally when you go out to a community. So that would need a bit of thought. You can take a look at someone foot or you can go for it. Thank you. Yeah, but thank you very much. Yeah, I suppose just totally take the point. This isn't a consultation, but it, you know, it will be about things that will affect the residents going forward. And just any other details you can give about the cycle survey with that speed survey will be very, very helpful. I don't know if you could say anything now about the air pollution monitoring, just if that's already in place, or if there's plans for that. As far as I'm aware, there's been no air pollution monitoring done to date. It's not something that's done that commonly. I think there have been some provisions recent in some recent projects like the LEZ and I think city center West Easter's link as well. They're obviously much, much bigger projects. We did to look at what was feasible, but to my knowledge has been done to date in that area. Next to my list is Council McFallen, then Council Monroe, sorry Council Monroe. Thanks, Commissioner. I just want to take us back to Longstone. Link, if that's okay, just for a wee bit of expansion. And the Community Council, when they give their reputation described as a no brainer, I think everyone around this committee thinks exactly the same about putting the bridge in. So just in kind of a wider scope, if there's any information about what external funding we're looking at applying to, if we're not successful, if the places for everyone funding doesn't come to fruition. And also just for me and kind of general human being terms, how long does it take to build a five meter bridge? What kind of in terms of project end to end are we looking at to kind of set aspirations for the community and the people that are interested in it? And is there any way that we can make sure that that happens as efficiently and as quickly as possible for a real no brainer takes every policy box project like this? So I've just like a wee bit more information if that's okay. Thank you, Councillor. So in terms of funding, the usual source of funding that supports the vast majority of the active travel infrastructure investment program is Transport Scotland funding. And that comes to us within a state of transition, as we report to committee in a business bulletin a month or two ago. This year, design funding is still coming via such trans PFE, although it's ultimately Transport Scotland funding, construction funding this year is coming via transport Scotland direct. Next year, the plan is to transition to the all funding will come from Transport Scotland direct. So that's the usual sources of funding and that would be our first port of call. There are occasionally other sources of funding that we can dip into, there's obviously a section 75 potentially coming for this bridge, although up until fairly recently when we checked with planning that hadn't actually been signed and put in place. And we don't yet know what the conditions on payment will be for that. Sometimes the time scales around payment of the section 75 can relate to completion of a certain amount of buildings or occupation of a certain amount of buildings. So that funding may still be several years away. Our initial plan would be to bid for such trans places for everyone for the early stages of design. We are the window for that bid was due to have been opened by now, however, it's recently been postponed and we don't have rearranged date ship. There is a possibility that there may actually be no funding available this year for stages zero to two design through such trans PFE because of pressure to maintain work and existing projects. If that's the case, we can look at it and see if there's other external funding we could access. We don't have a go to, but there are other potential sources we could look at. The other option is that we're about to do a review of the interactive travel investment program. And we could consider as part of that review, whether to provide issues in some of the council's own funding to cover the design work that would happen this year on the scheme, if we were to take it forward. Normally, we try to use external funding because it's 100% match. So effectively, the council pays nothing for that design work, but if there is no external funding available, there is the option to use internal funding this year instead. Councillor McFarland. Thank you for that. It's just a re-tiny follow-up. So in the event that this section 75 everything goes ahead, which is what we all hope, but there's a condition or kind of a long time lapse. Are you as officers able to come to council to kind of front up the money to ensure that the project happens in a speedy way, knowing that in future years that money will be coming back to us. Hopefully that makes sense. We'll have a look at that and take it away. We hear what committee's saying. We know we need to expedite this. As Andrew says, the external funding environment is not helpful at the moment, but we know we need to expedite this, so we'll look at it and bring something back. Thanks for that. I mean, the external funding is not easy, but I think, you know, events in the Scottish Government today mean that we do have concerns about what's going to be going forward for active travel, to be honest. Thank you very much, Coordinator. It's regarding Green Bank tomatoes and just following up on what my fellow councillors Mumford and also Aston raised. We're looking at speeding in the area. So obviously nobody wants speeding, but I'm wondering, we've got a problem in my area and I know it's happening elsewhere across the city where there are other road users. Those using bikes, especially delivery drivers who are using bikes that are going around the area and other areas in the city at great speed. Some of these bikes are electric. So if we're going to be doing account, can we possibly do account of the, or look at the way that cyclists, especially delivery drivers on bikes are going about the area and what speed they're going at. Because I witnessed myself on Braid Avenue where an accident took place where such an individual hit a much beloved pet while cycling at speed down Braid Avenue on an electric bike. So it would be good to see if you are going to be doing any speed counts that if you could possibly, and I know you've got a lot of work on, could do that as well. Would that be a possibility, please? Thank you, Councillor Andrew. I'll discuss that with Andrew and come back to you. That's very kind of you, Daisy. Thank you very much. Indeed. I appreciate that. And there was one final question, please. Thank you, Vener, on the bus trackers. I initially brought up the problem with the bus trackers at committee and highlighted this issue and it's good that other Councillors have come on board and recognize the problems that we've had and it's great to see that you're working very hard on it. With regards to the bus trackers, can I just ask some of my residents have been in contact to say, if we are going to be upgrading and making the bus trackers work effectively, which we all want for the citizens and those visiting the city, have we been able to have the trackers updated on the most popular routes? Do we have any information we can give to residents to say, this is the most popular bus route? These are the buses that are used most frequently across our city, and so these bus trackers are the ones that we are prioritizing. Or is it just lowly in buses deciding which bus trackers are modified and updated with this new system? Thank you. Over to you, Stuart. Thank you, Councillor. And is this in regard to new locations or how we've rolled out the replacement of things? To the previous, when they were looking at the bus tracker system previously, did they identify which was the busiest routes and that's why they were installing those trackers because they knew of the volume of passengers that were getting on, or was it just a case they looked at the bus trackers and it was where they thought a tracker, the new tracker system should be put in. So for those using the busiest bus routes, are those trackers the ones that have been fixed first? The replacement of the existing sites was done in our rolling programme of trying to do each corridor in turn and really just logistics of what's most efficient. The existing sites and gone back in the history of how they were decided was done a lot of the three external funding. And so initially we had corridors that were based on bids to Scottish executive editing, and then that's kind of concentrated where bus trackers across the city have appeared. Yes, input from bus operators, particularly the buses, but also the council have a scoring matrix and criteria that we've considered where bus trackers are most appropriate. And then moving forward, selecting new sites actually has been a request for us to come back with how we're deciding on what new locations are best. So I'm not sure if that particularly answers your question, but it was all kind of favouritism of any particular location on how we've replaced old signs with new, I suppose, in effect, where we've ended up with this difficult transition, the retention of the old signs has actually been an advantage because it's still been able to display the real-time information. No, that's most helpful and the fact that you have been looking at a sort of tracking system because there are buses that go through the city that are more popular than others that get people from A to B, to hospitals, to doctors appointments, to take the children's school to get to work. So there are buses you can identify across the whole of the city that are used far more regularly. So I was just wanting clarification that those trackers were the ones that were maybe getting priority over other trackers in the city that are not getting the same fruitful of people using the public transport. But I think you've explained that to me that there is some form of metric system in place that does that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Can we just expand on that as well? When we decide new locations, it's not just based on the high volume routes and popularity of services. We consider locations that are key to accessing retail, health, education, et cetera. So actually, sometimes we can pick a location that perhaps has a higher net benefit of the information and lower overall bus use, but where the information is actually more critical and where services are maybe less frequent. Again, where the information could be more critical and in locations where perhaps a demographic don't quite have the same level of access to online information through smartphones. Okay. Thanks for that shirt. Thank you. And thanks for your work on that project. So I think I think we've dried up questions, but I think it's also time to move on. So I'm happy to approve the business bill in there. There's two amendments to it. The first is mine, and that just reflects some of the discussions we've just had around the bus tracker system and the potential increasing the number of trackers in the city. I think it's between 1800 new ones getting added. Now, what observation would make for my ward is that my number of living bus route, which goes to Councilman nose word, as well, it's well served with bus trackers and these are well used when they're functioning normally. But elsewhere in my ward, you know, ox gangs where car ownership is low, bus public transport uses high, there's not a single bus tracker. And I think I might say the only bus tracker in Colinton is there through a developer contribution. So I think it's right that we get some information about how the Council's prioritising where these new trackers are going to go, and we'll see that in the next committee. The second point is really just a bit of housekeeping to enable us to do what I thought we'd agreed at the last committee around the client route, just about making sure we get the order of the implementation. Correct, and also to make sure that we do reflect as much as possible. This is a trial going forward. Now, I'm quite keen that we de-plurise the debate around the client route, and someone who I won't name is very kindly pointed out that perhaps my language could a lot be a lot more in that direction. So I'll replace the word welcomes with notes, and then I'm going to correct the typo in my first line as well, I'm going to change updated to update. And with that, I'm happy to move my amendment, and I'll pass over to Councillor CINDAR to second. And formally second. Now, we also have an amendment from Councillor Lange. Thank you very much. So I'm conscious that when it comes to certain transport interventions, it's very seldom that we get things approved unanimously on this committee. But this was one where every member of every Glasgow group agreed that there was a strong case for the trial through Road Closure at Camo Road. And I appreciate both from officers and from the committee decisions were made on the information at the time and in good faith. But as my amendment says, it is frustrating for me, and I know for other word, Councillors, that the trial Road Closure was postponed in anticipation of a new junction being put in with the expectation that that was almost imminent. And here we are almost 17 months old, and that junction has not happened yet. Work has not even commenced, and indeed the trial closure, as my amendment says, could have been undertaken and completed twice in that time. My understanding is that we still don't have a definitive position in terms of when work will start on that new junction. And that's why what I am seeking, as my amendment said, is to try and get clarity on what the definitive timetable is. And if we cannot get as a committee, a guarantee that works will commence in the next six months, because it was going to be a six month trial, that was what was agreed that that ETRO should progress. And I say that because if we had problems 17 months ago, the problems are even worse now, both in terms of rat running traffic, but also traffic that's using this road to get to and from the airport cargo facility. So it is a really serious safety issue, and my constituents are very concerned about it. Formally, thanks. Okay, thanks for that. So, in terms of something, I think what I've circulated notes to the committee, I think, with Councilor Lyons' amendment, what was suggested is we bring an update on this to the next committee in me, and that can give consideration to your second point about if it can't fix a date, can we rapidly progress this using other means? Because, obviously, I am aware that the Council does have a priority, so I think it's important to view that second part of your amendment within the context of the other priorities Council might have, and we can deal with that in the next committee. So that's, oh, sorry, Councilor Nasta and you have a? Thanks, Convener. Yeah, I wasn't sure if you were summing up. Right, okay, so you're happy for me to comment. I'm grateful to you for changing the language around Green Bank to medals, obviously, two parties represented on this committee didn't vote for the final majority position. Obviously, we acknowledge the majority decision that was reached, but, you know, we do continue profoundly to regret that decision to remove the modal filters. So, I'm grateful to you for making the language around it less polarized, but I actually wanted more to focus on the other part of your agenda, if that's okay. So, I actually think that that vote will like the new displays when they're finally working properly and can be relied upon. They might even slowly fall in love with them, who knows, but this has been a bit of a fiasco. The information for bus users actually regressed in the last little while we went from the old screens, which showed the real time info, not perfectly, but without a fair degree of reliability. Having these very nice full-color screens, but which are effectively just timetables, and that's a situation that has persisted for many weeks already and is going to continue to persist for at least another three weeks and more. That's only when we're getting a part solution for some of the size. I mean, you know, you just have to hear what people are saying, bus stops to know what they think. They're using stronger words than fiasco, and obviously the update mentions that 14 out of 15 operators are now showing real-time information. What it doesn't mention is that that 15 operator, loading buses, carries over 90% of passengers in the city, 90%. So, we do welcome the new tracker sites, and we're basically fine to support your addendum, and I don't want to be too pedantic, but with the first two uses of welcomes adjusted to notes, we'd be a lot more comfortable. So, I'd like to move that, please. Okay, I'm happy with that, that's fine. So, I'm happy with that council asked, and so I was speaking out loud, I think, a little louder. So, I'm happy that council asked, and I can change that as well, without a problem, just so we all leave here on the same page. I think the bus trackers are incredibly important, but a big part of why the bus trackers are so much better than just a timetable is the delays to public transport in the city caused by congestion and other issues. And that's the real challenge that this committee has, rather than getting the data, feed live, which is a massive challenge, we have to get right, but dealing with that congestion problem is the bigger challenge we face. So, going back to my summing up, and apologies for not giving you a chance to inject sooner a council asked in. So, obviously, make those minor changes to my addendum, and with Lib Den, one will bring that back as an update to the next committee, and then we can consider the next steps at that point. And on that, I think we're in agreement now. Excellent, thank you. So, I think we're ready for a break now. So, if we come back at 10 past 12, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Section seven of the agenda is the committee's executive decisions. Thank you, convener. Item 7.1 is the road safety delivery plan, 2024 to 25. There is a Liberal Democrat group addendum, a green group addendum, and a conservative group addendum on this item, and Dave Sinclair is here to speak to the report. Thank you, convener. I may just do a quick introduction, and so I'll run through the report. It's quite a lot in there, and I know there's a number of questions and motions in that. So, in terms of the report, it defines our priorities for the 24-25 financial year in terms of our statutory responsibilities and the actions that I believe the team should focus on. It proposes the delivery program, the year ahead, and makes reference to some of the carryover schemes, and perhaps some of the, or should we say, the incomplete schemes from the previous year. Again, just makes note to the resource situation within the team, and I think that's a much more positive situation for us now. The road safety team is operating at eight staff from almost half that level a year ago. It's not a much healthier position, and I see this is a year for us to develop and progress. There are options noted in there to restrict the larger or heavier vehicles, and some of these considerations within that. And I would, I suppose, note that as was when we consider traffic orders, we would always wish there was to be data driven, and we will be undertaking our revised acts in investigation and prevention review this year that we're obliged to do on a regular basis. It makes reference to the 20-millinar speed limit extension, so we're reviewing the sites that were considered a previous committee, and colleagues are considering those, again, in discussions with public transport operators about any of those sort of timetable and issues, a reference to previous discussions in East London Street, actions associated with that, a new piece of work that's in the report that members may not have anticipated seen as the school crossing patrol guide review. I thought it was prudent to make reference to a historical gap in terms of the resource levels within that between the numbers of the fine sites and the staff that have managed to recruit, so I'm suggesting that we have a particular formal review to acknowledge that and take steps and plans into place to address that particular gap. And finally, I just referenced to the budget situation, the internal capital budget situation has been confirmed, and to retreat on some of the colleagues' discussions and before that some of the external funding elements are still still to be addressed. We have a healthy, I think, and good working relationship with Transport Scotland in terms of the Road Safety Improvement Fund, and I hope that there'll be a positive outcome that acknowledge that the act of travel investment fund is more of a question mark in terms of that sort of reduction in available funding. I've made reference to the direct vision standard and the HDV sort of safety permit standards at London, Transport for London, as considered, just as an example of measures that could be possible in the year ahead. Years ahead, I should say, in conversations that we're having about changing in terms of primary legislation with Transport Scotland. And finally, I just have a mere response, as a point that comes to my road, I made about electric bikes and delivery. So we participate in a quarterly police engagement exercise, and that's going to matter, that's going to be not from discussion with the police. So how can we not probably the next meeting, we're in a couple of weeks' time, so I'm happy to make reference to, I hope, maybe observe this as a growing issue across the city of unregulated electric powered. Bikes and implications of that. I'm happy to include that and I'm happy to take any questions. So Councillor... [LAUGHTER] So Councillor Monroe, Councillor Bandau, Councillor Coudy, Councillor Langley, and Councillor Di Chitney. Thank you very much for the report and for also just highlighting about the issue of motorised bicycles, that's much appreciated. With regards to this, I've just got a few things I want to ask. You know, Committee has been asked to approve the road safety plan for 2425, Appendix 1, and the school crossings guide review. In addition, we've been asked to note updates to 20 mile an hour zones, service priorities and possible measures for the restrictions of vehicles according to their weight. So the question pertains to 4.3.6, how does urban traffic management control system work? If anybody's watching this now, it's quite complicated in Lehman's terms. Okay, I'll try, thank you. So the UTMC, as described, is our management system that takes information from our signal loops, from other detection apparatus out there. And it essentially manages our traffic signal system and the timings within that. I think that's probably the best description I can offer. The information I'm making reference to here is that we have bought into the supply of Satnav information. I think when certain vehicle manufacturers seek consent, I think from their customers, and that information is then sold onto other agencies. So we have a system where we can apply what we describe as links, so we can put start and finish points anywhere on the network, and we can gather data in terms of average speed, journey times, etc. That information is traditionally used for signal timing and signal link information for traffic flows. But we intend to use that to harvest information in terms of average speeds in certain areas across the city, so to inform our investment strategies going in. No, that's really helpful because my follow-up question was, how was Edinburgh City Council able to gather data from Satnav without specific permission? So you've bought in, and that's where you're able to gain that information from. So thank you very much for that. Now, the other question was a misrelease to heavier vehicles. In the report, the argument for restriction centers on heavier vehicles causing more force in the event of a collision. The trouble I have with this is that modern cars, particularly electric ones, are on average heavier than conventional petrol powered cars. I've got a long list of vehicles. I won't go through them to compare light for light. In addition, the heaviest road vehicles on the road are often the most necessary, buses, bin lorries, delivery lorries, HGBs, other things like emergency services. So in fairness, the conclusion of the paragraph in the report notes that it would be very difficult for the council to bring in a weight control for private vehicles. Am I correct? Yes, there are. Currently within the terms of the primary legislation that we operate under, there are particular elements of the legislation that we can use. In terms of the vehicles that use our roads, we traditionally use a traffic regulation or the process that can prohibit certain classes or weights or size of vehicles. And as I mentioned in the report, those are traditionally used for environmental conditions where we wish HDDs of a certain size not to go through a particular town centre. Coonsbury town centre is an example of where an order has considered to be promoted. And difference means the same situation. It would be a challenging piece of legislation, I think, for drivers to understand if it was at a slightly lower level. So it's quite a blunt instrument, and I think that's my response to that. Thank you very much. My final question relates to 4.14, 4.15 and 4.17. Could you provide or have you a detailed breakdown of the extent of costs, administrative change in risks associated with each of the proposed options for the regulation of vehicle weight within the city? No, it's not information that we hold. I'd say at this point, my colleagues have been in information. I think as I've described in the report, we were asked to consider the mechanisms in terms of parking and their weights. I think we've offered an introduction of some of those elements. Could be and also some of the other TFA elements that were very different transport authorities, a different animal. But it's because you're in insight in terms of some of the mechanisms that come and use as well. In terms of road safety, we adopt the safe systems approach, which is a national, international recognised approach in terms of managing all of the aspects of road safety of which, I think for us, vehicle speed is probably the most significant element that we can manage. A road safety context in a city and making sure that our road layouts are safe as well for our users. Thank you very much for your answers. You just confirmed that funding for the road safety projects for 24/25 has not been secured yet. Indeed, yes. The internal capital funding in terms of carryover and allocation and the additional allocation that we received this year through the capital fund. It's confirmed, unfortunately, the two external funds, which I think is a consistent situation at this time of the financial year, have not been confirmed yet. And the delivery of the programme is predicated on that. OK, Councillor BANDAL. I didn't expect to begin taking so soon. I had a question primarily on drive education. It was obviously illegal and unsafe driver behaviour continues to be a big problem. And I really welcome what you've said in the report about education we're doing with younger and older residents. But I was wondering if we have done any investigation in how we could educate drivers that aren't currently targeted by those programmes, especially professional drivers like HDV and taxi drivers. If not directly, maybe through partnerships, if that's something you've explored. Thank you, Councillor. From myself, not yet. And I think I'm trying to lay out, I think, what the priorities are for the team. And it's a developing team at this stage. There are external organisations whose names I can't remember, who represent professional drivers and represent the challenges that I think professional drivers are faced. So I'll be happy to pick up a dialogue with them. As I mentioned, it's quite a small resource in terms of the education and engagement side of things. Historically, colleagues have always tried to engage with our younger road users, to inform them and set them on their way for independent travel. And we recognise, and this is reflected in some of the national data. The older drivers are potentially increasingly being involved in incident. So just try and focus our efforts in that. What that looks like, I'm not entirely sure of you. But you're happy to pick up the dialogue with organisations that represent the welfare and capacity for professional drivers. Thank you, that's really helpful. Maybe just a clarification on question based on Council Monroe's questions, I know that the report says that restricting larger and heavier vehicles through environmental orders is quite tricky. But is it correct that we can discourage their use through fees and charges and that the options available to us to restrict the base, well, to set different charges based on weight size and style of the vehicle? I think it's a good question. Would it discourage use? I don't know. I mean pricing is again a mechanism of trying to inform, you know, or try to manage behaviours to say if that's right, or trying to ownership in this respect I should say so. So I'm not entirely sure whether it would or not. We have, as I understand it, we have the powers under our fees and charges regime to use the information that's available to us through the DVLA. We would say to consider that framework and must support that charging mechanism might be available. Just to add to what Dave's saying, so I would agree, I think the two options, you have a parking strategy clearly only influences the end destination. Often isn't portrayed on things like sat knobs for vehicle drivers. So if you're a truck driver and you get to the end point to then find out there's a parking charge, it hasn't achieved our goal, I would say, of keeping that vehicle away from the area. As Dave says, in terms of environmental moving traffic orders, as you say, Council, we can do that. We have that in areas of the city right now. I would think particularly the work we are doing around schools, around town centres, around the city centre would be our immediate points of focus. And certainly within kind of school safety orders that they were the team leading on within the 20 minute neighbourhood strategy, things like Queen Street High Street and around city centre transformation. They would be the starting points where we would be looking at those orders. I do have to say, I think as I said with the last committee, of course, right now, we would then rely on the police to enforce any of those orders. And you know, something would continue to where the transport's got them to ask for those powers because having the powers to help us fulfil that policy is the kind of missing ingredient that we'd need. Councillor CODY. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Dave, for the report. It covers a wide range of stuff, and I know that some of it, for example, the pedestrian crossing programme was when I became a councillor, a standalone report on its own. So there's a lot of stuff there. I wanted to welcome, first of all, the review of the school crossing guards in particular. So it's an issue I raised twice at full council with the leader. It's been a real problem in my ward with Craig Lockett, primary school, who have still not got a crossing guard. So I very much welcome that review. My question, first of all, back to the pedestrian crossing programme. Back in, I think it was August 22 was, I think the first time a report came to me here, or came to us here when I was a councillor. And at the time there was a list of 87, I think it had already been shortened down from a larger list. There was a list of 87 on the programme. And in August, eight had been delivered, three had been moved to another project, and 20 were to be done that year. And every time a review or an update comes back, it all gets squeezed. And I remember the first one, Peter Watan, I asked him, why has this gone so dramatically wrong? And he was quite honest and said, basically be bit off more than we could chew. I think that's probably what is now formally coming back here, that you're proposing to deliver a very modest part of that, and then effectively review the whole thing. Right now, do you know, out of that 87, how many have been delivered? And do you know, I know they're spread right across the city and all sorts of nooks and crannies, but do you know how many of those are around, or how many schools in particular would be affected by the ones that have not yet been done? No, thank you Councillor. So unfortunately, I don't know the exact numbers, I understand we have about, in the 70s that are on our books at the moment. And I think discussed with my colleague Andrew about the priorities that were set in the past. So I think historically there was a chronological priority attached to pedestrian crossings. And I recognise, I think it feels like to me that the end of that list is running away from us. So my intention is to, and the team are undertaking this at the moment, is to review the list that we have, to consider that list in terms of its, I suppose it's category. So is it by school? Is it a significant pedestrian junction infrastructure? Is it a standalone crossing point? Is it a pedestrian refuge island, etc. So that we have, we define a programme that's not to similar to the transport sort of infrastructure, the capital infrastructure programme, so we have individual themes so that we can prioritise within each one. Within the assessment, there are various environmental factors that consider proximity to school, the width of the category, the vehicle speeds, etc. So we're going to, we're not going to throw the whole thing out, so the same criteria will still remain at its heart, but maybe consider whether we adjust the environmental factors that reflect maybe the priorities rather than a chronological element, I think, in the future. So that's, that's my intention. And I did describe it as a modest. It's still well over moving pounds in terms of pedestrian crossing installations we're proposing over the years. So a modest is the word I would use and a subtle change in terms of the, I think, or a stock tick in terms of where we are with the process. And it would be my intention to bring that back to committee so that that information is available to us. We could share that information and I know we can share the information in terms of the numbers fairly regularly. In terms of schools, absolutely the same element within the programme. There are separate crossing points that we've considered outside schools that are included in this year's delivery plan, and they've mainly come from, sort of, school travel plan elements or, you know, to, to, as a, as a function of for infrastructure, you know, that's actually required by the school. So that's information we can provide and it's, I would intend to have a, I suppose, a slightly revised pedestrian crossing sort of priority plan slightly later in the year. Follow-up, if I may. Thanks for that. That's very helpful. I suppose the key thing, though, is do you have an idea of how many schools are not going to get what they thought they were going to get in terms of crossings within the next year, for example? No, I don't have that information on it. And the previous list, again, was a sort of ruling programme assuming so many per year that they extended for about ten years into the future. So we are revisiting that programme. I'm not intending, I'm going to say two notes there. So we're not intending to stop the installation of crossing facilities. I think we're just looking at how we deliver those. What are the key drivers in terms of priority of our delivery programme rather than a chronological kind of element? I think that the environment around schools can change, priorities can change, our accent, investigation and prevention programme as well can inform different priorities as well. So it's just trying to balance those priorities so that we, those programme and deliver the ones in which need it. So to expand on that slightly, I mean, I could list crossings where communities absolutely believe ones needed, but they've fell short, that share fell short according to the existing process because they're not ranked high enough. But the aim of the process here isn't to save money or anything, it's to just to re-rank these crossings, just to make sure that the ones at the top are the ones that absolutely need to be done first based on risk. Indeed, and other factors as well. The previous calculation I intend to retain as the, as opposed to the heart, but as the environmental factors around it, I think that we should consider. So just to make sure that we, I think we prioritise and I can describe again in categories because I think if you always prioritise the most, the highest ranked ones, you're never maybe going to reach the sort of lower crossing points, the pedestrian refuge islands, the double day islands that we know, you're always going to end up looking at the ones with high, high PV squared values, which would be expensive, potentially junction or, you know, in individual signalised crossing facilities. So my plan is to sort of aggregate that slightly so we have maybe three or four different elements, so we make sure we address each type of those as we progress. Okay, thank you. I did have another question about a different topic, do you want me to wait? Go for it because Councillor LAND was next, and no, actually we'll come back to you, we'll come back to you. Councillor DUNNIE. Thank you very much. If you permit me, I've got a couple of questions that Councillor LAND was going to ask, but he's had to excuse himself, so if it's okay, I'll ask him and hopefully he did have justice. First question from Councillor LAND, it was, you know, a year ago we had a plan that turned out to be, that turned out to be undeliverable, then we ended up with a streamline plan, that is now also not deliverable. We've got a plan now, I guess what confidence can we have that what we have now is actually deliverable? In fact, thank you, Councillor. Undeliverable is not a word I would use, I was quite specific when I offered the update last year to manage expectations and to manage the delivery program, so I think it was split into two halves of which there was quite a small, I suppose, focused delivery plan within the schedule of projects, and I think we've delivered all of those apart from one and we've actually started the one that we missed. The latter section of the report made reference to, I suppose, a desire under a wish list, so I was supposed to challenge that slightly, but I recognised the desire to progress with schemes, so I did try to set the expectations last year in terms of that quite specifically. This year, things are very different, you know, I think we have a full complement or we have an increased complement of staff, and we have a fairly healthy capital budget, and we're in good discussions with Transport Scotland about that funding as well. The other external funding, again, is going to do a question mark on that. So in terms of confidence, I think we will endeavour to deliver the vast majority of the projects that we've chosen. Thank you very much. The second question relates to our amendments, and it's specifically on this issue of the transfer overall speed limits being transferred to the Active Travel Infrastructure Program coming out of road safety. Can you just give us a rationale for that, because that doesn't really sit right with us? Indeed, and it was a conversation with colleagues based on – it was a number of factors, and one of which was potentially available resource and discussions with colleagues in Daisy's team to, I suppose, to send you to share some of the workload, because I'm conscious that with the workload that the road safety team has, we could be looking at maybe potentially extending the delivery of some of these things just because of the resource. One of the elements of the conversation was about trying to improve its improvements to Active Travel within some of the rural areas as well, so to kind of promote cycling and, or more, walking between the settlements within that area. So that was a conversation I had with colleagues as well that brought us to our, I suppose, a shared conclusion that we would, you know, proceed with the urban. Twenty million of our reduction sites based on our, I suppose, our speed management regime for the city and that they are urban. So the rural stuff would be delivered, as I mentioned, by the colleagues in the Active Travel team. So that was a function of resource, and I think, you know, some of the drivers for encouraging promoting Active Travel within some of those areas as well. I could just add, if that's okay. So yeah, we, as Dave mentioned, the team used to be one team, as you know, I was a year and a half ago, and we continue to work closely as both teams, and as Dave's been building his team. And as part of those conversations, we've talked about, you know, the handover and constant discussions around what, who is available to take on work that was already being done, or was being through the study, through the consultation process. So that's where it's come from. It's one, we're still looking at it as one team. If that makes sense. Okay, that's really helpful, I had two questions of my own, if you'll permit me, convener, thank you. One, it relates to the school travel plans, and a recent briefing to Councillors mentioned that there was 47 school travel plans now signed off and another 24 being drafted. This committee agreed that they would be published on the Street Ahead website, but there's still only nine on that website. Why is that? I don't know, but I'll find out, you know, there are 140 schools and the team are dealing with them, working through all of them. So I'll discuss that with the team to make sure those completed travel plans are fit for publication. Thank you very much. My final question relates to the appendix one, the delivery program for 24/25, and specifically on the speed reduction measures, because there's a long list of streets where there is nothing against either, you know, being implemented or being designed. Can I just check what that means? Are they being, are they also being designed as, what's the status of those, really? So the appendix one speed management sites where we intend to deliver signs and lines or sign and line improvements to all of those over this financial year. Most of those fall within sort of 24 to 28 mile an hour threshold, and that was previously set for intervention level was set for sort of signs and lines, and potentially the variable message speed signs. So all of those were, some of the ones at the very top I hang around the Craigington area. They were at some of those, there was about half a dozen of those that were actually included in the previous 23/24 program, but I think the interventions that were undertaken were those have lead improvements, so that's why there's a carryover for them, but we intend to, to at least provide, you know, the sign and lines, signs and lines intervention and all of those this year. That's a bit. Yeah, thank you. Councillor Astin. Nice to be here. I wasn't sure you'd spotted me on the screen. So thanks, Dave, for the report. So I've got a couple of questions. So on the 20 mile an hour rollout, committed previously requested the next steps of the program to be presented in early 2024. Obviously, I appreciate what you've said about team capacity and it's positive that that's heading in a better direction now. However, we've had delay after delay on this, and that is a delay to starting a process that takes another two years before implementation. You know, we know how big an impact reducing maximum speeds to 20 miles an hour has on on road fatalities. So we know how important this is. Are you able to give us assurances that there won't be any further delays in that? Certainly try to. I mean, in terms of the transition, I think that's probably where the timeline has just, you know, has maybe stretched out in front of us over the last six months or so. It was a piece of work that Daisy's team was taking forward through the consultation process, and there was a, as you may reference to, there was an obligation for an updated committee report. So that has fully transitioned to our team now, and we have the resources to deal with that. So I think in terms of assurance, we have members of the team who are dedicated to speed management within speed limits and managing speeds on our existing network. So I think we have the resource to deliver that. And as you mentioned, unfortunately, we'll need to go through the speed limit order process, the statutory process that may take some time. So I briefly mentioned we're reviewing the sites at the moment will undertake consultation with public transport operators, and they were specifically concerned about some of the timetabling elements. Consider, pardon me, where these measures are reasonable, and there may be some sites in there for what are for particular reason that we may wish to, as opposed to a met at this point. We'll progress with that as quickly as possible again. Okay, thanks, Dave. And my other question relates to HTVs and a direct vision standard. That sounds like quite positive news or potentially positive. I'm just wondering if you could tell us anything about transport Scotland's receptiveness to, and I guess, tell us, or give us some indication of how positive that might be. I think in terms of managing expectations, I think there are a number of steps in terms of primary legislation changes that would be required for us to go down the route of any form of sort of AMPR enforcement. One of the, I suppose, one of the, so it's maybe easier to steps in the way, maybe sort of us to enforce the moving traffic potential offenses around school streets that I'm not, I'm no expert in the legislation, but understand in England. And hopefully, Gareth Snow didn't let me hear England. I think they have provision within that. So, as a decriminalised issue, and that's not something that we have in Scotland. So, it's a point that we are in, suppose, direct discussion with colleagues in transport Scotland about that. So, basically, our views, it's not a view that's maybe consistently seen across Scotland, but certainly for ourselves, I think it opens up a window in terms of enforcement, you know, income to recover the costs of that enforcement. So, for moving traffic offenses, I think for school streets, I think that's certainly something I made reference to the direct vision standard in London. I think it's a gold standard in terms of which vehicles you allow onto your network, and to make sure that those particular vehicles have good visibility and/or the appropriate proximity alarms and sensors. So, I just made reference to that as I suppose, as something that we've made wish to continue in the years ahead. So, I can't offer any timeline, but certainly, we're in dialogue and discussions with representatives in the transport Scotland team. So, I think we've all kind of carried the apologies. Thank you very much. I have my second question. Thank you. They've gone back to larger vehicles again. So, reading the report, the areas where you said you could look into tended to me, they had the word complex, challenging, complicated, and the other one would be, it didn't say the word expensive, but we would have to update all machinery. Ticket machines, I think. So, everything that you said in the report seemed to have kind of a downside to it. And it just has occurred to me that larger cars, family cars tend to be larger cars, and I'm trying to work out whether or not there was any ability or any thought into how one might differentiate between an ordinary family car that might be heavy or large. And, I don't know, some other large vehicle that might be, want to be discouraged from the streets. I'll maybe start, Councillor, and then they can trip in. So, in many ways, officers thinking is starting from which type of vehicles do we think present a danger to vulnerable road users. Obviously, you start at H.G.B.'s, the reason we discussed this at this committee was the tragic incident we had. Not very long ago in the city, and as Councillor Austin's referred to, if you take the transport for London scheme, that accredits on things like fields of vision, accredits on the driving aid, the driver has to warn cyclists, they're going to turn. So, we're not anywhere near the family car. We're at the end of, you know, we're talking about the kind of 40-40 vehicles, the 32, 26, 18s, but there are other types of vehicles that can present dangers. And then, as well, I've seen various types of resources. There are types of, I would probably lump more into the kind of four-by-four end of SUVs that are very, very high and have a field of vision challenge, because actually, when you look across the bonnet, you'll struggle to see small children. Now, that's different to another type of family. That's not your average family vehicle, for example. So, I know the worry from some people is that the intention is to assume that this is thinking about SUVs. There are very safe H.G.B.'s by design. So, we make upon is accounts of procuring refuse collection vehicles that have very good fields of vision for our drivers. Unfortunately, some of the H.G.B.'s you see collecting waste, somehow when it's picked on waste collection firms, don't have the same field of vision. Clearly, that's something we want to work with those companies to improve, to make it, to be fair or relaxing for their drivers and certainly safer for our citizens and visitors. The point Dave was making earlier on is, when you're talking about weight restrictions, they will challenge anybody in this room to know the weight of their car, for example. If you're reading a sign on the road that says, there's a limit of X. As a professional driver, you will know, I'm in the class of above 3.5 tons. I'm in the class of above 7.5, so I want to read that sign. It's very, very clear. And I've generally been given a certificate of professional competency because I'm a professional driver. That's our starting point. I think it would be remiss to acknowledge, though. However, you do see vehicles going around the city that I would put into the category of SUV, which, by the way, I'm not unsure as a legal class of vehicle, but it's what you'd call an SUV, a sports utility vehicle or a 4x4 that I don't think you'd want to. Certainly, I wouldn't want to see around my children's primary school because of the nature that are equal to that driver. Generally, if you look out, you'll see them. If you imagine pulling up at a point and then making a decision to pull away, the height of those vehicles and the view that their driver has would, in our professional view, prevent a risk to a road user, particularly a child. So it's those things we are looking at. As Dave says, we don't have all the powers we need to do this. So we're working within the legal constraints we've got. And certainly, that would be in line with an approval from this committee. Great. I'm quite keen to move on, but I respect the fact that people might want to ask questions, so Councillor Munro and Councillor Dublin, is that in the Councillor McFarland? That would be the last of it. Thank you very much, Gareth. I just want to pinpoint you on the SUVs because I've been contacted by a lot of residents who say, Wait a minute, is my car an SUV? So what you have said is probably what most people think. An SUV is an exceptionally large vehicle that you cannot see over the bonnet. I have some residents who have mobility vehicles that are large, that need a wheelchair in, that if you were in it, the driver is in the same situation as somebody who's driving a Range Rover. So that's just one concern of mine for those who use larger vehicles who have disabilities and they are bigger. Now, you're talking about SUVs. Now, if we were to discourage people using SUVs, are you going to go by the size and weight of the vehicle? And if that's the case, do you have a weight in mind? Because I've done a wee bit of research... Can we go to our questions? Yeah, the most popular family car is going across Edinburgh, way between 1.2 and 1.7 in weight. That's a Ford, a Skoda, a Honda, a Volvo, an Audi. I don't consider them to be SUVs, so if you're going to put something in, what weight are you going to say? This is an SUV and this is not, because a lot of those are family cars that people will then see and other parties will say, Oh, hold on a minute, that's an SUV because of a weight. But actually, it's the most popular cars used in Edinburgh from 2020 from the beginning of 2024 to now. So I think it would be up to this committee to decide what weight threshold was set, not Mr. Barrell with the best presentations I've read. Brilliant, so who would you say that weight? Well, absolutely. Convenient, fully agree. It's members to take the decision. Clearly, you do so based on our professional advice and I'll come back to the point, Councillor. In many ways, part of this debate, we need to inform with data, so I'm thinking they've governed myself and need to take away a police Scotland to saskal. We will have that information on accident data, for example, we'll understand the vehicles, the vehicle registrations we can do a bit of analysis on. So I think it's a very emotive issue when people have spent money on a car. I get the view of, Wait a minute, is this going to be a threat to me? That is not the intention right now. At this committee has discussed SUVs to my knowledge twice, one on the environmental implications of them, i.e. the emissions relating and clearly we're talking about safety. But I come back to the point of just to avoid any headlines. We're not immediately thinking here, We should target SUVs because they are causing real safety issues. What we need to investigate is, are SUVs causing real safety issues? If the view is yes, then clearly it's RV that we bring that back to committee. But I think that's, we need to do the investigation first, as opposed to jumping to a conclusion. No, that's really helpful and it gives a clarification that it's not an anti-SUV because actually the weight of the cars that are travelling in this city that are heavy are related to cars. Yes, so their weight is the heaviest and if we're supposed to be doing it for the environment, are you going to be looking? At the weight of electric vehicles and banning them from coming into the city because they would classify under a heavy vehicle and an SUV? So just briefly, Councillor, for the time, weight is one of the things that have been mentioned in the report. As I've said, I personally struggle with any vehicle below the weight of 3.5 tonne, how we would regulate that anyway because that's generally the types of classifications you've been seeing. So I think there is no intention right now to look at anything that we just need to look at what types of vehicles are presenting dangers to our road users and then look at plans to resolve them. Thank you very much for answering my questions. Still an SUVs, not on weight though. The preponderance of SUVs are a very, very popular vehicle type. My understanding is that the main concern on road safety with SUVs is less to do with their weight and more to do with their design. I take your point about visibility but understand that in collision with a person, an SUV at 20 miles an hour or 30 miles an hour is much more likely to cause more harm than a more traditional saloon car at 20 or 30 miles an hour. So it seems, I appreciate your thoughts on the design of the vehicle around the weight and what your thoughts are on SUVs in terms of that aspect of road safety. Thank you Councillor. The response was first of all I'm not going to answer the question. I think it's our intentions to undertake what we call the accident investigation prevention assessment. So when we look at accidents none of the last three years we might extend that and the clusters of accidents are in the sights. I think as Gareth was describing, we will endeavour to pull that data together as the year progresses so that we have a body of evidence to consider how, what decisions we make. Should the authority wish to promote any traffic orders we need to have a statement of reasons and a good justification for that and I think that data will inform. Hopefully it may not even flush out the vehicle type information we're looking for but will inform our investment strategies going forward. So you make reference to there are end cap, Euro end cap ratings for each vehicle in terms of the safety for the occupants and for the safety of a pedestrian or cyclist in an event of a collision. So they do exist in every new vehicle of a certain age and has that rating. I think that's all I really wish to say at this time. Just briefly the main point, two of the main determinants in the accidents that Dave and the team will deal with are the bumpa heights and a camp height. I could think of SUV vehicles that have lower bumpa heights than all the same as standard saloons or estates, for example, but the term SUV is a sports utility vehicle as a classification. I feel I should declare on public record, for example, my family car is an SUV type vehicle. But now it's general that is the that's the kind of a lots of people think what is an SUV. Well, a four by four an SUV that they're all classes of vehicle. What we're bothered about is trying to design a road network where vehicles of that nature and it could be talking about vans. For example, I mean that there are lots of things. That's what we're talking about here. It's very I think it's easy to go at just the SUV issue. I understand that because partly because it's been worded and if you look at more American type SUVs, I mean, those things are huge. You definitely won't want to say that around a primary school. That's an SUV as much as many other vehicles would fall into that. Does anyone else want to confess ownership on SUV? Yes, I do actually. It is an older, smaller SUV. Commissioner McFarland. Thank you. So I wanted to ask a question on the assessment and delivery of pedestrian crossing program. So in specifically the development of the new pedestrian crossing framework that's going to be worked on 24 25. And I just wondered again, if there's an opportunity, we have a lot of focus rightly on schools and kind of outside for kind of where young people congregate, but I wondered if there's an opportunity in terms of some of the innovative thinking that we're seeing later on in terms of how we're looking at payments and SIMD, etc. But of specifically looking at areas such as sheltered housing, housing associations, retirement homes and health practices and things like that. And if we can have that as a bit of a lens perhaps in terms of as well as schools and where young people are, but also where older people are in terms of the ranking or how things will come up for safer crossings and that kind of thing. Thank you. Indeed, absolutely. I can't recall all of the environmental factors, but they do seek to capture that sort of level information at the moment. I think for more point of view, I think it's just to we're revisiting that, just to take stock of some of the things you've described there, just to make sure that so the pure calculation of the demand is, you know, appropriately adjusted for the environment around it. And absolutely, I think the older things you mentioned are relevant. There's no question. Can I have a question? Yeah, it's come back to the way. And I just was wondering if maybe it would be useful for us as a committee to get some kind of like note as explaining actually what makes the way in a car. So a really, really big car is not necessarily a heavy car because it might be made, it might be one that's made, the body part is made of light materials to make it a more economic one. It might be a smaller car that has an enormous big engine in it and a big gearbox that could make it heavy as well. So, you know, these things, I mean, I'm just really sorry, but I feel that we just had a kind of, you know, a conversation that's sort of based on, you know, sort of assumptions about it. And the problems with a lot of cars is that they are heavier than they need to be because it's to give a look and they've got engines that are bigger than they possibly ever need them because the person driving it expresses their self through the size of the engine and their car as well. So, I'm not sure if that's really a question, but just maybe what you think, maybe we do need to understand better that kind of stuff, that engine inside, not that I'm an engineer, of course. I'm pleased you didn't bring gender into that when you were talking about people expressing themselves with other cars. So, so I'll reflect, I'll touch on that as you can understand, and when we come now that we can actually move the report, if we don't mind. I think we can bring that in. So, I'm quite happy to move this report as it stands and I want to thank Dave for his work. You know, the team has been through a huge transition over the past year and it's good to see new staff come into it. And it's, and Dave, I have to say, acting with more confidence as well, as well, which is which is good. So, it's always going to be a case that the demand for real safety measures in the city exceeds budget and so that's where prioritization is important. So, I'm pleased to see the support and I'm happy to move it. So, I'll pass and I'll, so I'll ask him to pretend that to second. Yeah, formally second. So, I'm now going to go to Council, you're going to move your agenda for Council on line. Yes, I will. Thank you, Kavina. And thank you, Office for bringing this report. We all, I think, agreed that road safety is exceptionally important to our residents and I know this is a priority for all of us around this room. It most certainly is to me. It is encouraging to hear, Office has speak about having more resource and a larger team to deliver improvements, but it doesn't take away the fact that there has been a history in this area where promises were made sometimes that weren't always deliverable within given time skills and that as a consequence, there is, as far as I can tell, still a long list of interventions waiting to be made that stretch well beyond this 24/25 plan. And so, I really hope today that we are approving a plan that is deliverable and that also some of the actions that we discussed today, such as the publication of the school travel plans that are completed, that those can also be progressed. So, onto our amendment, there's really three parts of this. In terms of, to the first part, in terms of transferring the real speed limits to another team. So, I am still a bit nervous about this, but I take the points that were made by officers on resource and accept that the resource available in the Active Travel Investment Program means that it might make sense to move this piece of work to that team. And so, on that basis, I'm happy to remove that part of our amendment. The second part relates to the part in the report that talks about the potential for some of the Section 75 contributions to have expired. And I think that would be really, really unfortunate if that it has happened. And so, I think it is important that committee has sight of this, which is why we want to see where that might be the case, and also then to really discuss how we can make sure that that doesn't continue to happen. The final part of our amendment relates to pedestrian crossings, and we have talked a little bit about that today. I am still really concerned about this term, modern number of pedestrian crossings that will be progressed. It's something that people contact me about, a lot of something that I'm very passionate about, particularly, again, around schools and areas where a lot of children travel. I understand that officers are moving to a new methodology for a prioritization, but we did previously have this list of crossings waiting to be implemented, and people have been told those timescales and are expecting some of those pedestrian crossings in their area to be implemented at some point. So, again, I think it will be important for us to understand which of these have now shifted, how new considerations are affecting the implementation timescales, and also without having had the opportunity to see the school travel plans and related pedestrian crossings there, I think it will be important for us to see a list in as much as you can bring that to us within the timescales that we've asked for. So, with that, I move my amendments. Thank you. Councillor Thornely. Thanks, Kavina. Mostly, just to entirely echo what Councillor Daxdowni said, I think that the interplay between the school travel plans and these pedestrian crossings is really important, and I second. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bhanda. Thanks very much. Our amendments seek to take the next step in discouraging the use of heavy and larger vehicles for a number of reasons, but first and foremost, road safety. I'm really interested in seeing more data specific to Edinburgh, and that is part of what this agenda is asking for, but we know from existing studies that pedestrians are more likely to die when hit by a larger or heavier vehicle, especially children. For example, research by the Journal of Safety Research suggests that children are eight times more likely to die when struck by an SUV compared to those struck by a lighter passenger car, which, by the way, have served many families just fine for decades. Because of the smaller you are, the less likely it is that the driver will see you in front of them, and the more likely it is that the bumper will hit you in the chest or even the head. As the drivers have also been shown to be more likely to take risks on the road because they feel protected by the big car at the expense of other road users, especially people who walk, wheel and cycle, and who have none of that protection. And if you are not convinced by the road safety arguments, let's consider that SUVs are incredibly polluting and major contributors to CO2 emissions, damaging the health of our people and of our planet. Or of how much public space they take up with many of these cars not fitting into regular parking spaces anymore. For all of these reasons, we are proposing that Edinburgh should follow cities like Paris to discourage the use of larger and heavier vehicles by raising parking charges, which, since those vehicles tend to be quite expensive if means that it should only affect wealthier residents and raise additional revenue, which I should suggest should be put back into road safety delivery, which, as this report tells us, is a need of extra funding. Nevertheless, we accept that this work will need some more detailed analysis to develop an appropriate policy and charging regime. So we would like officers to take the next step in developing that so that it's ready in advance of the council setting fees and charges next year. In conclusion, we believe that discouraging SUVs through increased parking charges is an equitable way both of meeting our statutory duty to promote road safety and prevent accidents, and keep vision zero, improve our air quality and climate emissions and raise revenue. As the mayor of Paris said, when their policy was approved, this is a form of social justice, and I urge you all to vote for it. Thank you.
• Commissioner Parker.
• I can't match that. So I think just formally.
• We're very grateful. Thank you.
• Commissioner Kody, I think. Thank you very much, convener. So as a counter to that, our amendment is the opposite. I think I've mentioned already in the report that everything that was mentioned to be looked at was complicated, was complex, was challenging, and there was no real clear direction forward. Not only that is the debate that we had here, just increased that complication and, yeah, complication about the whole issue, about what size, what weight, what emissions, what could you put in, what could you not put in. And I think it's something that Dave said earlier on, which was that really the big driver in road safety is speed, not so much the size of the cars. That is probably the crux of our position. I think officers have got an awful lot already on their plate, and their workload would be much better diverted to something else. So for that reason, we think that we shouldn't pursue this point about larger cars any further. And on the pedestrian crossing program, I think we have agreed very much exactly what the Lib Dems said about that. It is a shame that it's taken so long. I think there are a lot of schools who are going to be very concerned, who are already concerned, that what was on the program a couple of years ago, has taken so long, and now is potentially going to take even longer while we go through a different review. So I think communication is something that the council is not well known for. I think we need to step up our communications programs, and it would be very good to get in contact with. I had originally put down schools, but add community councils on to that, because I even had a, it wouldn't even reach the cameras. I know we can't write to everybody who is going to be affected by this, but I have the manager of a care home ringing me, asking when their pedestrian crossing was going to come through, because one of their residents got killed trying to cross the road about a year and a half ago, I think it was. So there are a lot of people who are going to be affected by this. There are a lot of people who are going to be very concerned that there appears to be a change in programming, and I think that they should be informed. So with that, I propose our amendment. Addendum. Councillor Raul. Thank you. I'd just like to second our addendum. I agree with my colleague, Councillor Cowdy, with regards to the pressures that are on council officers. You're already stretched extremely thin, so I'd just like to thank you for all the work that you do. I know you've got additional staff, but you have been under pressures in the past. Now, in our addendum, I first of all have to take issue before I reply and disagree with Councillor Bandel's comments that those who have SUVs are somewhat wealthier than others in the city. I think that's quite a sweeping comment. I think residents who drive innocent cash-kai might not consider themselves to be wealthy, and we have to be very mindful about how we tell our residents in Edinburgh what they should spend their money on, and that pertains to vehicles as well. And with that, I second our addendum. Thank you, Councillor MUNNO. Do we have any other comments on this report before I sum up? No, we don't. Okay. So, this has been an interesting discussion, but it's worth remembering that what we're proposing in the report in terms of larger vehicles, I agree that labelling the SUVs isn't necessarily helpful because we are talking about larger vehicles, is that we're going to take these complicated matters, Councillor CAODA, to workshop with committee members and also Council officers to talk through what the issues are and how we can address them. So, we can bring into that conversation the points that Councillor Bandel's made, and also the point that, kind of, a pretender made about, it's not necessarily big vehicles that are heavy and vice versa. We can bring all these things into mix, and we can also talk about income inequality as well. One of the points you need is, Councillor MUNNO, but I think there's quite a few people in my world who couldn't afford, even an interesting cash-kai, because it's still quite expensive for a lot of people to buy. I mean, that's the reality, that's the reality. I think we have to be quite careful, so I think what we're doing is we're not making the decision in larger vehicles today, what we're saying is we're going to take it to our workshop so we can talk through these issues together, and hopefully we'll reach some consensus on that. Now, on the amendments and addendums, so I'm happy with Point 2 and 3 from, well, Capargave 2 and 3 from the Lib Dems. I think it's, obviously, criticized myself here, but it's a bit of a shame we didn't explore the Section 75 issue in a bit more detail in the debate, but nonetheless it's good that it's in amendments, so we can continue to look at that. I think the list of, for crossings, I think the really important point here is that it may well be through the process that we're, as discussed in the report, that we re-rank the pedestrian crossings in the current west. And Councillor Cowdy's absolutely right that some people might not be happy with the outcome of that, but people right across the city should be reassured that what we're doing is ranking them in order of need, just to make sure we're prioritizing that money as much as possible. Hopefully, no one's going to report me for that work there. And so with that, I think that, you know, Councillor Dijkstra's down in the amendments she moved, you know, asking for it, well, what does that detail look like? How's that re-ranking going to look? Which ones are going to move on the list? I think it's right that we see that. Then at that point, we can consider that second point about talking to the communities, where the schools, community councils, et cetera, about what the impact might be for them, either positive or less so. So with that, so, except Panagras 2.3 of the Lib Dems, accept the Green Amendment, but take that to the workshop, and I think reject point one of the conservative one we've read, and we'll delay thinking a bit point two until we see the list which Councillor Dijkstra's down here is asked for. So with that, I assume we've got a consensus. So just as is it, well, we're going to push our addendum, and we accept the Lib Dems, but not the Greens. Okay, so I'll let Daniel do the work. Thank you very much, convener. We have two positions, which is the first being the Motion by Councillor Arthur, which accepts the report recommendations and accepts the Liberal Democrat Amendment as adjusted. The Green Group Amendment with the caveat that will be taken to the workshop that's to be held is that in agreement. And the second position being the amendment by the conservative group, which also includes the Liberal Democrat addendum. Are we happy that that's the two positions we've got? Yep. So I'll take votes for the amendment by Councillor Cowder in the first instance. Thank you. And votes for the Motion by Councillor Arthur. So that is 9 to 2, so the Motion is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. It's so, I think we're ready to have a lunch break, aren't we? 2pm, come back at 2pm. Thank you. Ready to reconvene? Thank you, convener. Item 7.2 in the agenda is electric vehicle charging program update. There is a Green Group addendum to this item, and Gavin Brown is going to speak to this report. Afternoon committee. The report, as you'll see, gives an update on our position where we are with the introduction of EV charging infrastructure. Over the past three years we've introduced 140 public charging bays and we've just had 37 city car club bays introduced by charging. The infrastructure also gives you an update on where we are in looking to procure future infrastructure. And there is an update on how we've listened to stakeholders and users and changed the maximum state periods. Happy to take any questions. Councillor McFarland and then Councillor Bochende, I think, can someone roll? Thanks, Gavin. Delighted to see that in the future procurement we're looking at lamp posts charging. Can you just expand a wee bit more on that about things that you've found for your research that are on the market that might be applicable, that we can maybe can host where the lamp post is in the right part of the pavement to comply with the other policies? Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. I mean, as you know, this type of technology has been on the market for quite a while and it's changing almost on a monthly basis. So we've engaged with various companies and we've also engaged with our street lighting colleagues to find out what can and be used and what's an acceptable way of using these types of units. As I think I've said in the past, it's reliant usually on the street lighting column being at the curbside of the footway. However, we are in discussion with other companies that have looked at the development of channels that will allow charging cables to be from the lighting column to the curbside. So there's a number of things that are being discussed that we need to take into account, but yeah, as you say, it's very much on our radar. It is being discussed by looking at those sorts of options as well as ultra-fast chargers. So yeah, that will all be part of the procurement process and what we're going forward with. Being given those particular chargers, you know, crossing the footpath would bring challenges because there would be an expectation that people would be able to park outside the property to access it. Convene, are you quite right in saying that? Yes, and there's no way that we could ever guarantee a parking place specifically for a user, particularly in an area where there's multiple households that share the curbside. So those are things that we do have to consider. Likewise, we wouldn't be able to guarantee a lamp post-charger for a particular user, but we can look at all the options and make sure that they're considered. Councillor Fatienda. Yeah, I wanted to ask sort of two questions. One is about the not just maintenance, but functioning as well, because as you probably know, we had a big problem in Sheriff Frei, which the charge points in Leith are pretty few and far between. And from getting put in, they didn't work, and then they worked briefly. Then for another long period, they weren't working. And just how we can actually avoid that and get maintenance done in a more speedy manner. Because if there's people who are specialized to maintaining them, I find it quite hard to say things like, well, we're waiting for a part, you know, that kind of thing. So that issue. Another issue, and it's something that came up when I visited an organization by Ward, which is the Remakery, who are obviously very, very committed to the environment. And they have found the charge in the electric van that they use so difficult. It actually brought them to have to think about whether they could function as a business with an electric van, and that's really disappointing. Well, where they are, there is a commercial car park at the back that belongs to a shopping center, and I don't quite understand. How can we encourage people, you know, beyond our street, charge points, et cetera, to actually make sure that in all of anywhere where people, you know, parking, smaller parking areas, et cetera, that there are actually charge points available if the owners of that are a bit slow and they uptake of thinking it's a good idea for them as well. Is there anything we can do? I just answered the first question, Koucha, for example, where we're working extremely closely with the service provider, BP PULKS. They are the ones that deal with the frontline maintenance, and also deal with the issues that you're referring to in regards to the parts. So, we have a contract with them, and we're managing that contract more tightly and making sure that they're achieving the KPIs that we agreed. In regards to other issues that pop up every so often with, say for instance, the power supply, we do sometimes have some difficulty with our discussions with spend. However, we have a much better relationship with them, and by working with Chargeplay Scotland, Transport Scotland and other partners, we're making sure that we've got proper leverage to make sure that we get a better and faster response. Part of the Pathfinder project that we're working on, the business case to develop a working in partnership potentially with private operators and also maybe looking at an original approach to introducing EV infrastructure. That's when we'll be able to influence the type of situation that you're talking about, where we could potentially look at where there is a demand that's not being met and where it could be delivered in a prime location. That maybe our partners could operate in the meantime, we could concentrate on expanding the networking areas where we think it would be most needed, like areas of social deprivation, for instance. Thank you. Just briefly to expand on what Gavin said, because it does in 5.4.2, refer to working with partners in exactly Gavin's point. One of the reasons why we want to work with neighbouring authorities and vice versa is partly to help grow the market, but also obviously the wider the ask, the more chance that we can secure a wider range of locations. For the rest of the region, that might be, for example, in rural locations, but for us it might be in areas where otherwise the market might not go. So that kind of cross-authority collaboration, I think has got quite a lot of potential, quite a lot of devil in the detail, but quite a lot of potential to work with. Thank you very much for the report. In section 4, it's suggested we lengthen the charging times, but if we're not increasing the number of charging points, do you think it's likely to reduce the number of people able to use them? And therefore, by extension, to reduce the practicality and desirability of running EVs in the city, is maybe counter-productive to what city-based councils' objectives are? Thanks, Council Member. As Paul just said, we're very keen to continue to expand the network, and we're looking at all possibilities to do that. In regards to the maximum stipured, we've listened to the users and the users were advising us that the max deputies weren't enough for them to achieve a charge that allowed them to move on and complete their journey. And we've also taken cognizance of the fact that we do want to achieve turnover, so for instance, with the 22 kilowatts, that's why we say they eat ours, so we get at least, hopefully, three users using it during the day. But obviously, at the park and ride, the longer stay is there because we didn't want people that were using the park and ride legitimately commuting to Edinburgh, working in Edinburgh, for them to have to rush back. So I think we've got enough infrastructure to allow the turnover that we need, and of course, we will continue to look to expand. That's very helpful. Thank you. In 6.4, you will know yourself that is a very substantial black hole in funding for construction of further EV charging points. And I can't find where sufficient funding might be obtained in the report when I look through, can you maybe help me or explain? Yeah, of course, that's part of the reason why we're looking at a regional approach, and it's also the reason why we are considering all possible ways of perhaps partnering with people within the private sector so that they could look to expand to meet the demands that we're anticipating, whereas we would then look at what we would consider would be more beneficial to the people living within the city. So it's going to be difficult to get the funding, but if we pull funding potentially with regional partners and we use our funding wisely, then I think we'll be in a very good position to continue the expansion and work with partners. Fantastic. Have you actually had any conversations with any private sector companies presently? Well, yes, we have. Obviously, we already partnered with BP Post who provide our infrastructure, but we've had a number of events with our procurement colleagues where we've had meetings with people that are interested in that market and who have expressed an interest in working in Edinburgh, obviously Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, the flagship contract, so there's quite a bit of interest right across the piece. I think this is one of those areas, Councillor MUNROW, where actually the private sector are very keen to come to us and say, We can do this. And you get five of them saying five-sided different things, which is why it is governed, set out in the report, a more kind of procured approach that says, This is what we want either as the city of Edinburgh or working with regional partners. So then the market can respond to our needs, not kind of would be proactive rather than reactive, if you see what I mean, because there are a lot of folks approaching us. Yes, that was my next point, so you've actually covered that. We want to dictate, we don't want the private sector to dictate to us, but it's good that there's a joined up link with the private sector. The final question is, do you think there is going to be any difficulty in expanding existing EV structure, because it follows that the efficiency and availability must be maximised rather than reduced by vast increases in the period in which individual users might be able to charge the cars? If I'm understanding the question properly, we're talking about the infrastructure that we currently have, obviously it will be limited. Sorry, could you just repeat that maybe? Okay, if there is to be difficulty in expanding existing EV infrastructure, do you think efficiency and availability must be maximised rather than reduced by vast increases in the period in which individual users might be able to charge? Right, okay, of course, sorry for understanding in the first place. Yeah, you're quite right. Our role is to ensure that there is as much turnover as possible to ensure that the infrastructure is used efficiently, so that's why we will be looking at changing max day periods and making them as agile as possible. We'll also be trying to expand the network to have the super fast chargers, for instance, which will be of benefit. And just to reiterate what I said about the regional approach working with private partners, that's when the model that we potentially could be looking at is that we could create further hubs that could then be used like your traditional forecourt, for instance. So that's when those partners become in play a real vital part in that, but definitely our role is to make sure that the charging is used as efficiently as possible. No, thank you very much, and it's good to hear that you're looking at super fast chargers, which is really important for the city. Thank you very much, and thank you for your report. Do you have any other questions for Gavin on this. Oh, Danny, so I didn't see you apologies. Thanks for the rest. I'm sorry, sorry. Thanks. Can be there. And thanks Gavin for the report. So it's kind of falling on from. What you were just discussing there with with Council and Monroe, just to the very end, they were Gavin in terms of the ultra rapid charges. So I'm taking, if I'm understanding report correctly and what you've said today. It's expected that the private sector are going to be the main providers of ultra rapid. Chargers and a kind of forecourt scenario, but I do see in the report that there's mentioned, if I can just find it now, of an exclusion from from from the contract likely to be where the council has identified parcels of land. Excuse me, that could function as an ultra rapid charging hub. So does that mean that you foresee potentially still the council having some role in providing an ultra rapid charging hub, or is that Would, would a scenario like that still be one where the private sector is leading possibly with the, you know, the council providing the land or what have you. Thanks Councillor Aston is yet to be fully decided. It could be any one of the models that you've described the council could retain ownership of the chargers. We could lease the land. We could lease the chargers. It's something that we have to work out through the procurement process and through our engagement with the market. And we're getting to a stage where we're, we're firming that up. And once we have done that, obviously we'll ensure that all the elected members are aware of that and we will be reporting to finance and resources committee. I think Gareth might want to come in though as well. Just to add to that, so I think what we want to explore Councillor is that, that to make sure this is a kind of policy led decision, you see across the city where commercial investment stacks up that commercial investment is, it's happening. Whether that's in shopping center car parks or around coffee outlets. The market is aware of the commercial element or we want to make sure as a council and this pulse as Gavin said as a region is that the spread of EV charging infrastructure is in the areas we want to see as a city so the demographics spread the geographical spread. If the tailoring of the contract therefore may be that you can see the contracts as you want. If you went on commercial value, I think we could all kind of guess where the charges in the city would go. I would say they would go where we'd want them to go on a demographic basis. What we want to therefore look is it engaged the private sector on partners in the region to say okay how would we structure this because as much as we would expect parts of the city would need to be subsidised commercially early early adoption phase by other areas. That's what we would make a decision is hopefully members would agree with us that that's worthwhile doing on a policy basis instead of seeing this as an income generation you would take the surplus and then you would reinvest that in those areas of the city that aren't seen to be as commercially viable because those families and those visitors can use that on a regional basis the same applies. You can I'm not going to name areas of the wider region but what we want to make sure on a regional basis as the hub of employment people need to have confidence that there's good charging infrastructure at the either end of the journey. Their homes wherever it is in the east, mid, west, low, the end five and generally their place if they're not coming on public transport then at least they're coming in sustainable clean transport and they can be confident that I can move to an electric vehicle because either end of that journey. I've got access to it. So we've that's why we're working with their restaurants and the regional authorities and that's why we will be looking to tailor that contract to make sure that the contractors are incentivised to spread that charging infrastructure as far across the city as possible. Okay, do you have any other questions on this? Cute. So in that case I'm happy to thank officers for the work they've done and move their support. It's good to see progress getting made. I know there is a lot of expectations about this. You know, and it's mostly feedback I get from people saying that they think the system is working well but of course we have to plan for the future as more people make us make a switch to electric vehicles where they need to. And with that map to move report and pass to Councillor Pechenda. And at this point I'm going to shoot who's going to move Kaley's as Councillor Pechenda. It's me. Yeah. Kaley O'Neill could propose this in much more detail and much better than I. But I will try my best. We've already talked a lot about accessibility of charging points in terms of not creating any trip hazards on pavements and now this addendum is looking at disabled people who want to drive EVs because existing charging point infrastructure is currently not accessible for a large proportion of people with mobility and dexterity impairments which is a major barrier for many disabled people to switching TVs. However, standards on creating accessible charging points have already published in the end redesign guidance as referenced in our tandem. And so we are now requesting that Edinburgh Council engages with mobility, they lease vehicles and powered wheelchairs to disabled users and the Scottish Government to ensure that we can embed accessibility in the rollout of electric charging points. Thank you. Formerly. Okay, do we have any other comments at this stage? Okay, so I'm happy to take the Green Amendment on board. I know this is the task around the Scottish Government's commitment is still a very early stage but I'm happy to take that forward. We're happy to approve this. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Convener. That takes us to item 7.3 on the agenda. The local traffic improvement program proposal and assessment criteria. Dave Sinclair is here to speak to the report. Thank you, Convener. Again, just a very short introduction. So the local traffic improvement is the successor to what concerns me. Remember the neighborhood environment program, which was a sort of infrastructure improvement driven program that locality managers and locality areas delivered over the last, probably the last 15 years or so. The purpose of the, I suppose, the new program and the new team that lies behind that is to, I suppose, consider the hazards and barriers that our communities have, the environmental features are in schools, et cetera, food recondition, the impact on communities, et cetera. It positively promotes active travel and barriers to active travel accessibility within our communities, positive factors and areas of SMD, and factors in terms of funding. The purpose of the program is to support our communities in delivering local projects that improve accessibility and also in areas we know of kind of through or intrusive traffic within communities. It's designed to tackle projects that would not normally meet the capital infrastructure program that maybe drop off either active travel or some of the infrastructure work that Cliff and Sean deliver and to hopefully have positive outcomes for our communities. There's a scoring matrix at the back that's be shared briefly with the political groups, and so they got some feedback, so we can consider that and introduce that to the assessment. And should the program be approved, we will reach out and invite any project sponsors to approach us and happy to consider those particular schemes for an update and two cycles time. Thank you very much for the report. Committee has asked to note and approve assessment selection prioritization criteria for local travel improvement schemes. That said, it's almost impossible to tell what an LTI might be in practice when you read the report. And so please could you advise on that and also nowhere in the report, is there any clear idea given of what an LTI might consist of? Could you explain that as well? Thank you. Sure, so the previous net scheme was, as I mentioned, it's small local projects and previously it was going to mainly driven of infrastructure improvements. So it's a continuation of the same theme, but the criteria that we've developed is more focused towards improving accessibility for local communities, mitigating potential impact of wrap running traffic, etc. So elements of work, as I mentioned before, that would maybe slip through the traditional capital program, so small bits of work. It's not focused really on resurfacing elements of food path, because that's a traditional element. The criteria is more towards missing food path links, problems with accessibility and stairs around areas leading towards schools or commercial areas of shops and things like that. So there is no prescribed project as such. I think it's genuinely inviting our communities to come to us to see that we have a transport issue here, or an ability challenge for people to reach, as I mentioned, shops or schools or across those sorts of areas to deliver those projects. As I mentioned, the budget is in the region of what's half of my compounds were anticipating and projects around about £50,000 mark, and I know that's hard for our communities to estimate, but just to try and set the tone, we're looking at relatively modest sized projects in general. Thank you so much for that clarification and also for clarifying it's not for food path and I'm glad that you actually brought up the budget because in section 6, from the difference between the budget for all the schemes across the city, you quoted £500K and the projected cost is £550K per scheme. So it follows that only 8 to 12 schemes would be possible per annum across the whole city. Have I understood that correctly please? The total budget is £500K and we're anticipating each scheme would be in the region of £50K because in the region of 10ish schemes within that calendar year, and I suppose that'd qualify that. That may depend on whether we have traffic regulation orders to promote, so generally we're looking for fairly light touch schemes that would hopefully not have to go through either a redetermination or TRO process. So we're looking at it follows only 8 to 12 schemes would be possible per annum across the city, just roughly. Yeah, I think so, something in that region. So that's lovely, thank you for clarification on that's much appreciated. My final question is there is already four schemes for speedy consideration. If you look at 4.13-4, which would suggest that demand may well outstrip budget capacity within a very short space of time. Are you able to provide information on what action an LTI might take? It's difficult to tell how realistic the budget of £500K per scheme may be or how vulnerable it is to may be overspent. So just to clarify, the budget is £50,000 per scheme. Sorry £50,000 per scheme, so it's difficult to tell how realistic the budget of £50,000 per scheme may be or how vulnerable it is to overspent. Okay, so in terms of scheme selection, well that's not quite your question, but I think the plan is that we would score each individual scheme and do that in partnership with the community of the project sponsor. So we can kind of go through that exercise together. We were intending that we would bring that back to committee in a couple of months time to understand what that looks like. I have no idea what they, I suppose, what the uptake will be as to whether we might have half a dozen schemes and then we can deliver them all or actually we've got 150 schemes and maybe need to think about some of the scoring priorities and the distribution around the city as well to a certain degree. If we were dealing with maybe 10 applications from one area, those sorts of things. So I think it's like to try and have a bit of parity, so I think there's more to apply in the level of assessment to this than maybe I've described in here. And the purpose of this was to open the program out. Was there second element to the question? No, you've just answered it because if there's already four schemes for speedy consideration, I'm just concerned that demand may well outstrip the budgetary capacity in a very short space of time. That was all it was in your opinion, do you think that might happen? What particular schemes are you making right? So there's four schemes for speedy consideration and 4.13, high from 4, in the report. Which would suggest that it's demand may well outstrip the budgetary capacity within a short space of time. And I just wondered what your thoughts were on that. I'm not aware of section 4.13. Yeah, maybe I've made there are four schemes, 4.13 and then it's -4. That's actually all just one scheme. Oh, it's all one scheme, sorry. Okay, sorry indeed, yes. So the schemes that were sort of nominated today were sort of legacy schemes that have come through which one was at Tilford Road Junction. And the other was one that will hear later on as part Grove. I'm trying to recall, was there another one. We've been gathering projects that have come to us to, councillors and community councils over the last six months. So we're developing a project bank as well. So we will review all of the schemes that we have to sort of see how they meet, how they - I suppose how the criteria scoring is going to determine. Yeah, thank you very much. Maybe I've not put my question succinctly to you, so I apologise for that. I was just concerned that we could be in a situation where demand might outstrip what we've got to spend. That was all. Okay, thank you, councillor Monroe. I think councillor Monroe's right, you know, I think clearly demand is going to outstrip supply. But you know that's unsurprising, probably. I, the reason I said you slightly anticipated my question was you mentioned that a consideration would be around, you know, say 10 applications from from the one area. And I was just wondering, was there, because you said that the previous next scheme was kind of administered by locality managers. The scheme will not be. I'm just wondering, I suppose how you're going to navigate that issue of lots of demand coming from a particular area of the city and ensuring that there's a spread across different areas. Because, you know, obviously as a councillor in the northeast locality, I'd be delighted if a lot of this funding were to come to schemes in my area. But, you know, I would be less happy probably if a preponderance of it went to one of one of the other localities. So I'm just wondering if you, how developed your thoughts are on dealing with scenarios like that. Sorry, you know, absolutely. I think, you know, conscious going into this with eyes wide open and not entirely sure of the, you know, what the demand will actually be. You know, once we understand the level of demand and interest, I think we would be reasonable for us to consider, I suppose, factors or how we share and how we program and how we manage the delivery of those schemes. So if we had, you know, 20 schemes that were all kind of ranking fairly equitably, we would probably consider the geographical split of those. And I think if there was a bias within that, I think it would be fair to potentially reach out to stakeholders in other areas to try and sort of level up that kind of bias to a certain rate. So it's not something that we've developed formally and I'm conscious that we're kind of just to see what the level of interest was and then we can consider how we deal with that. I recognise this parity between, you know, trying to spread what is a fairly limited budget, you know, across the whole of the city area. And work in progress, I think, at this stage. Yeah, I was just going to ask, so I think it's fair question, Councillor Astner, what the appendix steps, the weightings, obviously, SIMD is one of the weighting criteria that would hopefully resolve that. I think the previous NEPS allocation was from memory, 50,000 pounds per neighbourhood partnership, so it wasn't on a ward basis. There were 13 neighbourhood partnerships and there was 50,000 pounds per neighbourhood partnership and that was basically everyone gets an equal share. I think members who are around at that point would share frustrations around how that, what that actually delivered. Because sometimes if a community's got an aspiration, for example, for a 100,000 pound scheme, well, there's no point I was leading them on and saying, well, this is the funding pot for that. But to Dave's point, I think this is about restarting an initiative and I do think this part needs to link to local place planning as well because what we need to start understanding is what is the aspiration of the community. If we don't understand it, then we can't start to try and fix it, so I would agree with Councillor Monroe. I think there's a fairly good chance that what we'll find is a big subscription, but colleagues of my own and myself go to community council meetings and neighbourhood network meetings and hear of lots of suggestions that those communities have got. What we need to do is find a way to start bringing those suggestions in and using this funding pot, but equally leveraging other funding parts linking into planning colleagues as well. If those community aspirations are long-standing, then we'd be able to make sure that does feed into things like section 75 if it meets that criteria. So it's a starting point. I think there is a danger of the perfect being the enemy that God, what we think here is this gives us a methodology to start doing some improvements that don't quite tip that road safety threshold. There aren't big enough to warrant this place in that to travel plan, but that will make a difference in the community. Okay, I think it was Councillor Bandel next. Cool, thank you. For projects that are unsuccessful in scoring highly enough to be considered, would you be able to recommend the people who submitted them to any external funding sources? Maybe that community can apply to paths for all of those communities to apply. I don't know if there are any others that you might be able to sign post them to. Thank you, Councillor. I'm no expert in external funding and colleagues and daisies team know that landscape better than myself. I think if a project was marginal, I think we felt there was maybe improvements or subtle changes that project that might improve its scoring. And to achieve a positive outcome for our communities, I think we would discuss and engage that with the project sponsor or the community involved. And if it was a project that for what for a particular reason just didn't reach any of the kind of ranked factors as such, it would depend. It may tend maybe towards a traditional transport infrastructure piece of work. Or I think we're always endeavoured to support project sponsors as best we possibly could and direct them if we could. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. This is an interesting report. And I was getting all ready to talk about the Paul with paper project, but it's already in there. So I'm delighted and I know Daisy has done some work with the Community Council on that. So thank you for that. I guess my question was sort of, it's all along the same theme of how these projects are going to be selected. But I wondered if you have particular thoughts on, I guess, the mechanism by which Councillors or communities will bring these projects forward. I'm sitting here quite happy because the project that I have in mind in my ward is already in the report, but there will be other Councillors, particularly those who don't sit on this committee who, you know, won't necessarily have seen that this project is happening and I'm sure we'll have ideas too. So we've got thoughts about without wanting to get ahead of ourselves because I appreciate there's still a bit more work that needs to be done in terms of engagement with people on this methodology. But, you know, when are we going to go on this, I guess is my question, how quickly will this be happening? Absolutely. So I think certainly we haven't made reference to it in this or the engagement with the political groups. But I think it would be incumbent on us to certainly reach out to Councillors to make them aware that if this program is approved, there is an opportunity for local communities to sort of bid into this. And potentially we could reach out to community councils as well, I think. So I think it's Gareth's going to lead to the first iteration of this program. So I think we maybe kind of set the communication at Councillors and maybe community councils to begin with and to see how that, how that, what response we get from that and then take it from there. Councillor McFarland. Also, Councillor Dublin was first in, Councillor McFarland, sorry. Thank you, convenient. Thank you for the report, Dave. You mentioned earlier about a project bank. I'm interested in how that came about. If that's in your mind the start point for actually prioritizing and launching work, or if there's a process for, I'm interested in the process for canvassing for input. When you say local communities, what does that mean? And when do you anticipate this starting? Are you saying that the project bank will be the first projects or are we going to have an opportunity to review the project bank with any new inputs from local communities? It seems kind of a little bit vague where we are at the moment in terms of how the process for getting information in, prioritizing and then starting. The final point is this is an annual scheme of half a million. Is that for the year when do we start, will it be prorat rated for the remainder of the fiscal, or is it half a million to be spent this year? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. The project bank is a bit of a mix. I understand we have legacy NEPS projects that we've made reference to within the report, and we'll reconsider those, and then the context of the new criteria. And they may well be more historical projects that were relating to infrastructure improvements. I'm not quite sure, so I think that certainly they exist. The team is just forming as we speak, so it's almost like a day zero or day one today for this particular program. We have projects that have come to us through communities, and this was a describe that as through community councils or particular associations or groups that have a particular interest. I'm going to have addressed and identified me, particularly as a transport issue or problem in the area. So we do have a, we have a mailbox, which is local transport, sorry, local traffic improvement at Edmer. I've got UK, I think, but I think I'll share that, as I mentioned with Councillors and community council, I think, at this stage in terms of that, as I suppose I'm describing what the community is, I know that's our award that can be many things. In terms of start, it would be our intention to gather all of the projects that we can over the next few weeks, undertake the assessment that will flush out almost like a top 50 or something, you know, using that sort of scoring methodology. And I think at that point in terms, to take the point that Councillor Aspen was making, that will identify, I suppose, the distribution of projects across the city and how that looks, or when you need me to think about that. And in terms of the budget, it's a capital budget, so I think Cliff and Sean can correct me, we have the facility to carry over and spend budget, but I think we might have a bit of a slow start this year in terms of just the process we've just described. And design potentially road safety audit, et cetera, and delivery, so we might have a bit of a slow start this year, but I would hope that if there was an underspin that we'd be in a position to carry over into future years. Okay, last question to Councillor McFarland and quick into a move on. Thank you, Counvener. So, just in terms of the 50,000 mark, they're quite big projects, actually, for 50,000 pounds. In terms of the very micro, removing a really bad sign poll that's redundant on a street can make just as much difference as a junction improvement. So, in terms of this really, really tiny micro things that you'll also get coming from communities if you're to ask them. They could give you a list, literally, which could probably, 50 grand, could probably get quite a lot that done, but they'll all be individual, tiny, tiny, tiny projects. Would that be, would that qualify? Yeah, indeed, actually, we've made reference to the report, sort of, two tiers of projects, so, obviously, it's quite wins as we're describing it. So, I mean, that could be, I suppose, fairly low-level interventions or a series of low-level interventions that have, you know, the aggregate is, you know, a benefit to that particular community. And I do recognise it's, there's a bit of a blurry line between what we deliver, maybe what other teams deliver. I mean, for example, we have a science team. So, if something is genuine or redundant, our science team should be removing that infrastructure and reinstating it, et cetera, as an example. But if, you know, I don't know, if there were a series of polls and actually we could reconcile those signs on to one or two polls, et cetera, I think, to me, that feels like the sort of thing that, you know, the aggregate of what we're doing would have a, you know, an outcome, a better outcome for our, you know, for our communities. Okay, thank you, Dave. So, I'm quite happy to move this report. And thank you for all your work and your team in this. I mean, next for me, we're always projects, which often were too small or didn't quite fit into the bigger picture of what it comes to what it would do. But we're incredibly important to local community groups. And I remember pre-COVID, back then, a group in my ward managed to get quite a few jobs dropped at quite strategic positions and made quite a difference. Actually, even for just a very small amount of money. So I think it's a really important thing, actually, and it's good to see it coming back, although, except the point, it is only half a million pounds. But that's something to remember when we come to put it in the budget next year if people go to see more money getting spent on this. So with us, I'm very happy to move this and thank Dave for the way Engage with Councils around the prioritisation. I'll pass it to Councillor Fuchenda. Formally second. Do you have any further comments on this? OK, so we're approved to think. Excellent, thank you. Thank you, convener. That dates us to item 7.4 on the agenda, the health care worker and cater parking permits. And Gavin Graham is here to speak. Actually, I'm here, Gavin Graham, I think, may have a personal matter at the moment, so he will hopefully join us in a second. The health care worker and care parkers permit report that's presented today takes cognizance of the comments that were made last month's transport environment committee. And we've also made some changes to take on board some of the consultation that we've done with the interested party and partners. I think it goes without saying that we're open and willing to work with stakeholders as we progress. These permits in particular the NL or RP12 who have presented the deputations twice at this committee. And we obviously want to work very, very closely with stakeholders to make sure that unpaid care work is made as easy as possible. Yes, so we're happy to take any questions. Do you have any questions for Gavin or Gavin on this? So, Councillor Bandau, Councillor Dopel and then Councillor Monroe. Thanks. I have a question on 5.2, the conversations with public transport operators on national and entitlement card eligibility for carers. I just wanted to ask, have conversations taken place and have they been positive? I know we are getting a further update I think next month, in two months. But yeah, it was said in the report they were taking place. I mean, the conversations have been started and generally as always when we're working with our partners, particularly with the loading buses. And they're open to suggestions, so yeah, they're very early stages, but it has been broached and we hope to work very well with our partners as we always do. Councillor Dopel. Thank you, thank you for the report. I was struck this morning in a deputation, if I understood him correctly, that the 91% of unpaid carers, this would not apply to them or they would not be able to afford the permit. I just wondered if you'd like to sort of comment on that and how that fits in. Well, those thoughts fit into the scheme. Maybe Gavin will have something to add to this, but obviously we appreciate the figures that the deputation presented this morning, but we haven't been able to actually clarify whether the figures presented or correct or not, but we obviously will work with anybody that wants to work with us on that. We clearly have to set an eligibility criteria for the permit. We have to be able to manage it. We have to be ensured that the finite curbside space that's in the city is utilized appropriately. We absolutely understand that unpaid carers in particular provide an essential service that has to be sorted as do paid carers. So we have to start somewhere and I think we're in a position now where if we get approval to progress with this, we will be benefiting curbs that currently can have a permit at home. So if we start and we are able to provide a curbs permit, we monitor the success of that permit and we look at having the eligibility looked at over the years as we progress, then we can see what the success is. I'm sure if you were to look at figures that were being provided this morning, if there were all of a sudden 67,000 people wanting to park in the city centre, we would have a bit of a problem on our hands. So we really need to look at those figures and understand how many of those people that we mentioned are potentially already residents permit holders, potentially already have blue badges, potentially don't actually need a permit to park in the city centre because obviously control parking zone doesn't cover the entire city. So there's a number of things we have to investigate. I don't know if Gavin would have anything to add to that. Thanks very much, Gavin. I think you've answered the question very well. I can just add to think setting the eligibility for these permits was one of the hardest decisions to make. It was very challenging and lots of different news we could have gone down. I think what we've done is we're based on schemes that are in place across the rest of the UK and they're in place on other councils and something that's recognised nationally in terms of the curbs allowance and curbs credit. As Gavin's committed to keep under review, one to the update for these permits and if changes are required for the down line, we're happy to make those changes. And I think there's a commitment to report back within the first year of this permit being an operation as well update commission progress. So any suggested changes could be included as part of that report. Thank you very much. I've got three questions to ask, but actually I've got a resident who's just emailed me now who's watching online and she has said, please could you ask the following to officers for me. I admit I haven't read the original report, just the papers of the meeting, but when officers do go back and monitor in a year's time, could you ensure mental health organisations are included? The paper mentions vocal, but not Edinburgh Careers Council. And similar issue with the social care equality impact assessment that she's been sent with social care, which looked as if it had consulted groups for generic physical and learning disability services, but nothing to do with mental health, which is pertinent to her. Thank you. Absolutely, Councilman Robl will take that on board and we'll make sure that that happens just to give you some assurance. The seven organisations that were consulted with in the initial consultation did include the group that you mentioned. So we had local, local medical committee, Scottish Social Services Council, Edinburgh Careers Council, Age Scotland, Careers Scotland, and Edinburgh Careers support team as well as our own health and social care. Thank you very much for that. And just one question, another question is, I still can't seem to find clarity on who pays the unkeyed cheaters permit. Is it the care or the patient? Could you make me just to write me on that, please? Thank you. Gavin. I think I would generally be for the care to pay, Councilman. Thank you very much for that clarification. In 4.8, if the 250% price increase is the minimum necessary to cover costs, can I just ask, is the Council presently losing through the existing scheme? If it's not much, why is the price increasing? But if it's a lot, why is it taking the Council so long to change it? So I think that, sorry, do you want me to come in? Yes, Gavin, if you would like to. Thank you, sorry, my apologies. I think it's a bit of a lag here. So the essentially is a permit, something that was introduced, many years ago, it's something that's been very beneficial and unfortunately not something we have kept under review, so I believe there has been a slight cost of the Council over the years that has been generated as this permit has been maintained at the current price. When we reviewed the permits as part of this process, I think we've identified there is a bit of a deficit there on the Council's behalf, so the increase in prices intended to plug that deficit and make sure that the income from the permits covers the cost of the scheme in terms of the parent manufacturer, the administration costs and time that the Council incurs as well. No, that's very helpful. As someone who's got an experience of being a cater, many on keyed Peters, I'm not classifying myself as old in this category, but many on keyed Peters are older and less familiar with technology than myself. With the technology necessary to change the vehicle covered by the permits, that burden falls upon the patient rather than the key error and the same applies of officers given any thought to this. So I think in terms of digital permits against physical permits, is that the question Council member if I understand you correctly? Correct. Yes, so I think at the moment, we have physical payments in place and they've proven quite useful for the sense user payments of the healthcare workers parents. We currently have mainly because they're swapped between users during the day. So some who starts the day with the permit might swap it during the day for other users to take benefit from. And I think we're looking at the same approach here for the carers permits. We will look at introducing digital, you know, if that's something that's possible, but it will entirely be based on accessibility and usability and equality. And we'll make sure that if any changes to the scheme we take forward, we'll be fully consulted upon and we'll only look to kind of digitise the scheme if it works for all the users of the permits. But it's something we will consider in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Yep, thank you. I've got a question about the review that's to come. But if I can, just because it was my motion originally that started this, so thank you for all the work that has been done. And I appreciate we will not satisfy everybody in this, but it's better than what we've got at the moment, which is nothing. So, and I take what Gavin has said about how there is the opportunity to review and to develop this scheme going forward. I think that's going to be very important. And it's really because of that, when it comes to the review, because I appreciate the groups that will be consulted, do you anticipate that being an open consultation that we would publish and anyone can feed into it? Or is it more of a targeted consultation with people who have taken out permits? Because I'm very conscious of those individuals who, because they won't be eligible, don't take out permits, they won't necessarily have associations with these organisations. And so I'm just keen for some assurance that we'll be able to capture those people as well when we're thinking about how this develops in the years ahead. Yes, Councillor. Obviously, we'd be looking at uptake, we'd be looking at feedback from those that have taken on board departments, but I would anticipate that we would work very closely with the representatives of carers and unpaid carers to make sure that we were getting feedback from the types of customers that you're talking about that maybe hadn't taken up the permits. I think it would be more likely we'd engage with the representatives and make sure there was a consultation open with them rather than going out forward to the entirety of public. I quite question, Councillor Cody. Thank you, Counvenor. Going back to the deputation earlier on the following Councillor Dobbins question. Likewise, all of those figures got over my head, but I was reading the deputation of again, and he mentions that the proposed permit was to be provided for people with 20 who could show 20 hours of unpaid work, yet they also need proof of carers allowance, and that, he suggests, has got a minimum of 35 hours. So I was wondering, but I can't see now in the report anything about a 20 hour. Yes, Councillor. We addressed that by introducing carers credit, so carers credit is 20 hours, and carers allowance is 35 hours, that's in 4.29. And I know that the deputation wasn't clear on carers credit, and so we're going to make sure that the information around that is disseminated, and if there are people out there that aren't aware of that particular qualifier, then we will make sure that it's properly promoted. Perfect. Thank you very much. So I am happy to approve this report and thank officers for the work they've done since the last time it came to committee. It's good to see that it's evolved and improved, and with that I'm happy to pass to Councillor Pechenda, hopefully, to second it. Yeah, formally second. Okay, so I think we can move on now, Daniel. Thank you very much indeed, the convener. It might be 7.5 is the food week capital investment prioritisation. Sean Gilchrist and Cliff Hotter here to speak, and there is a conservative commitment on this item. Okay, I want to introduce it. This board seeks approval for a revised prioritisation process for capital investment of food waste. It's quite an innovative work, it's quite complex, and all credit to Sean and his team. I think he's taken a lot of elected members through it in a lot of detail in one to ones, so you can understand it. I still believe this is, we're still the only authority in Scotland that are doing weightings, not just for equalities, but for public transport, for active travel. And we build that into all our prioritisation. So on the back of that, happy to take any questions. So Councillor Minnan, Councillor Bandol. And Councillor Astin, sorry. Sorry, I thought Councillor Bandol had her hand up before me, no? Yes, okay, Councillor. I don't know how it's just, no, thank you very much for the report. So there's a few things that I'm a little bit confused about. First of all, do you have any statistics that indicate that more deprived areas have a higher food for than others? Because that links to what was being said, the committee's asked to approve updates to the prioritisation criteria for food waste investment. And then you've got, these are in addition to the criteria concerning the width of the food waste concerned, which obviously seems quite reasonable. And the criteria concerning the score of the area in which the food waste located on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, which is the SIMD. So are we looking at one area gets done because it's deemed as low deprivation where another area doesn't? If you see what I mean, because I feel to see the relevance of the SIMD to an increased priority for fixing a particular food waste, because these streets are often out with the city. Their further out, residents are more likely to use cars. And in some of those worst cases, when I was going into and looking at some other statistics, walking is somewhat discouraged in certain areas of the city by perceived vulnerability to crime and also anti-social behaviour. So that's why I'm asking do you have statistics that indicate the more deprived areas have a higher food fall than others? And that's why that area is going to be done before another area. Okay, so the way that we're prioritising the first part of it, which is the usage of the food waste, those usages are based on the figures within the street design guidance, which look at how a street is used. So there's 15 categories within the street design guidance. And then we've applied that to a risk-based hierarchy, which looks at prestige, primary, all the way down to local food waste. So how we prioritise them is we're splitting them into three programmes so that food waste with similar use will be prioritised against each other, regardless of where they are in the city. It was down to the particular usage. And then we're adding, I'm not waiting for the food waste, the existing width of every food waste in Edinburgh. And the third waiting is the deprivation score. Now, deprivation score is touched on at the start there as the first local authority to bring this in. And the deprivation score is based on multiple SIMD data, the score index of multiple deprivation. And we know that, for example, the areas of deprivation, the private car ownership is lower. So therefore, access to public transport becomes more important. And that access is done through food waste. So we feel that in these deprived areas, given a better food waste condition, will aid that access to the public transport. The one thing I'd also add to that is not just on-car ownership in the private areas. You normally find that these areas have people that have been working in manual labour-type works and anything else throughout their lives. So what you find, you also find they also have a higher rate of health problems. So it feeds into the qualities thing again. It's not about just a numbers game list or a car users game. It's a number of different issues that build into this analysis. That's really helpful. Thank you very much for this. It's only one other question. If you can give me some clarity, maybe it's just the way I've been reading the report. I think the width of a foodway is more important to a food waste priority rating than SIMD. That's just me, maybe others think different. Because all food waste ranked, among the most deprived, 20% in Scotland receive a factor of multiplication in their poverty greater than or equal to those food waste rated to narrows. That's an appendix to that you've got. So the question is, I'd like to ask officers to give the width of a higher priority than to allow SIMD as it's more pertinent to risk management. Do you agree with that? With the SIMD data, we know what it is. It's there. And there's no real disputing it. With the foodway width, the data that we got back, there is a bit of work to do on exactly the width of the foodway because it takes its using, always, mapping to determine the width of that foodway. So street clutter will affect that score, bus stops, various different things. And the width itself is based on the street design guidance width. So that's looking at desired and minimum width within that street and that particular category within the street design guidance. So whilst the width is absolutely important to especially to mobility, it doesn't tell you that the width it doesn't necessarily tell you that foodway is unusable or it cannot be passed. So I think over the next year, we'll be doing a lot more analysis of the foodway width data and going out, having to look at some of the streets that are red within the category. So in Edinburgh, I think about 30% of the foodways are deemed a low width, so we've got a bit of work to do on that. In terms of bringing in weightings, we've done a lot of, I've done a lot of prioritization of maintenance schemes. And we have to be careful with the weightings because what we're trying to do is make tweaks within it. We're not trying to make, because condition is still the main driver in this program. We're trying to improve condition across the city. And what we're doing with the two weightings is to try and make those tweaks so that we make slight changes in two, three years of changes rather than big weightings that can have schemes coming up for five years in advance, which is not what we want to do because we won't get the correct improvement in condition. I think what we will do, we'll keep it under review, but shown right, we've got a system that is working. Now you could argue, is it working because it's the road to the foodways, everything else, but it is working because the RCI and everything's going the right direction. What we don't want to do is take a gut reaction and destroy it for a year or two years. What we do is we'll do it in small steps and we'll keep it under review, I think that's the best way of doing it. Okay, thank you, Councillor Bandol. Thank you very much for this updated methodology, which I will admit I almost forgot asked for. And thanks to Sean for engaging us in advance of this committee and explaining it in so much detail. I have a question on relationship between transport and the licensing of street furniture by cafes and restaurants. Sometimes minimum width, for example, of a pavement is not met because a restaurant has put tables and chairs there. And I think licensing has some standards which maybe are not always followed or people don't have a license, put them there anyway. Can we make sure that we reduce the barriers before that footway then somehow becomes prioritized in our methodology? And I also wanted to ask if licensing have access to the data we have now, which I believe is quite new. And yeah, it's by any way we can encourage colleagues in licensing to actually look at the conditions of the footway before issuing permits. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we will be engaging with the internal colleagues. It's our road location team that issue the permits for tables and chairs. So we'll ensure that data is pasted and we work with them. And it may mean some tweaking again to waitings, but yeah, we'll certainly engage with all the internal colleagues. To give you a bit of comfort there, the guy on my right actually looks after network management test teams that issue the permits for the footways. So we'll be working closely together. [laughter] It's OK. I want to take it personally. Thank you. I just wanted to come back in the characterization of SIMD areas, which I don't agree with Councillor Munro. And I do appreciate the fact that it's been brought into this. I think the fact that car ownership is lower is very important. And also the fact that people have to walk to get to public transport is very important. The other thing to know as well is that people living in SIMD areas walk about in SIMD areas. Often, for example, early mornings and in the afternoons, to and from school with their children, perhaps with buggies. And I think the point that Cliff mentioned about health is very obvious in places like Royce and Wardyburn, less built, and that there is a very high usage of mobility devices and wheelchairs in the streets in high SIMD areas. And therefore very important that we recognize that in the program as described. Thank you. No question. I just wanted to put it on. [laughter] You all go back to him again. So you made me feel bad there, and there was no question. So it comes to the last time, it comes to lying, and it comes with excellently. You missed all the fun here today, it comes to the last time. [laughter] Yes, it seems like that is the case. [laughter] [laughter] Likewise, Sean, just before I get to my question, I want to say this is, I think, a very positive move that you are bringing forward in terms of this new prioritization framework. And I think I'm right in saying that a public meeting that you were kind enough to come along to in my ward at the Ripley-Messel rig played some part in its formulation. But just onto my question. So the term prestige, I couldn't see any definition for it in the report or in the Edinburgh Street design guidance. What does it mean, and can you give us some examples of what these prestige streets are? Yeah, so prestige, there is a link within the report to the risk-based approach for safety inspections, and all the different foodway characteristics are linked within that report. So your prestige foodways are your super high-use foodways. So we're talking about the High Street, George Street, Princess Street. It's the ones with the most use, not only residents, but obviously visitors as well. So there, your top-use foodways, and they're prioritized against your primary foodways, which are the ones that lead into your prestige foodways. So down Nicholson Street, these sorts of things are your prestige. And thank you for raising the point about Resserig. So I should have mentioned it was the Ripple Group. So I've had several meetings with the Ripple Group, and they more or less planted deceit for looking at deprivation. And I've been down there talking to residents and really seeing first-hand what effect foodway condition can have in areas of deprivation. So thank you for raising that. Councillor Lai. Yep, so just to get a question from Councillor Dobbins' contribution. I mean, pick up on Cliff's point, we know that health is putter in SIMD areas. And so is it fair then to say that actually people in those areas are more susceptible to risk if the condition of foodways in their area are poor? And my second question, which is for time, I think there may have been some suggestion before as well that having an SIMD measured in there may allow us going forward to perhaps leverage in funding from the Scottish government. Is that right? Now it's the first question is yes, it's a simple one. And secondly, potentially for levering additional monies from other sources, not just Scottish government. I was just going to make one point as well. Not just about the risk. Why I was getting in feedback was a bit about fear as well, about using foodways where condition isn't great. And that can restrict people for actually moving around as the fear of going out. Yeah, and I think it was seen last week showing that I've got a raised in, who I've got a raised in whose daughter quite often contacts me because she's worried about her getting out and about. And she's been a real barrier actually. And thankfully, Ox Gang's farm drive, that was on the food path list. So it was getting done. So I've got the box with tech there. Councillor Dixrodoni. Thank you very much, Kavina. Just a quick one really. It's a bit of a slightly more technical one. And thank you for showing us the map with all the foodway. That was very geeky and very exciting last week. I had a question on that because when we, for a different item on this agenda, when we looked at Leith Walk, we noticed that actually the foodway widths there are not really accurate based on what's been implemented in that project. And so we're just wondered, are there bits of the city that are still missing? Is that still going to be updated? And do you recognise the fact that Leith Walk perhaps hasn't been the accurate, the information is accurate for that particular area? Could you say a little bit more about how that is going to be kept updated? Thanks. Yeah, so as part of our risk-based approach, again, there's an requirement to review that on an annual basis, the hierarchy, and we will build the foodway width into that annual review of our hierarchy to ensure not only that foodway widths are looked at, but anything else that's added to the network is taking account of and if we were to just calculate through that, say through developments, RCCs, that sort of thing. So we'll do that as part of our annual review. OK, thank you. So are we happy to conclude? OK. So I'm happy to move this report. Thank officers for it. I think it's always good to make Edinburgh a fairer in Moreco City, so many thanks officers indeed for the care they've invested in this. And also investing time in making sure Council's on the committee were well briefed ahead of the committee and had a chance to ask questions and really prove what's being proposed here. So with that, I'll pass the Council for a second. Formerly second. So we have, let me get this right, an amendment from Councilor Munro. Thank you very much, Confinar. So our amendment from the Conservative group has been brought because we believe the width and condition of a foodway of pavement is important, every resident in the city, regardless of where they live. And that's why we believe the width is more important to SIMD. And while the SIMD streets are often further out of the city, we believe that every resident should have a proper foodway and pavement of the correct width. And again in our agenda, but we do know the fact that foodways are ranked among the most deprived 20% in Scotland, but they receive a factor of multiplication in their priority, greater than or equal to those foodways rated to narrow, which was in appendix. So that's why we're asking committee, therefore, approves the prioritization procedures for the capital investment detail as you've detailed in the main report and in your appendices in one, two and three. And it changed and subject to the change, giving the width of a foodway a much higher priority than a low SIMD rating, making it fair for residents all across the city. I move my amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cody, formally. Wow, you almost caught me out there. So, so, oh, Councillor like. Yeah, I'll be brief on this. So when I first got this report, as officers will know, I did kind of probe quite a bit on this SIMD test, because I think this is quite a good example of where we have differing transport objectives and sometimes they conflict actually, because if your transport objective is to try and encourage people to leave their cars at home, then there's also an argument that says actually put in the infrastructure in the 80s of high car userships, so you're trying to try to do that. But I think that I think officers have given a very convincing set of answers, actually, in terms of why it's the right thing to do to bring in this additional taste. And as I've said, I don't think it's going to be hugely transformative, but I think it is a consideration which we should have because of public transport access, because of the health issues that we've talked about that this conversation has fleshed out. And the one point I did want to make, and this goes into the paper that's still to come, ultimately, the most important thing is that Cliff and Sean and their team get the right money allocated, because the biggest obstacle that there's going to be to actually get in footways brought up to an appropriate condition is not going to be the use of tests. It's going to be the amount of money which this Council commits to actually doing this work each year. Thank you. Do you have any further comments on this? Okay, so I'm happy to move the report. So there is some logic in what the Conservatives are saying, but I think what I'm really assured with is what Sean has said around you reviewing this process on an ongoing basis. So Nat stands, I think, I'll have to reject what you're suggesting, I'm afraid. It's been quite a useful discussion, I think, particularly around SMID, because quite often I think people view that it's just been about income, but in fact, it's about a range of measures that comes together for that overall score. So that is been quite a good discussion, I think. I think Councillor Lange's point is really important, we can design the best prioritisation scheme in the world, and I think we're almost there, but ultimately it comes down to how much money we're going to spend. So we can prioritise and prioritise, but we'll have to get stuff done as well. So with that, I'm happy to move the report as it stands unamended, and I'm hopeful my Conservative colleagues could accept that. Unfortunately, I can't. Do you don't know? Thank you, convener. We have two positions, the motion by Councillor Arthur, which is the report recommendations as circulated, and the amendment by Councillor Monro, which is the Conservative Group Amendment, again circulated yesterday with the motions and amendments back. Unadjusted, I'll take votes for the amendment by Councillor Monro in the first instance, and votes for the motion by Councillor Arthur. That is two to nine, the motion is carried, thank you. Shouldn't have bothered switching it off. 7.6 is the road to an infrastructure and investment capital delivery priorities for the period 2024-25. Again, Sean and Cliff will speak to this report. There is a Green Group amendment and a Conservative Group addendum on this item. This is just the annual capital report. We're happy just to take any questions. I feel pressure for starting this now. Hello. Yes, thank you for the report. I'm interested in the climate and nature emergency implications section of the report, because I think what we've got in front of us possibly just describes what the Council has said on climate and nature, but it doesn't actually describe the implications of the report's content on the climate and nature emergencies. I think that's kind of the point of that section of the report. So, I guess my question is, can you explain a little bit more about what you think the implications on climate and nature will be for projects brought forward in line with the approach set out in the report? And you also specifically reference how the report is considered the climate ready Edinburgh plan, because obviously that plan was approved last year and it set out that embedding climate adaptation measures into key transport infrastructure should be a priority of the Council going forward. So, I guess I'm interested to see how we've sort of mainstreamed that with the report we've got today. Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the question. Yeah, so basically our flood prevention team are leading on that aspect of for roads and infrastructure, which is a class team. And we are looking to build in within renewals projects. Looking at drainage looking at such drainage looking at street trees, all these sort of aspects within renewals, but obviously the early stages of that. It's quite technical, which is why the roadside are not leading on it. It's led by our flood prevention team. So we've got a couple of projects already well underway. We have a flood prevention scheme at goods corner, which is happening this year, and we have a major tree pilot scheme happening down to Preston fields and pre field, which will include installation of 93s to rain gardens and some major infrastructure changes. So, we're probably at the early stages of building in that type of infrastructure into renewals projects, but we have people leading on it and we will build it up as we move through the years. The other thing is to be roll this out. We're also going to get we're going to get a handle on the exact costs that rain gardens that street trees and everything actually, what's the proper cost to these, and we can build that in. The other thing we're arguing about, everyone's discussed other reports throughout this meeting, that there's limited road space. And if you look, we've got garageways, we have got fruitways, we've got active travel, we've got segregated cycle lanes. We've got, we've got, now we're putting in rain gardens. There is limited space in there, and there's different, it's not just putting rain gardens in now. The work at Good Corner that Sean talks about, it's quite complicated. What it is, is about actually reshaping the geometry of the road so it flows the water into adjacent green areas to store water so you get your detention within the green areas, which is just between cab and tow, shopping center and the government road. So that's what that scheme, so it's not outputting a rain garden in there, it's about how we treat and cater for water, there's innovative approaches. So we're learning all the time, it's emerging technology and we're using existing technology, but in a new way, how we do things basically, how we manage water in the city and mainly surface water. Thank you, that's helpful, I guess just two reflections, so obviously those are some specific projects and it's good that we're doing them and we will learn from them, I guess, just for clarity. The intention is that we will be mainstreaming this going forward, so we will take that learning in every single project that comes forward through the council will be considering these things, and I guess also just on the point of costs. Presumably we will also be considering the costs of not including this kind of infrastructure because we know that the impact of climate change on the city will be significant, so if we fail to adapt the city, then even if we've saved some money by not putting in subs or whatever in the road projects obviously further down the line, we're spending a lot more money on the clean up, so presumably that will also be included in consideration going forward. So just to reassure Councillor I agree with everything quite said clearly, we are driving technologies, I mean even with Scottish water colleagues and specialists, there are changing technologies all the time. Street trees have moved to sunstreets, have moved to sunstreets that connect into the rail drainage, have moved to sunstreets that connect into green space, things that are moving. The exercise that Councillor Dashiredown has spoke about the geeky map, which I also found very interesting, Councillor. That was done for two reasons, one was to assess pavement width, the other thing was to look at carriage rail width because as Cliff says, whilst we figure out the brakes, we want to understand across the city mapping it, whereas the space in those carriageways, Cliff's talking about, we've had the street space allocation framework now approved by this committee, so putting these data sets together allows us to be clear and then say to the engineers in Cliff's team, okay, these are the streets that meet the criteria. As you say, Councillor, we know that our data tells us that street trees are a good idea here or we know that this is in a surface water management plan risk area and that then shapes the brief as much as active travel does, as much as real safety does, as much as public transport does. Councillor Bandar. Thanks very much and it's interesting you were talking about carriage way width because one of the interesting things about transportation to us was actually that we have data on which carriageways are wider than we would like them to be as well, which obviously creates problems with speeding a lot of the time, I know that we've definitely got some issues in my ward with that. Do we have any strategic plans to address this as part of the carriage way renewals in this program alongside maybe the active travel improvements and flooding improvements as well, thanks. Yeah, most definitely, we have, so there was three types of analysis done on the network, there was a footway width, there was a carriage width and there was a junction radii. At the moment, the width is the only one that's been used for the prioritisation, but all three will be used to inform the design process. I think also show me transfer half a million from road and footwork means it's over to road safety as well, it didn't be part of this. Yeah, there's a half a million, this is the first time there's an additional half a million going to road safety from this budget. Mr. Dopin. Thank you. Thank you for the report. The report was into a lot of detail around the work program against the budget, I'm thinking particularly of carriage way works. And I also observed, as a result, I assume all the extremely heavy rainfall we've had in the first quarter strikes me as it's been an awful lot of accelerated damage to roads. Both those have not been treated, but some in fact, which have recently been treated. I was just wondering what the impact of that level of damage is in terms of the program looking forward or how you're assessing that in terms of rework that has to be done. Yeah, this program is based on the national survey that we do last, maybe, basically. So it's a year out of date. You got to be picked up with this year's survey, and that will be, you're talking about the deterioration because of the heavy rain recently, we've noticed that as well. On a day-to-day basis, we've got revenue funding going out and repairing pot holes and everything else. That's what's trying to treat with it. This scheme, this, the capitalization is about more proactive works with the microsurfacing or surface dressing or resurfacing. It's much larger scale projects between, and we're always trying to balance the two programs. That's what we spend a lot of time is balancing up the revenue program with the capital program, which has been approved in here, and that's how we're doing it all the time. I take your point that you have seen over the last two or three months, a huge deterioration in the network because of the heavy rain, and I think you've got that across the country. Council on. Thank you. So Cliff, you'll appreciate the 12.5 million pounds that the referenced in the report was a matter of some debate at the budget meeting. What percentage of this plan would have had to have been struck down if that 12.5 million pounds hadn't been provided? I'll take this one, yeah, because I've done a bit of analysis on this. So we're almost 60% of the program didn't happen this year, if that was, if it did not have the 12. It feels a little bit like Groundhog Day Council lying. I think it was the same question last year. We can put the agenda for next April's meeting as well. Councillor Cody, can someone know then back to Councillor McFarland? Thank you. Convener have two questions and they neatly tie in with the two points we made in our addendum. So succinctly is what do you think of our addendum? But let me cut that down to two easier manageable chunks. So the first is, and it ties in with the previous item, what we were talking about, prioritization and where it's football with payments. I'm looking at the 5% for cycleways and for roads with cycleways. It seems to me that there's an awful lot of cycle infrastructure that isn't very much used. And it is a bone of contention with an awful lot of the residents in my ward and others across the city. And a lot of it has been, new infrastructure has been put in and it's not been used, but nevertheless it expands to previous infrastructure as well. So we've spoken also about the lack of funding or really the effectiveness of funding and we've just heard 60% would have been cut without this extra money. So we need to squeeze every single penny we can. So trying to direct, I'm getting to a question, trying to direct funding the most effectively. I would like to see a way where we can direct it to areas for roads, for example, with cycle ends that are heavily used. Now in this point I'm not suggesting that we change anything for this year, but it is there a way. And have you thought about ways where we could re-prioritize so that we're focusing extra cycle spending on roads where cyclists are actually heavily using it? Yeah, we have thought about it. It is very much, you know, when you're prioritizing, it's very much data driven. And if you're going to add prioritization, weightings into infrastructure programs, you're going to need that data for the whole city in order to make it as effective as possible. We do have that 5% weighting for the family friendly network, but that's all we have at the moment. And it's difficult to build it in because on segregated cycle lanes it's far easier. You know they're used to, it's easier to work at the use of that. But when you've got mixed use, you've got the just painted red lines on a carriage. You're sharing that with vehicles as well. So that condition data comes from the SLM/CS data, which is the scanner. So that's the whole carriage we've been scanned at that particular time. So I think it would be something we'd have to work with DAISES team in order to get those accurate measurements of where cycle use is in the city. So certainly it's something we can look at. And can I just follow up on that? You said it's easier to get the data from segregated cycle lanes. Could you just expand on that? Because I've asked questions about getting data for all segregated cycle lanes and it's not available. So as you say, don't take it as that easier. I think it's easier to determine the usage of that. You know, cycles just using that so you can make assumptions on deterioration and those sorts of things within that. In terms of usage, I probably have to refer to the colleagues within the cycling team. Thank you, Council. I can just very quickly jump in. So we have counters in all segregated cycle ways and all of them. And I think there was a council question a few months ago that we provided where we have counters. So I can go back and check with the team if you want. But it would be interesting as well. You mentioned you in structure where cycling was not using it. You could kind of get a sense of where there's data for that. I can take that back to the team as well. Sorry, can I say something else? The other thing is it's not just on use. We do it on condition. Now it's one thing saying I won't put my capital budget into that. But that has a knock on effect because we're not doing the new rules of the surfacing. That puts, we get more potholes. We get more potholes, puts more pressure on the revenue side of the budget. That's where we're getting this thing about balancing the two budgets. So it's not as simple as going. That's got more cars, that's got more cyclists, that's got more pedestrians. I'm only going to put money there. It has a knock on effect. Sorry, I'm just joking one more point I think. For both reports, actually the previous report and this report is worth. Sean, can you write me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure this is the case. The condition is the starting point, is the score that is then weighted. So in both these reports what we're saying is these are roads that do not meet. The conditions and then the waiting is applied. So actually, the condition is always going to be the starting point, whether it is in our footway investment, whether it's in our carriage weight. It's just that in that case, a bad condition road that is going to hamper public transport and cycling is going to carry a better waiting than a bad condition road that doesn't is really, that's what our methodology achieves. I would agree with that Gareth and that's what we're saying about. We're going to be very careful because if you sway the way things too much one way, we can be completely out of sync. That's what I talked about in the last report. That's what I said about doing small, incremental steps in how we change things and how we weight them. Thank you. And then for the second question, the second part of the agenda then is about like for like. So last year we did like for like, we had record delivery and that record delivery I think has still only sustained a very small, tiny miniscule, I think I've written in my notes, improvement in the condition. And so if I would like to see us do entire like for like again and really try and get on top of it. So if we don't do full like for like, we add other bits of the street design guidance in how much effect is that likely to have on the program delivery? So we've built in additional costs into the schemes this year to take into account any additions that may be made. We've also been working really well with Daisy's team in the last year to not make sure that not all of the costs of these improvements are coming from the renewal budget. You know, because of our priorities within the Council is bringing those different investment strategies together to create these schemes. So London roads, holiday roads last year. These schemes were constructed using budgets from different areas. They all had the same priority. Last week, roads next year is going to be a similar type scheme where active travel were going in there to do that scheme. So I think in terms of the street design guidance, I think the key to is making sure that we do it in advance as possible, plan these projects as far in advance as possible so that we can bring these different investment strategies together. And doing that, we will still be able to maintain an improvement in the overall condition of the network. The work we've done in the last year should be picked up now in the next scan which hasn't happened in our network yet, so we'll get to start to see the results of the additional investment. But you can't say what kind of effect it is likely to have by adding on additional street design guidance work. We really don't know until the following year's survey comes in and, again, a lot of it's affected on whether, especially within the winter period, that can have a major effect. So when we're trying to improve the network, looking at a percentage, say, for what we're covering on our networks, for carageways, we'll try and get to that 5% mark. So we're covering 5% of our network within one financial year, which doesn't sound a lot but it's a huge amount of square meterage. You're still going to get deterioration over that same period and it's trying to keep in front of that deterioration. So it's a difficult one to predict, but we think we'll get improvements. It is and hopefully we'll still deliver quite a lot of square meters of surfacing this year as well, even with these things in. But you're right. I've said before this committee, if you spend a pound on the road, you will see a pound worth of benefit. You remember, we're going back two decades of underinvestment. So even with last year's additional monies, that's why it's so good. We've got it potentially over three years now, so it's over a four year period. We've got additional monies. That's where you'll see the change in the network. Councillor MARO. Thank you very much. And for the poor, I just want to echo what you said, there has been underinvestment in roads in Edinburgh for years and years and years before I even became a Councillor. You speak to anybody on any doorstep, on any part of the city, and all they say is, fix the roads, fix the potholes. It's the first thing they ask. So with that in mind and the fact that you're literally working with one hand behind your back because of the budgets you have been given in the past, it's reassuring to know that residents are going to see improvements. But one thing I did want to ask, and I'm looking for an assurance, this is my question, can you assure residents that roads lacking cycleings will not deteriorate further before being regarded worthy of repair than if they possessed a cycling? If we've got an assessment criteria correct, I can guarantee that. Absolutely fantastic. We've got our criteria and our ratings correct. Music to my ears until all phrases. Thank you very much. And my final question is, does the 10% budget to improve facilities for cycling include measures that improve carriage wheat for all road users, including cyclists? So I'm obviously talking about potholes here, or does this section of the budget only apply to measures which benefit cyclists a lot? Our budget's top slice before it comes to us. So it doesn't come to my team at all. Right. So a fact of that, that 10% top slice is what goes into the Artif Travel Pot Councillor. So in addition though, when Sean and Cliff's team deliver schemes, I think to a point Councillor Cowdy's made in the past, if that scheme is on a quiet route street or if that scheme is on a street that has a cycle where there's obviously a further benefit to cyclists but the 10% of this reference is a policy for the council that has top slice points to the Artif Travel Investment Fund. Got it. So the 10% budget to improve facilities for cycling includes measures only to improve carriage wheat that have cycles on it. So can I just, because I'm a bit confused for the 10%, that's fair. So I think we're falling to the trape is of assuming that all active travel is cycling, which is 10% for active travel rather than cycling. Is that right? Yes. So the 10% to your point Councillor in the core investment, there will be schemes that clearly benefit walking and cycling. Footway schemes benefit walking. There are carriage race schemes that will benefit cycling as well. 10% top slice is specifically to put into a fund which is targeted at the benefits in walking and cycling but the wider part will, in many schemes, still benefit walking and door cycling. My understanding of the whole transport budget, both capital and revenue, 10% is top slice of active travel and walking, both from revenue and capital. Could I just add that it's used also to leverage to match fund external funding to leverage, for example, if you put in 30% of match fund, you get 70% external funding. This money goes into that to leverage external funding as well, for walking, cycling and wheeling. And then we work closely with other teams to maximise that even further. So we work closely with Sean Steem, as you mentioned, to join up and where the projects we integrate in road servicing and all of that is one project. And who gives us that external funding then? It's Scottish Government funding. Thank you very much. Thank you. The last question goes to Councillor McFarlane. Thanks, Kamina. Obviously a bit of a vested interest here but the £1 million for a set of streets is referenced but there's no programme. And I wondered why we don't report all together in terms of the ruling programme for a set of streets. Thank you. The apologies that should have been in it that the street is the law market. And is there any way that we can, as part of this kind of annual reporting, look further than one year ahead because sometimes it's not even one year. It's a year and a half for a year and three quarters, two years, between each project. Yeah, I can certainly circulate all the set of streets that we have in Edinburgh and their priority. So Sean, I did mean to raise this actually about one market because I did suppose it wasn't in the report but I never got down to ask you why it wasn't in the report but it sounds like you're just in a mission. So there is some concern I think, heard from bus operators that is going to be closed for quite some period of time. What would be the implication of trying to complete the works without closing the road to buses? So it's not something that you would really approach with a set of streets. If you think of a set of streets as a single structure, you're going to build it across the way. It's a bit like building a wall. You wouldn't do it in two halves. You start from the bottom, you're way up and you get the structural integrity. You would be creating weak points up the street without building it across the way. Okay, thank you, thank you. Right, so I'm happy to move this report now. And I think, I can't remember if it was Cliff or Sean talked about decades of decline. It's certainly road condition for me doesn't seem to have recovered from him, had those successive bad winters around 2010, but that's just my own observation, rather than based on any hard facts. But certainly, those are the footpaths aren't where we want them to be in the city. But we did see that last year, the road condition index, which is a very technical way of looking at it, does show that at the very least the decline has started to halt. I mean, it does show a marginal improvement. Councillor Cowdy called a minuscule improvement, but the Scotsman for erodes in the city, and I think other category roads are doing better, I think, but please check yourself. We showed that we had a 2.2% improvement. And what that means is we moved off the bottom of the lake table in Scotland or near the bottom, and we're now 12th from the bottoms. We have to do better. But at the same time, our neighbouring local authority, middle audience, whilst we improved by 2.2%, they dropped by 5.1%, and we leapt ahead of them in the lake table. This is important for me because my ward boundaries right on middle audience, so we have the same environment or conditions, et cetera. So it's good to see that difference between the two of us. And that's because, in part, I hope, at least because of the big surge in cash we've seen last year coming into the city for roads and footpaths. And I thank Sean for delivering that right across the city. And I really hope that continues in the coming year. And the next time we get the road-conditioning data, it's improved further. And I think in the budget we did agree to trying to maintain funding at this level for the next two years after this. And so hopefully we can move from talking about road-condition index, which doesn't really mean about anything to anyone, apart from Cliff and Sean, to actually people when they step out of their homes, they see that the footpath and the road outside their homes is starting to improve and is safer for people in their community. And I think that is the real taste, not road-conditioning, or even how much money we pour into this problem. So with that, I'm happy to pass to Councillor Percich, can you tell us a second? For me a second. Thank you. So we've already discussed our addendum. And you know what it is, so I will propose it. But basically, I know, Convener, we've had this discussion. You think that the first point is complicated and expensive. And I take that on board, but I'm going to press this anyway. I would like to see some progress as to how we make this sort of prioritization more data led through usage, through cycle four rather than foot four. So that was the first part. And on the second part, I think, you know, make hay well, sun shines. If we have got momentum going up and we have got improvement, then we should continue with that, try and get the snowball effect and add more improvement on. And I think the best way of doing that is to do what we did last year, which was suspend the street design guidance for other year. So with that, I formally move our addendum. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. Convener, I agree with Councillor Christopher Cowdy's comments. I think we should suspend the street design guidance for another year. And finally, you were just touching on your comments there with regards to where the city is, with regards to potholes and roads, and while you do say we're getting better, I still feel the team themselves are between a rock and a hard place and have worked with one hand behind their back and have done incredibly well. But considering that in the UK, we are the second worst city for potholes. It is a capital city, it's quite embarrassing. That's what people want fixed, but it's very difficult when officers are having to spend money elsewhere when the public just want their roads fixed and their potholes fixed. So, I second our addendum. Thank you, Convener. Okay. Apologies, Councillor Bandel, I should have come to you first. Thanks very much. There's some good stuff in there about which I really welcome about potholes, increased investment in potholes and drop curves. I was very, very happy to see that. At the same time, I think climate-ready Edinburgh is very clear that the most important actions we can take to adapt the city to the climate emergency here in Transport and Environment Committee is A, reducing emissions from transport and B, embedding climate adaptation measures into key transport infrastructure, which is why I think it's crucial that it becomes routine to put in improvements for active travel, which addresses the transport emissions point, and trees and sustainable drainage systems addressing that second point about embedding climate adaptation in our work and addressing the issues of flooding. So, what we are asking with this amendment today is to please take these issues seriously when we are delivering routine work on carriageways and put in as many of these kinds of street design guidance and filling improvements as possible. A report saying that we will incorporate street design guidance improvements in more projects this year, and I'm concerned about that commitment is a bit vague considering we didn't do any last year. So, I want to make clear that we are expecting a considerable increase. I know these schemes take longer because of the extra design work that is needed, but for me that just highlights the urgency of starting them now because we simply cannot like the way out of the climate emergency. Lastly, I would say I found it quite difficult wording to ask officers in this amendment because, you know, if I was in charge I would just like to put active travel improvements in trees and sustainable drainage systems as part of every carriageway delivery project. But knowing this committee, I don't expect that would pass. So, I am hoping that this amendment is a compromise other parties can get behind. Thank you very much. I'm going to say more than formally. So, again, folk who spend time at P&S, which is possibly more people in this room than outside of the room, will know that that key point, which is in our addendum, around 40% of council spending being neutral or unfavorable to our climate and nature ambitions is something which upsets me as is the fact that net zero is an unfunded priority within the council's capital budget strategy. I think that's unforgivable. And that's why we're expecting a financial strategy to support the council's activity on climate when the next update comes to P&S in the autumn. But we obviously can't just wait until then to take some action on this and I think for a council which says that it understands that there is a climate and nature emergency which has this as a central point within its business plan. I think it's pretty shameful that the strategy isn't already in place, frankly. And I think that though we are going to have to wait for a financial strategy to come forward at P&S, it doesn't mean that we can't start chipping away at that problematic 40% figure at every committee. And I think as council Bandel has set out, actually routine spending in this committee on roads investment is one way that we can absolutely do that. I don't think the report as we've got it today gives me confidence that this is happening and I think that's why we wanted to move the addendum. Finally, I do want to just make a small comment on this obsession for like for like improvements because I find this a particularly puzzling approach because moving a position to advocate like for like to ignore street design guidance completely ignores the fact that we know that future weather conditions will not be like for like within the city. Climate change will mean that we are faced with extreme weather conditions which will impact on road conditions, many many other devastating impacts primarily on the most vulnerable people in this city. That is what climate ready Edinburgh is all about. That is what all of the discussions that we've had in other committees point to in terms of addressing the climate and nature emergencies and I think it's really really important that this committee shows some leadership on these issues and passes our addendum today. Thank you. So, thank you, Councillor Lang. It's always interesting if you didn't hear people pass judgment or money they didn't want to spend in the first place. I want to pick up Councilman Rose Point because in my seven years of the Council now I tend to find that there's two big things that people expect in return for their Council tax money. They want their bins collected and they say please we affect the roads and pavements and I for one am really pleased to see this report here today. We set the challenge for the team to bring forward a plan that would, as you say, convener begin to improve the RCI index for the city which has been getting worse. And I take Councillor Cowdy's point that the rate of improvement is not as much as we would want but it does show you how much money you actually have to invest even just to hold things standing still. And part of this, and we've not really talked about this, is the materials that are involved here, they are costing more every year as well. So often we're having to spend more just to stand still. But we know that had we not done this, things would have got worse. And there was a political choice earlier this year, and there were certain Councillors in certain parties who knowingly voted for a budget that they knew would result in the overall condition of roads and pavements get worse rapidly. And maybe I am becoming punks a Tony Phil from Groundhog Day, but I make no apology for that because, you know, by my reckoning, in the fourth ward, there are 12 schemes. In the City Centre ward, there are 14 schemes. In the Craig and Tilly Duddingson ward, there are 10 schemes. I never hear from Councillors who voted against that money. Which of these schemes they don't want to take forward. I can't imagine they're going to be out in their wards or their communities saying that these schemes shouldn't happen. And they cost money. And we need to get serious about this because, for me, it's also a safety issue. We've spoken before about the need to ensure that our footways are in a condition that's safe for people to use. And I also want our roads to be in a condition that's safe for cyclists and public transport, and yes, private cars use as well. Because otherwise, what happens is we're the ones that get the legal claims and we'd have to pay out money on compensation. And I would much rather that we prevented accidents and injuries in the first place. So for me, this is much about safety as it is for anything else. And I'm really pleased to see this huge package of measures that have been brought forward and today for the year ahead. I was wondering if Councilor Dublin could resist responding there, but he's going to respond. I just wanted to, first of all, support the point that Councilor Parker made about, like for like. We've got design guidelines. We've gone for a very good reason. And if we don't start following them now, then we fall further and further behind and we risk all sorts of major issues in the future. Just to pick up on one point that Councilor Lang said, when there are two things that people are looking for for their Council tax. And I would argue that it depends on which people you're talking to. In the word that I serve, it's very often about having a home over your head and also about darkness, just necessarily relevant to this particular topic. But thank you for indulging me. Sorry, nothing else. So thank you. So Councilor, I do think you're right. I think for some people who, you know, contact me, that their absolute focus is road and food path condition. And I get people who routinely email me on the subject, including to de-actually someone. And, you know, for them, it's a big issue because it's related to their job, et cetera. But you're right. For other people, it's not even in our top 10 issues. And we absolutely have to remember that. But when I go to speak to community groups right across the city about what we're doing in terms of transport and environment, before I can talk to them about, you know, investing in tram, investing in active travel, investing in public transport generally, they want to be convinced that we're getting the basics right. And a lot of that is around road and food path condition, at least showing, at least agreeing with them, and things have to improve. I think that can be a great icebreaker when you go to a meeting and people want to raise this issue. And I start by saying, I think it's unacceptable the state of roads and roads and food paths in the city. So people want to be reassured that we're taking this seriously. And I think this report and the budget does show that we're doing now. But by talking about these issues, it gives us a right to talk about these bigger transformative changes we're going to take the city through. Councillor Minnan, no, you know, I don't know where the data from Edinburgh, being second worst city in the UK comes from. The league table in the Scotsman, which referred to earlier, puts us ahead of fantastic cities in Scotland, like Glasgow, Sterling, Perth. And my mum's, she currently lives, don't firmly. So we're ahead of them. Yeah, but details revealed on the 5th of February by Smart Survey. But apologies, it's not a TV, sorry. Sorry, sorry, can we... A bit understanding. And I think some of the issues which I've come up in is debate. I think probably could have been addressed via the budget process, if we were to get a sense of... There's actually quite a lot of consensus in the room, despite this little bit of friction just now. I think there's a lot of consensus through about this, and perhaps if we work together collectively as part of the budget process, it would have been in a better position to address more of these points, or even via the motion which Councillor Lange brought to the last take, which kind of set the trajectory for some of what we're talking about today. But then the list, I think what we've got in front of us will help get us back on track as a city, show people in the city we're seeing about getting a basic strike, as well as the more ambitious stuff that we want to focus on as well. So for the Conservative amendment, I think they've already explained why I don't think we should be supporting that today, but I'm reassured that Sean and an ongoing basis on his team do look to review and improve how they go about prioritising the road and football network to meet everybody's needs, not just one travel mode. In terms of the green one, so I'm happy to accept that we should consider these points, and I think Councillor Bando would stress that word, consider. And I will accept it in this entirety, but I will kind of raise an eyebrow at year 1.1.5, because I do think that part of the reason we are struggling with our climate ambition in the city is around the context that's set for us by the Scottish Government and also the UK Government. And I think we don't have to - I think we've read the newspapers over the last week or so, because we can see some of the challenges we face in Scotland around climate change, the lack of ambition and the failure at a national level to meet commitments, and of course that filters down to a sick council level, and that's why we are struggling as well. I don't doubt we're not - I don't doubt we're perfectly in our decision-making process as well, of course. So with that in mind, so I'll move the report as it stands, accept the green amendment, noting that it's asking us to consider, and the reason I slight eyebrow - I don't know if you can minute that - I guess 1.1.5. So are we happy with that? Yeah, again, Councillor CODD. Yeah, we're going to push our position. Thank you. Thank you, Convener. We have two positions. We have the motion by Councillor Arthur, which accepts the green amendment as circulated, and we have the amendment by Councillor CODD, which is the report recommendations, plus the addendum as circulated with the PAC. Can I take votes in the first instance for the amendment by Councillor CODD? And for the motion by Councillor Arthur? That is 9-2. The motion is carried. Thank you very much. That takes us to Section 8 of the agenda. I don't think it does. No. So I think let's have a really quick break. People are looking tired, so I think we should just have a break until 10 past. I want to come back and do 8.1 as quickly as possible. I know it's important for a couple of people in the room, and then spend at least half an hour on the tram report. Okay, 10 past. Drive, there is an S&P group addendum and Liberal Democrat group addendum in respect of this item, and Dave Sinclair is here again to speak to this report. Dave, just to save time, I think we'll just assume the Councillors have read it. Absolutely. The only thing I wanted to mention was an apology to Councillor Thornely. So over a year ago when you raised the motion, and I appreciate it's been a slow and spontaneous time scale. So apologies, number one. Do you have any questions for Dave on this report? Oh, Councillor Astrid. Thanks, Canvina, and thanks, Dave, for the report. Just a very quick question, and it's related to our addendum. Obviously, there can be no guarantees with the LTI scheme that we just set up. So assuming that, for whatever reason, this project didn't make the cut, as we've already discussed, there's likely to be more demand than the rest of buying that budget. What would you perceive as being the fate of it, Dave? Thank you, Councillor Astrid. There are two elements I think the report reaches a potential intervention criteria. So the road safety one, it doesn't in terms of speed or accident analysis. I would hope, you know, through the conversation that we've had with regard to the local transport, sorry, the local travel improvement piece of work, it would feature a reasonable level from that. There is also the work that we undertake with the parent council in terms of the sort of routes to school and the school travel plan work. So unfortunately, if it didn't rank under the LTI process, then we would still engage with the school communities and consider what interventions may be appropriate in that respect. But unfortunately, I can commit or guarantee to any other programs I don't think that would potentially address maybe some of the issues. Okay, thank you for that reassurance. Do we have no other questions? So I think we can go to... So I'm happy to move the report, as it stands, Councillor Perchinda? Formerly second. Thank you. And I think Councillor Thornely is going to move the Lib Demim in addendum. I'm happy to convene. Should the S&P go first or do you want me to just press on? Well, apologies. I've put you first on my list. You're right. It should be Councillor Astin first. Apologies, Councillor Astin. Thanks, Councillor Thornely for keeping us all in order. So, to be completely honest, this is not a part of time that I'm very familiar with, apart from along the main groups. So very fortunate to have the expert in sight of my colleague, Councillor Hislop, who's been meeting with his constituents, especially Clare Muston, primary parents. And this addendum is really just putting forward some of the observations that have come through from that. For my part, I've had to rely on Google Street View to transport me as an armchair traveller to Park Grove. And then squaring that streetscape with what officers have acknowledged in this report and what has come back from local residents and primary school parents via Councillor Hislop in terms of the high levels of rat running and so on. I'm pretty worrying, to be honest, with the close proximity to a primary school. And I know you've got some, maybe a raised eyebrow, perhaps, on our final point convener. I just want to make clear, you know, we acknowledge that that is something for officers to determine in the first instance. We're just asking that this is something that they bear in mind and consider, because as we discussed earlier in relation to the LTI process specifically, and the question and answer that I had from Dave there, there just can't be any absolute guarantees in the LTI process. And, you know, I think it's important that thought is given to what happens in case this project isn't successful through that process. So I move the SMP addendum. Okay. Now, Councillor Thorne, may I can go to you? Thanks, Kavina. I'd just like to start by thanking officers and Dave for the report and also for what he's just said there is appreciated. Thank you. On the substance report, I actually, you know, honestly, I found this quite challenging because obviously we have to act based on data and information that you have, you've talked, as committees talked a lot about that today, totally not going to try and disagree with it. But the situation has laid out in the report. There's very little resemblance to the experience that those who live and travel along Park Grove Drive every day have shared with me. And squaring that is not, is obviously, you know, it's part of the challenge. But if I may, I'd like to just share a couple of thoughts sent to me by the current Council from Clemson primary that talk about the road changes and road safety measures put in place at the primary school and how and their feeling that while those are welcome, it's kind of a job half done at the moment. There are still problems there and those have knock on effects to Park Grove Drive. It's not covered with an scope of this report, but there is a knock on impact there, but also that as the SMP addendum does, which I totally welcome and fully look forward to the potential for quick fixes. And we'd really appreciate those being looked into. But within all of this, there is a need to engage with ward councils, but also with the wider community, but the school community as we tackle this problem. So I'm glad to see that it's being referred to the LTI program rather than just nothing happening. I think, you know, it's great to see that you've got that program in place with moving forward with it. But we just asked that we keep that experience of and engagement with the community at the heart of this. Thank you. formally. Councilman. Okay. Is there any other contributions at this stage? So I would like to suggest that we, well, my position would be to move the report. I accept the Lib Dem amendment and then as part of the consultation around that with the SMP amendment in its entirety is accepted as part of that process. As part of the consultation, you can work through the three points raised in the SMP amendment. I hope people are content with that. I met with a lot of blank or straight faces. So I think that's agreement. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. So the convener that takes us to item 8.2 on the agenda, which is the Edinburgh tram, York place to New Haven project delivery. There is an administration addendum to this item, a Liberal Democrat group addendum, a green group amendment and a conservative group amendment. Councillors Caldwell and Moutte have indicated that as ward members they will speak on this item and Hannah Ross is here to speak to the report. So Councillors Caldwell and Moutte can I invite you both to come down together? Is that okay? And if you don't mind, I'll get you to make a presentation and then we'll open both of you up to questions at the same time. I'll tell you what, if I start whilst Paul's setting that up so we don't waste any more of your time because I know you've had a long day today, I'll be fairly brief and also I'll just let you know that I won't be here next month because I'll be on holiday. So you'll be really pleased to see that I won't have my monthly visits to tech. So I suppose thank you for the closeout report. It's certainly a milestone to get to this stage. Although I think it's disappointing that we can't say that we have finished because there's too much outstanding snagging work and I have been working with constituents for a significant amount of time trying to get issues resolved. And there has been a lack of clarity on exactly where those items sit and when they will be completed. And I do think it's very important that the trams has been a project that there is no one certainly on this committee and not even myself who is here at the inception of trams. There's probably only about two or three councillors who were there when trams were first muted. So we sort of nearly got to the end of the first tranche, the first line. But actually what we have been left with as an environment around it is not all that we would have wanted. And I know the trams go from the airport to New Haven. The environment for residents and for people using Leithwalk and Princess Street is not optimal. And there are a number of lessons that we need to learn about this which are pertinent not only to trams projects but actually to any other project in the city where you restrict the roadway. So all of the active travel projects, there's a number of projects that are coming through. So meadows to George Street where you will restrict the bit of the roadway that's available for vehicles. That has a particular impact and one of the biggest impacts that is causing a lot of residents sleepless nights literally is kachung kachung kachung and that is the sound of a triple axle bus. But a single axle, three sets of wheels bus, going over a failing pothole cover. And what has happened, especially for Leithwalk, and we've now realised this, and please can we just not repeat this, is that all the traffic, so all the buses, all the HDVs, all the bin lorries that need to be on that road and some big lorries, as we've heard today at Tech, do need to be on those roads are going over. We can't avoid the manhole covers because there's a cycle lane or there's a separator strip. So we can see from the reports, I've seen from the correspondence, it's not a failure when these manhole covers go kachung kachung kachung kachung kachung kachung kachung. But it's a part of our, it's a design failure that they are in the way of the wheels, of these buses and vehicles. We really need to avoid that. And the other thing that I would say that has been underplayed, and I really wanted to make this point for all my residents, and not just the residents of my wards but the residents of Leithwalk Ward and Leithwood, we have underestimated the traffic that is displaced from these main routes which are then displaced past people's houses. And that has happened in the inner new term, that's now been pushed down into Leithwalk, it's in Bonnington, it's in, I think we heard from the residents in Windsor Street and Montgomery Street, up to Ferry Road, this traffic has not disappeared, it has been displaced and that has to be a serious consideration. We've heard this week that, I think it was Chris, Chris Dark from the Westminster adviser on climate change, she said, "There are no cities with plans that are going to demonstrate a 20% reduction of transport. There's no one in Scotland that is going to achieve that 20% reduction in vehicle kilometres. We've got a 30% reduction and everything we're doing relies on that being delivered. And we've heard this week, they don't think that's happening. So that means we have to take displacement seriously. So that's really my two big asks. And my third is that police support the Conservative amendment on this, which calls for continued visibility structured into the work of this committee so that we can track that the completion of these tasks. And also, can we please take these infrastructure learnings really seriously? That will make or break the success of future projects and it will also make or break their acceptance by the people of the city when we're making those changes. If we don't learn those lessons, people whose trust is fairly frayed will frayed even further with our bit in our ability to deliver. Thank you, Councillor MACK. Coldwell? Thank you, Premier. Thank you, Committee, for having us today. So we'll try and keep it brief and appreciate that Councillors do not get involved in operational matters. And it's really all try to keep in. What I will ask Committee is to please imagine the impact that this has on a community and, you know, I'm thinking particularly Councillors Dobbins, Monroe, Deister Downey, and Bandale, I think in the next few years you may be in a similar position sitting here, talking about major infrastructure projects. So please keep that in mind. Because at the end of the day, community is the core point. That's why we build the infrastructure in the first place. And the trams infrastructure, the tram is great and it serves its purpose. What we've got to be really mindful of is taking people with us in that regard. So as we saw by the powerful deputations this morning, a community, there's a very big strength of feeling in the community about the public realm, the side of it, which is primarily what I'm going to talk about here. I've had various contacts with the groups that sent the deputations in earlier, and one thing has became clear, and this also includes groups like Spokeslovian and Living Streets is none of them contradict each other, all of them want to see a public realm where everyone can travel about safely, and everyone feels welcome and comfortable actively travelling there. It may be expedient to say in addition to this that these groups have raised other concerns that maybe didn't make it onto deputations such as quiet route signs, neighbouring Pecody Place, the cycle lane itself, which we didn't hear much about this morning, but again, these are things that we hear a lot about in the community. The report itself touches on a number of considerations, hundreds of constituents have raised, particularly between items, 4.35 and 4.43. These issues aren't just aesthetic or surface-level concerns, but vital to the accessibility and social cohesion of the area, and also has implications on how we respond to large projects in the future as well. I am extremely grateful and continue to be grateful for all the officers and trans team for their engagement during the construction process, both through local all-party oversight groups and through email. As of writing, I currently have a database of 73 separate concerns that constituents have raised, which fit either into the ongoing design implementation issues or defect resolutions that are detailed in the report, which are showing on a slide in the screen just now. But I note with concern that a lot of these weren't mentioned in the closeout report today, so several defects such as missing signage, misplaced poles, a number of loose paving stones, removal of the temporary bike lane, and a stop-up at Arthur Street not being present in Appendix G. However, I am aware that the trans liaison officer is continuing dialogue and exploring the possibilities for improvements. And there are a number of defects that have actually been attended to and closed by the trans team. So, again, very grateful for that throughout this process. More fundamental concerns with the design element noted in the report include the on-roll. I had a need for more loading provision, London Road Left Turn, and Brunswick Street emergency closure. Items are not explicitly mentioned, but are great, because the concern includes the increase of traffic on side streets, including where continuous footways are now installed, so pavement users are perhaps more vulnerable than before. Safety concerns from accessibility groups such as the separation of the bike lane and very narrow pavements in several locations on leaf walk. These ongoing design/implementation issues and defect resolutions highlight the importance of community engagement noted in Section 84 of the report, and it would be extremely grateful if committee and officers can clarify the scope of ongoing community engagement. The last thing I'm asking committee to do is to actually please support the Lib Dem amendment. At the end of the rather, seeks further engagement to some of these issues, and to be honest with you, all the amendments are actually very helpful and constructive in our own ways and appreciate the attention. Committee has paid to this because at the end of the day our constituents want to see us transparently negotiate and try and find ways forward when there's such passion behind issues. The project team have been given one of the largest major infrastructure projects in the city's history, and I was very pleased to see one thing that came from this and actually was highlighted by the deputations earlier in which it's not finished, and we can make improvements. And I would just hope that we continue that positive energy in the coming months until we get that follow-up report. So thank you for your consideration. Do you have any questions for Councilor Munro, or Councilor Cody? Thank you very much. It goes to both of us suppose. We hear, or certainly I remember the reports we get cover a lot about governance, they cover a lot about defects, they cover a lot about how we in the Council here are going to manage it. You've sat there, both of you talked about community and local residents. Quite often we don't see that side or I don't see that side. I'm slocked here in this room talking about it hypothetically almost. Is there anything that the Council could do in the way that they remedy the defects that could help improve the, I suppose the reputation the Council has got with the local communities? I suppose it's disappointing that we have to be here today saying that there's an issue with the defects in the closeout report, because actually the relationship between the local communities through this phase of the trams has been significantly better than we did take that learning from the first phase of the trams and actually through Edinburgh Community Council's trams together. That has worked really well. Harold and Mike who were here earlier have sort of led for their relative community councils and worked really well and there's been very good engagement with the businesses through the business scheme. The biggest issue at the moment is that residents across Leafwalk Ward and the City Centre Ward and probably the Leafwood are raising defects. They're saying this bit of tactile paving isn't there. This hasn't been constructed in accordance with, you know, Mike was talking about the junction at Leopold Place. I'm sure we'll tell you about things that he's had raised with him. I've got one resident. We've been going back and forth since November saying there's a manhole cover that's not here. There's a yellow box over it. The way you deal with this is just to either fix it or produce a spreadsheet saying this is the date, this is what's going to happen. Whilst we have got a list at the back of the report of about 60 items that are outstanding, I think there was 693 that were listed and some have been signed off, some have been adopted. But we don't know what's happened to all that 693. I think the way you rebuild that trust is just to be really honest to have the report up there to say. The other thing is, one of my constituents says, do you know what would really help? Because if someone went down in a yellow jacket with a can of spray paint and just, you know, whatever colour we agree it is and said, I'm just going to spray around the defects. We've identified that are on the list so you know they're going to get fixed. And then everyone would know which defects were defects were going to be fixed and would wait for them to come back. And in a perfect world to be a spreadsheet that would say this is the date they're going to be fixed. But you know, I like to moderate my asks. If I can follow and think, the one answer I would say to that is transparency. Alan Dudley, who gave the representation earlier on behalf of both RNIB and St. Scotland, he has been through a very long process to try and find a resolution in regards to tactile paintings. I, we've sent various emails, we've asked officers various times, not trans to New Haven, I should point out, but actually more generally in the council, because trans to Haven are following Ember Street design guidance. But we've been asking officers why the details are set up that way in Ember Street design guidance, you know. And it got to the point where I had to ask a question at leaders' questions to get response. So I asked that question in November and it wasn't until February that we got a reason, a justification for why the tactiles are like that. So that's one thing, if it's a manhole outside your property that's making a considerable amount of noise, that's quite another if that is a major accessibility concern stopping you from going about your life. And that's a sort of thing that sort of concerns me from this. I know organizations, we have a tendency to say, you know, here's all the great bits of a project. I think we need to be very open when things aren't working because other people are residents, constituents will spot that things aren't working and they won't necessarily know why there's something designed like that or why this hasn't been fixed yet. We may be waiting on a utility company, etc, etc. So, again, you know, just having that sort of transparency, even if it means, hold on, we didn't get this right sort of thing. That would be my answer to you. Thank you. Last question, Councilor Noor, to the dissertation that we moved off as well. Thank you very much, Kim Vener. I just want to say, take a bean ask to note lessons learnt in this report. And as ward Councillors, you will know more than maybe some of us who do not have the trams to New Haven in our area. What that actually means to your residents, but also to your Councillors that are having to deal with the residents, especially yourself. And it reports to the Committee on the Subject of Trams to New Haven become less frequent as the contractors continue to hand over the trams to the Council. So, when you're speaking to residents, do they have faith that that handover is going to go through in a manner and in a way that they're going to be satisfied with and that the problems are going to be dealt with? Or do they still have a niggle because that is a worry for us as Councillors if residents think we cannot get these defects sorted, especially if we want a tram that's going from New Haven out to Bio-Quarter, we have a whole swathe of other residents you might see. They didn't get it right in Leith and they're still not getting it right. Thank you, Councillor MUNNO. My concern is that residents have been through a lot in the last four years. And as Councillor MUNNO, I think their faith in the Council has been shaken, like it would be of any major infrastructure project. In regards to, I think something you touched on earlier, having that sort of visibility that this isn't quite how we envisioned this to happen and admitting that, I think, goes a long way with residents. In terms of the details of the process, to be honest, as word Councillors, we're not engineers, we sometimes struggle with the way defects are handled and closed and all that, so I can't imagine that residents would know exactly the ins and outs of that process. What I do hope for today's and outcome is that in several amendments, several things that actually residents and deputations have asked for are explicitly mentioned, I think, in all four of the amendments that are there. So I've committed, confined a way to sort of ensure a lot of that is ticked off in terms of belts and braces. I think residents would have a lot more sort of confidence there. Thank you. I think, I mean, I've been a resident affected by tram works because of displaced traffic. I've been a Councillor through two sets of tram works, and I've also been a member of the Tech Committee whilst a tram project was being done, because I was the Conservative Transport Lead during the first part of the first construction. And you hadn't used your time this time. But I would want the same thing, actually, and what residents ask me for is the same thing I would want as a member of committee, which is just full oversight. So I would like that to be a public report because I think that's how we hold people to account. And if we have a combined list and we know what's meant to happen with that spreadsheet, and then it goes, and you can just tick it off, and actually, you know, it only needs to come once every six months. It can probably come appended to, if things are going well, it can come appended to a business bulletin. But I do think it needs to be visible, and I think everyone involved, whether it's the contractors or its council officers, need to know that it's coming on a targeted, on a timeline so that they have got a target to work for, and they know it's going to be a public target, because I can't tell you, after 17 years of doing this, any better way to get anything done than to have a publicly accountable target that everyone's going to see, and you know you've got to get things done by that time. That's really the only tool. That's the best tool in your box, and it's the one that the residents want as well. All they want to know is the stuff that they're pointing out is going to get fixed, and it doesn't disappear down a wormhole. So, I don't think there's any separation between what you should want as councillors and what the public want on this one. Okay, thank you for that. Now, Councillor Colroy, I think you were going to circulate a small adjustments to your amendment. Can you do that? So, that was given to committee services some time ago. Okay. So, apologies, Councillor Colroy. Okay. So, can I pass to Hannah now, I think, to introduce the report? Thank you, Convener. I'll be incredibly brief. I think that just in introducing the report and sort of setting the context of it, it actually chimes very much with what Councillor Colroy has just been saying, is this is an opportunity to reflect on the delivery of the Samsung New Haven project and the learning format both good and bad. And I think that we have set out in the lessons learned appendices where we think we can improve. And I think it's really appropriate that we bring it to you now while it's relatively fresh in everybody's minds. This project started back in 2019. And I think it's also really important that we take the opportunity because we need to embed cycles of continuous learning. And having this conversation now may not be particularly comfortable, but having this conversation now and reflecting on it allows us to do that for future project delivery. And I think that would be criminal to not take the opportunity to kind of really consider it at this stage. And also to do it publicly in a form we can have the discussion. So I suppose just to close just to give my thanks to those people who supported the lessons learned, those people from the contractor. Councillors, members of the project team, internal colleagues, that was really helpful. And thanks to people for giving up their time. Just a briefly convener, if I can, partly to address on the record some of the issues that the deputation raised and also Councillors moat and Collewell. So just to point out two parts in the report, because I think it was Mr. Tobham and that raised this. So 4.36, the project team are continuing to support the execution of the contract's defects. So if there was any doubt and the core team is in front of you today, Councillors, Anna, Chris and Robert, that somehow they were going to disappear after doing all sorts of other things and weren't going to be available to work on this. That is not the case. They are here. They are in front of you and they're working on that. I want to underline that in case there's any doubt that somehow nobody's going to quite know who to work with. So just to be clear on 4.36, just to clear up the point I think we were talking about earlier on, under the work program under 5.2, you will see a report next month, particularly on issues around London Road and so on and Robert is working to finalise that. Just at the minute, indeed you might have spent some time this afternoon working on that, and then a further report on any issues that the deputation raised in June around access, around servicing on the eastern side of Leith walk. And that's particularly coming in June in order to enable effective community engagement around that. So you will see both of those reports. And lastly, again, the point I think that Harold raised was that the team remain absolutely committed to working with community councils together on Tram as Council and Moet said. We set that up deliberately at the beginning of this. It's worked extremely well. Again, we don't think that's going away and the team are available to continue that work. So just to reassure, and as I said, I want to say that on the record convener, so it's there for anybody who watches the webcam back. Thanks. Okay, so time is limited. So what we suggest we do is we have up to one question from each group, and then we go to the formal. So I think Councillor McFarland already has handed it for your group, Councillor Aston. Councillor Bandolf. Thanks very much. I had a question on the landscaping specifically about the trees that haven't been planted yet. Can you give us more detail on why the contractor has some plant of the trees yet that were in the design? Yeah, I'll ask Chris to come on to listen a bit more detail because he knows it better than I do. Certainly there was times where we weren't planting because just at the time of year it was, and there's been ongoing discussions about where the trees should be planted to ensure that they are as effective as possible. Obviously some of the trees have also been planted were unfortunately vandalized. Chris, do you want to come in on that? Yeah, in terms of the report, there's two specific locations, I think the area of green space by the fingle and also by New Kirk Gatehous. We've had discussions with the contractor last week. They are saying that there was a potential to utility conflicts there, and that's why they didn't plant them there. What they did do was plant additional trees in alternate locations. Given the engagement that we've had at both of those locations with residents, we're querying that and seeing whether there might still be an opportunity to get some additional trees there. So that is ongoing. So you didn't ask a question, Chris? Can we come on? And then can someone know then what can someone know? Thanks, Commissioner. So on such a macro project, forgive me for being very micro in my question, but I feel that that's where the public mood is from the residents I'm speaking to. And Councillor COB will talk to the operation, not getting involved in operational. And I just want to use one example I thought about bringing a prop today, and it's the big blue power cable that's laced through the trees at Elmerone. It's just been left dangling there that I walked past most days to the point that felt like just going taking it down myself and bringing in. And it's that kind of attention to detail that feels is completely missed at this stage in the project. And so my question is how, not just kind of a power plug or bits and pieces line around, but there's paving slabs in the tiny bit of the tram I've got in City Centre wards that just have no grouting around them. They've just been put in the floor and there's nothing cementing them in, so they're wobble. I mean, I want to know how secure in the contract that we procured, we are to kind of monitor just very, very basic quality control issues about the standard of the work that was done. Yeah, so I would say that the contract is good on that in terms of our ability. Where I think that this is in the lessons learned report is that we, I think it's the timing provisions in the defects resolution that we've got which are actually quite lengthy. And we adopted, because it's a linear project, we obviously wanted to open up sections of roadway as we completed them rather than leaving them covered in hair dispensing. But the time skills actually relate to the entire project. So I think during the kind of the close out of construction, it would be helpful to include defects periods per section rather than in general. And then obviously we finished, it's all been opened up for quite a while now. There's also, we also need to think more about time scales for completion of delivery. Now, noting your point exactly where we're speaking to the contractions, speaking to council colleagues about the potential for taking a different approach to defect resolution where we take more of a front foot on it and then agree a commercial agreement with them on that. So, that might be a different approach that would resolve the concerns. Councillor Minnan. Thank you, Premier. I'm good to talk about money. 4.10, it's very vague on costs, and the final cost is not settled. So do you think it's likely to exceed 207 million? The only reason I ask is City of Edinburgh Council needs an additional 6.95 million per annum to offset borrowing costs. So initial hopes when I was reading through had been to offset these by means of increased tram usage. But information that you've put in in 4.5/7 would suggest that patronage is below projected levels rather than above. I mean, it is suggested though it's not proven that that lower patronage is the product of COVID. So what proof do you have and do you think that it's likely to exceed the 207 million? So at the moment we're working within the budget parameters that were set by council, but we don't have a final settlement. So I'm afraid I'm not going to be drawn to give you definite, but we are working within it. I think that the question you've asked about journeys and the additional 6.95 million answers as quickly as I can, but it is complicated. So we had a pre-COVID 2019 business case. We then had COVID and we updated the business case in autumn 2020 to reflect possible future scenarios. The reference at 4.11, there's a financial model that sits behind tram operation in totality. Now that includes interest on borrowing. It includes what the projected operating costs are, the projected revenue, any additional income that might come in, for example, through section 75, life cycle costs for the maintenance of the asset. And obviously right now there aren't life cycle costs on tram to New Haven, but there's life cycle costs on the existing line. Now in totality, that financial model that underpins the tram model is receiving an additional 6.95 million pounds per annum. So it's not just the trams to New Haven borrowing, it's everything that is associated with the cost of tram operations. I think it's fair to say that we do look at COVID as having a significant public transport impact. I think that that's seen across the UK in terms of recovery of numbers. We're working with Edinburgh trams just to talk to them about the costs of the tram operation and its totality, not just costs that they're responsible for. And also kind of boosting numbers. As it states, they have budgeted or they're projecting about 11.2 million passengers this year, but as matters currently stand, they're tracking slightly ahead of that. I really appreciate that and thank you for going into those figures with regards to usage because I know that usage has been higher than predicted to the airport, which is fantastic, but lowered into the city centre. So I was just wondering if that might have an influence of the overall economic impact of the scheme. It will do, but I think that we need to bring back up a benefits assessment. I think that's really important, we need to do the stag process anyway, but I think to justify why we put a spade in the ground in the first place, but everyone told the inconvenience in the first place, it's important that we reflect on the delivery of the benefits and the economic analysis, but it's just slightly ahead of time to do that next year. Thank you. My question hopefully very quickly relates to Councillor McFarland's question about defects. Could you just clarify, I wasn't entirely sure, can new defects still be raised on the closest 45 and 46, or has that window now closed? Yes. And up until what point can they still be raised? So for the tram infrastructure itself, it would be 7th June 25, and for On Street, it would be 6th November this year, because that's been open for longer. Okay. Thank you. So, what I want to do now is I want to move the report, I'm afraid Councillor Lasting, around at a time. I want to move the report, and then we'll hopefully very quickly move the amendments, and then Councillor Anston can make a contribution to the debate. Then assuming we close this off, we can then go to the two motions, and I'm quite hopeful that we can give Councillor Parker and Councillor Bandol a very short period of time, although I expect there will be after five o'clock with that time to present the motions. So I'm happy to move the report as it stands, and thank Hannah for the time she's invested in. And I think there's been some people poking it fundamentally today, because I said that Edinburgh is falling in love with the tram, and I do think that's true. And I think it's been great for Edinburgh, and what's great, what I like most is seeing people from outside the city coming here, and being envious of it. So it's good for Edinburgh, good for citizens and citizens, and I think it's good for our economy. So I think that the previous transport committee was absolutely right to press the button on it, and you trust Hannah, Robert and Chris to help us through that process, and have done a fantastic job for us. We'll probably hopefully we'll reach a million passengers per month in this current year, which is absolutely incredible. But over the last couple of years since I've been interim transport convener, I think my interface with the project has been largely when it was entering its kind of final stages, and it had been through some of the really difficult parts. But in what I always observed when I met Hannah was that the vast majority of the feedback I would get from individual residents related to the walk. And I think, as we've seen today, both my deputations and the debate we've had and the questions to Hannah, the comments made by Councils Caldwell and Mao, that very much features in people's minds. So I do think that the fundamental challenge with Leith Walk is we try to do too much in that space. And I think that's at the heart the problems we face. And the real tragedy of that, as we heard from Alan this morning, is that the people who feel that most are pedestrians and also people with disabilities try to move around that space. And you know, and I feel quite shameless into some of what we heard this morning from all the deputations actually. So it is really important that we learn from this. And I think we have. I think it's a committee we have and I think officers have as well. So I think that's a mistake the previous committee made, tried to do too much whilst they were absolutely right to progress with the scheme. So, based on that, I'm happy to move the report and I'm going to pass the kinds of agenda and she'll explain her amendment to it. So I'll move it with my amendment. And I'll say that. And so I'm a second thing. Yes. Right. And then later on I'll speak to my amendment. Okay. So I think I've been surprised. I mean, when Councillor Cowdy said it was good to have two Councillors in here, because there has been a lot said about the issues of the tram for anybody who is listening. And I think the first time I ever appeared to this committee, I came in as a Councillor to talk about the impact of the tram project on the community and the businesses and the lead board. I don't think it's, when we talk about these issues, I think I'm confident that the project team are aware of the issues. And the real problem is how we move forward with them, because there seems to be some kind of blockage in just actually dealing with some of the issues, some of them which are quite big and some of them that are smaller as well. But where the responsibility lies in a sort of really complicated mixture of contractors and subcontractors. And I think that a lot of the level of concern that we here is also a result of the Phase 1 debacle and a lack of confidence in us delivering stuff as well. So people are just really nervous that it's just going to be left as it is. So it's reassuring to hear that there'll be continuity. And so we can reassure people as well. My particular issue came from a walk with community council members along between the shore stop and the ocean terminal one. And as we went, we were looking at the drawings that were presented to the community when they were asked to give their opinions on that tram project. Now I know that those are not binding, but when they look really, really green, and the result is not very green, you can imagine how people feel. And in fact, we've actually made some quite good comparisons of holding the plan and the affected one. But there's also, when you look at it closely, I'll be quite honest, it's the equivalent of that work person that comes into your house and he leaves these dirty feet marks all down your carpet and all of his rubbish and whatever he's pulled out the wall and everything and leaves it and just goes. Because there is earth that is contaminated with just building materials, there's rust in grassy areas because lorries have driven over them and they've just been left like that. There's been absolutely no attempt to do even the minimum type of reinstatement to that area. And I think the consultation, if you can start with us more, is good because we've said, and people who do understand about trees, that some of the trees that are getting planted are not the best type of trees. Now we're talking about seething areas where a lot more than some grass seeds are going to need to get anything to grow in them as well. And the last thing that I do want to mention, and I know it's part of Ocean Terminals thing, but a lot of you might hear people talking about the discovery garden to understand what that is. It is a beautiful selection of plants representing all the different plants that Scottish plant hunters brought around the world. It's a big part of our botanical story. And if there had just been a bit of ongoing maintenance done there, while the work was going on, it wouldn't have ended up in the sort of state that it's in and the cost of the reinstating as well. I mean, you don't have to just abandon stuff when you fenced them off, you can still catch it. So all these kind of things that, you know, need to help with it and lessons learned as well about how we go forward and how we show that we can be trusted with the next stage as well. So thank you, you know, for, and now a second after that, yeah. Okay. And I actually have to leave. I think. She can leave just now. I won't take it personally. So I think we're moving to Councillor Langnow to move the Lib Day amendment. Yep. So I will be brief. So just to confirm our revised amendment was circulated, just addressed some drafting issues. There was nothing, nothing substantive. And, as we heard from Councillor Caldwell and Councillor MOWIT and we discussed at this committee, there are a number of outstanding issues relating to this project. Our amendment seeks to focus in on some specifics in that regard to fitway widths and safety assessments and also picking up on the comments from the ward. The Council's earlier, this issue of displaced traffic and streets that have seen significant increase in through traffic. And as you can see from our amendment, we're particularly concerned about the impacts of that around local schools. So I think our amendment is quite straightforward. It simply asks for the consideration of certain matters and also for some additional information to come forward in due course. Formally. Thank you. No, Councillor Bist is not here. Yes. So Councillor Bandel. I will just formally so I can speak to my motion. Formally. Ah. Councillor Coudy. Thank you, Convener. So the Lib Dems were very specific. We're going very general. We've heard from one of the deputations and from both of the Councillors that oversight is really important, particularly for public reputation as well. And they want to be able to see that things are getting done. It's not just that they get done. Let's show that they see them getting done. And so we think that they should continue coming back on a six monthly basis so that we can get a bit more oversight. And we also heard from one of the deputations that consistency of how very important consistency of design is particularly when we're talking about people with site problems. But that goes throughout everybody really in terms of major projects. So with that, we, I propose our agenda. Second the amendment. Thank you. So thank you, Councillor Munro. No. I know the SMP don't have an amendment or addendum. Councillor Lasting. Thanks. I will try and be brief. I have to say, I'm very supportive of the conservative amendment. You know, as, as Councillor Merritt was saying earlier, I think it's fair to say that this council has scars on its back when it comes to the, when it comes to tram projects. And part of the reason why the extension to New Haven has gone so much better. I'd say part of the reason the reason really is the governance architecture that was put in place by the previous administration which initiated this project and the lessons that were learned from the disaster that occurred. First time round, well documented and multimillion pound judge led inquiry, of course, so it does seem odd to be now suggesting that we move to a position where we're only receiving reports back to us by exception and not keeping them at least a regular scheduled update timetable going. I did also, the question I was going to ask which I didn't get the opportunity to was why there was no mention of anchor field in there now I'm not qualified to say whether or not, you know, that that is connected to the tram works or not. It just felt to me strange that it wasn't at least mentioned in, in the report. And I suppose I'm mentioning it now because it's exactly the kind of issue that I would expect to be coming back to us in, in regular updates. So, really the position that I would like to see the committee taking would be accepting the Labor, addendum and full the Lib Dem addendum, the Tory addendum and the, and the Greens apart from their point seven. And if that requires me to move that as a position, I'm not sure, but, but consider it moved if it does. Any other comments, Councillor Farri, Dr Councillor Doman? So, so my intention was to move a lot with, move the report with the Labor addendum. The Lib Dem revised amendment or addendum in full and the Green amendment in full and accept 0.1.1.5 from the Conservatives. I do think that, you know, so what we're saying is that we'll get reports here in the future, but not on our regular timetable. It's pretty clear that trams one way or another are going to be coming back to this committee for some time to come. So, there will always be opportunities to raise issues. So, I'm still broadly content that we should only report back by exception. Councillor McFarland, I'm not sure if you're technically able to speak, but I welcome your comments. Just wondering if I'll be able to second Councillor Austin's position then. I think I'm with the way of thinking that the regular reports would give reassurance to residents more than anything, even if that report is minimal and not very much in it. I think it would be appreciated knowing that it's coming and that continued oversight and scrutiny is there. So, what do they, what can I, I'm not, I don't think I'm supposed to, but what do my Green colleagues think of that? Actually, no, I get what you're saying. I think I was wondering about the reasoning for it, but I can see that argument for that. Okay, let's save ourself a vote then and just agree all the amendments, but ask that we get a report. So... Sorry? No, no, I mean, we'll set, we'll remove those parts, sorry, yeah. So... But then we have to set up the next report and cycle, so we'd say that the next report has to be before the end of the year. Let me suggest it. So, they're saying that we want to maintain the ports, six months. Yeah, six months. Six months? So, we can do a new one, six months, we can do a new one with six months and five months. I think what I'm proposing is on Green Line 7, I'm saying that the project will update committee on at least six monthly intervals. At least six months. Easier is just to delete seven and accept a conservative. I always will live up pulled it. Sorry, sorry. Just for clarity, Councillor Astin's position wasn't seconded. The committee contained just, sorry, apologies, I was like, thank you. Okay, so that's agreed, which is good, isn't it? It's a complex project which dominates the New Zealand Road Times, so it's good that we must achieve it in a way forward. Absolutely. Now, we are 11 minutes past five, but I still think we're quite keen that we give Councillor Bandol and Councillor Parker a small amount of time to move the motions and hopefully formally second them. And then we can go home for someone to eat. Thank you. Do it in 60 seconds. Firstly, thank you, Anga Scarath-Andy for helping with the motion. It is a very simple motion. It makes the point that we will see some changes relating to extended producer responsibility for packaging come through both government which will hopefully improve the Council's financial situation. Council already has some ill-defined, I would suggest plans to support net zero communities as part of its climate strategy, but we do have across the city. Many good community projects which support zero waste and carbon reduction, would it not be a good idea to use that money from extended producer responsibility for packaging to support those kinds of community projects, given the clear link between them and the waste prevention aims of EPR, so let's have officers investigate that. Thank you. Formerly. Consumer buying habits have changed which has resulted in increased packaging being sent to people's homes accelerated through the pandemic to the point where the burden on our waste team is significantly more than it has been in the past. It seems to me that the commercial organization is sending out, not all that packaging or benefiting commercially, and therefore if there is to be funding achieved back from them, it seems only right to me that that should, some of it at least should make its way back to the budget that the waste team operates on there. And very much welcome the initiative to extend that impact into broader recycling and reuse community. Formerly. Thank you, Councillor Aston. I have a verbal adjustment to make which I forgot to mention, so I'm happy to accept that. And the verbal adjustment is just to say if we could have an update to the business bulletin within two cycles with as much detail as far as possible, and then a report later in the year because I think some of the requests in the motion we might not have the information. So it's basically business bulletin two cycles and then a report whenever makes sense. Okay, thank you for a go about that. Thank you. Thank you. Are we happy to prove that? Excellent. Thanks very much. This motion has come about as a result of a very fun and very informative trip. The green group took to see felt waste and recycling center last year, where I noticed that some of the items people were bringing to recycling were actually still in good or repairable condition, which some of the recent race organizations which we are lucky to have in the city could still give a second life to. As the first step, we can signpost residents to these organizations and when I presented this motion to offices, they informed me that they've already been developing in Edinburgh you reuse to, which does just that and went live last week. So thank you for that and thanks for engaging with me on this motion. But as a second step, I would like us to look into how household waste and recycling centers may promote and advance the zero waste hierarchy. For example, by debating reusable and or repairable items to reuse and repair projects, I believe conversations were started on this in 2017 already, but a lot has changed since then. So I would like to start conversations with these organizations again to see what we can do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Approved. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we're sorry we've over run and I'll see you all next time. Bye for now.
• Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]