Plans for £35m Edinburgh George Street revamp backed
Plans for a major redevelopment of one of the Edinburgh New Town's main streets have been backed by city councillors, despite fears over a lack of funding.The estimated £35m revamp of George Street will see parking down the centre of the street removed, a new cycle lane and traffic restrictions introduced.The council hopes money for the project will come from the new visitor levy and through Scottish government and Transport Scotland funding schemes.But concerns have been raised about the current financial situation and how likely it will be to secure all the money for the project.
If funding is found, construction is scheduled to start after the Edinburgh Festival in 2027 with a completion date of August or September 2030.At a meeting on Thursday, councillors voted six to five in favour of backing the most expansive – and expensive - proposal.The approved George Street revamp will include more space for pedestrians, seating areas, trees and raised planters.Vehicle access will be restricted at certain times to just taxis and delivery vehicles, with "hostile vehicle mitigation" bollards controlling access at entry points.
Most expansive and expensive plan
Opposition councillors expressed concern over the scheme's practicality, instead calling for £10m to be spent on properly maintaining the existing street layout.But council officers said this would not meet the city's street design guidelines and would not qualify for funding from public bodies. Conservative councillor for the City Centre ward Joanna Mowat said: "We've been talking for nearly 11 years now."The elephant in the room is that we still don't have any money, and are reliant on applying to third parties and having this money granted to us before we can put a shovel in the ground."Two lesser options, costing £13m and £20m, which would cut out certain elements of the full scheme, were also proposed but voted against.The council said that if adequate funding for the project cannot be found, councillors will be able to scale back to one of these less ambitious options.Transport and Environment Committee convener Stephen Jenkinson said: "This is a unique opportunity to bring one of Edinburgh's most important streets into the modern world whilst still maintaining its unique history and features."The wider potential improvements are vast, from benefits to local residents and businesses to enhancing Edinburgh as a visitor destination, and beyond."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump wins tax breaks for US with threat of ‘revenge' raid on foreign business
Donald Trump has extracted tax breaks for US companies after threatening to impose a 'revenge' levy on foreign businesses that moved money out of the US. G7 countries are to abandon plans to make US companies pay a minimum level of corporation tax in return for Mr Trump dropping the threat of 'revenge tax'. Scott Bessent, the US Treasury secretary, said that he has asked both houses of the US Congress to remove a Trump's tax proposal, known as Section 899, from the budget bill after an agreement with the other G7 countries. Section 899 is part of Mr Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and spend bill, and would have enabled the US president to retaliate against countries that harm American interests with 'discriminatory' tax policies by taxing any money taken out of the country. The power threatened to be hugely costly to British businesses. Some of Britain's biggest companies, including AstraZeneca, BAE and Barclays, have significant operations in the US that could be at risk of being targeted. Fears had mounted that the powers could be used on the UK as a way of forcing Sir Keir Starmer to water down or abolish Britain's digital service tax, which applies to US tech giants. On Thursday night, Mr Bessent wrote on X: 'After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests. 'President Trump paved the way for this historic achievement. On January 20, the President issued two executive orders instructing [the US] Treasury to defend US tax sovereignty, and as a result of President Trump's leadership we now have a great deal for the American people.' Mr Bessent said the G7 had agreed not to impose what is known as OECD Pillar 2 on US companies. That refers to a 15pc minimum corporate tax rate, which was agreed in principle by 140 countries to be imposed on companies with global revenues of more than €750m (£639m). The idea was to stop multinationals shunting profits from one country to another to take advantage of lower tax rates. Economists complained that it would be only a matter of time before the minimum rate was hiked, locking countries into ever-higher taxes, globally enforced. Joe Biden was an enthusiastic backer of a global minimum rate of corporation tax. Mr Bessent said: 'By reversing the Biden administration's unwise commitments, we are now protecting our nation's authority to enact tax policies that serve the interests of American businesses and workers.' Mr Trump had claimed that the tax deal 'not only allows extraterritorial jurisdiction over American income but also limits our nation's ability to enact tax policies that serve the interests of American businesses and workers'.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Fact Check: Context missed from comparison touted as evidence of UK's two-tier religious freedom
A side-by-side comparison of two videos - one showing police taking a street preacher's microphone and another of a man reciting the Islamic call to prayer from a London landmark – misses context in online posts that claim it is evidence of a two-tier system of religious freedom in Britain. 'British police take away Christian preacher's microphone because his prayers were causing anxiety to some,' said a June 9 post, opens new tab on Facebook sharing screenshots of the two videos. 'Muslims can do what they want, they don't seem to cause anxiety,' the post added, referring to the call to prayer. 'UK is lost.' A similar post on X, opens new tab received 1 million views. However, a spokesperson for Sussex Police said in an email the preacher had his microphone briefly removed so a police officer could talk to him. The microphone was later returned to him, the spokesperson added, as evidenced by a fuller version, opens new tab of the video, at timecode 02:59., opens new tab In a statement, Sussex Police said officers were called to London Road, Brighton, on March 10, amid reports of hate speech being broadcast. Officers spoke to a man performing a speech, but no offences were identified. Police left the scene without taking any action and the man was not arrested. The European Convention on Human Rights, opens new tab guarantees freedoms of religion (article 9) and expression (article 10) in the UK, meaning street preaching is lawful. However, if the speech is threatening or abusive or causes hatred, it may constitute an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, opens new tab. Nevertheless, the law does not make a distinction between religions, James Holt, an associate professor of religious education at the University of Chester, said in an interview with Reuters. The second video - the subject of a separate Reuters fact-check article in 2021 - shows British-Bangladeshi entrepreneur Kazi Rahman reciting the call to prayer from Tower Bridge. A spokesperson for Tower Bridge said in an email that organisers of the recital - which happened on May 7, 2021, to mark the last Friday of Ramadan - had sought permission from the City of London Corporation in April 2021. The City of London Corporation declined to comment. The preacher in Brighton did not respond to a request for comment. Missing context. Police temporarily removed the Brighton preacher's microphone, and a longer version of the video shows it was returned. Permission for the Tower Bridge Islamic call to prayer was sought and granted at least a week before the recital. This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
No 10 gags civil servants to stop them speaking out in public
Sir Keir Starmer has gagged senior health officials, military leaders and even the head of the civil service from speaking openly in public, in a move that has been described as a 'chilling' attack on free speech. In an edict issued across Whitehall, Downing Street has warned public sector officials not to talk at open events where their comments have not been vetted in advance. They have also been barred from taking part in any public question-and-answer sessions — even if they are part of an industry event. The rules also apply to media briefings on issues such as public health, carried out by senior figures such as the chief medical and scientific officers. While these can go ahead they must be cleared in advance by Downing Street and have a minister or special adviser in attendance. Those affected include public sector officials working for arms-length bodies such as the media regulator Ofcom and the education inspectorate Ofsted, which have operational independence from the government. The rules also apply to senior health leaders, diplomats and military officers. The edict has already led to cancellation or curtailment of a number of public events where senior government officials were due to speak. The Whitehall think tank the Institute for Government (IFG) was forced to cancel an event on Tuesday which was due to discuss Labour's new approach to public sector spending after Nick Donlevy, a senior civil servant at the Treasury, was made to pull out. Last week the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) told journalists attending a land warfare conference that they would not be able to report on a speech by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the chief of the air staff, who is expected to become head of the armed forces. • No 10 gags military chiefs at events where a minister is present The think tank said there had been a change in 'reporting rules relating to speakers from the British armed forces'. It said that the majority of speeches and panel appearances by British personnel 'will not be for reporting', whereas those by individuals from foreign militaries will be. Sources confirmed that the change had been forced on Rusi by the new Downing Street senior Whitehall figure said the move had been made to prevent high-profile officials from causing 'problems' for the government by using speeches to 'lobby ministers in public' or criticising spending plans or government policy. However, it has caused unease both inside and outside the government with one senior source describing it as 'unnecessary' and heavy-handed. 'It's the usual desire of No 10 to control absolutely everything without thinking through the consequences,' the source said. 'The idea that even the cabinet secretary cannot take part in a public question-and-answer event is both misguided and counterproductive.' Another added: 'This is mad on so many levels.' Alex Thomas, programme director at the IFG, said the rules would have a 'chilling effect' on public debate. 'This will lead to a more closed government and less effective policymaking,' he said. • Foreign Office staff told to resign if they don't like Gaza stance 'Openness is one of the seven principles of public life and it cannot be a good thing that officials that are responsible for the day-to-day running of critical public services will no longer be able to attend, speak, and answer questions at events.' 'Ministers will always be the main public spokespeople for government activity but this is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.' Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the move as 'outrageous'. He said: 'This unprecedented ban on civil servants speaking in public will damage public debate, politics, policymaking and the civil service itself. What are they thinking?' Baroness Spielman of Durlston, the former head of Ofsted and now a Conservative peer, said the restriction was 'astonishing and unworkable'. She added that it would force bodies like Ofsted to cancel interactive stakeholder events without a minister present and slow down communication. 'Government grinds too slowly and this will jam the works completely,' she said. Sir John Kingman, a former permanent secretary at the Treasury, said that when he worked for government he would participate in an event involving questions most days. 'It was quite an important part of the job because many people understandably want to know what the government thinks and why, and want a chance to discuss it,' he said. A Downing Street source insisted the guidance was not heavy-handed and would be looked at on a 'case by case' basis. But No 10 said it reflected the principle that ministers were responsible for representing the government in public — rather than officials. A Cabinet Office spokesman said that the rules around media engagement were 'longstanding and established'. 'It has always been the case, and a constitutional principle, that ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making to parliament and the public — so it is right they are routinely scrutinised by the media and MPs.'
