City mobility plan passed despite concerns
A new scheme to prioritise Edinburgh infrastructure projects has been approved by councillors, despite some of them holding concerns over several issues.
The new City Mobility Plan aims to determine which projects the city will prioritise working on in the next decade.
Officers recommended that councillors accept a priority list which saw 73 projects approved to go ahead, and 61 others paused – with most either not having been started yet or having already been paused before the plan's release.
Labour councillor Stephen Jenkinson, who convenes the Transport and Environment Committee, heralded the plan, saying the time to take action was now, and that it is a 'a necessary piece of work.'
But some councillors raised concerns over the priority list, questioning the system used to select projects to carry out or pause and the geographic distribution of projects.
Infrastructure projects were scored on a matrix which judged elements of each, such as cost effectiveness and benefit for public transport – but some projects with higher scores were paused, while others with lower scores were approved.
Liberal Democrat councillor Kevin Lang said: 'Coming into this committee meeting, I feel like I had two fundamental issues with this report. Now I feel like I'll leave with three.
'The first is around what has been quite a complex scoring matrix. I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask, [why do] you get a project scoring 20 paused when a project with 10 is proceeding?
'My second worry is around deliverability. I completely admire and respect the optimism that exists. Let's be frank, this is a council that can take three years to change a speed limit and six years to put in a speedbump.'
Lang's third concern was about developers' compliance with section 75 orders, which involve developer contributions to infrastructure projects.
Earlier in the meeting, a council officer said that most projects were continued or paused based on their score, but that some broke from this pattern due to extenuating circumstances, such as projects being eligible for certain bespoke funding.
The Liberal Democrat group had lodged an amendment calling on the report to be paused, giving councillors and officers more time to look at it.
Meanwhile, the Conservative group put forward their own list of projects to be continued and paused, using different scoring criteria.
Conservative councillor Neil Cuthbert, representing Colinton/Fairmilehead, asked officers: 'It does feel like a report for lovers of spreadsheets. Just looking at the different projects, I don't think it's any surprise that the ward with the most projects is the city centre.
'The wards with the second and third most projects are Forth and Almond. I don't want to go through the list, but Colinton/Fairmile is at the bottom of the list. There's two [projects].
'I wondered if there's any comments about why there does appear to be quite a disparity in a lot of different areas?'
Council officer Sheila Paton said: 'This is a long legacy and history of projects that have come forward over the years. We haven't deliberately tried to exclude any geographical areas, as I'm sure you can imagine.
'In terms of the focus on the city centre, we have a sense of how much of the proposed ten year programme would potentially be dedicated to the city centre.
'And we feel like it's in proportion with how complicated the city centre is, how important it is.'
Interim Executive Director of Place Gareth Barwell added: 'This list here hasn't added new schemes. This is officers broadly trawling through the commitments of this committee.
'A lot of these are actions we've inherited due to growth and development.'
The SNP group put forward an amendment adding three projects to the 'proceed' list, while the Green group wanted to see council officers begin looking at a congestion charge in the capital as a possible infrastructure funding source.
At a vote, seven councillors supported a joint Labour, SNP and Green position, while two supported the Conservative position and two supported the Liberal Democrat position.
Cllr Jenkinson said: 'I'm really pleased that we've agreed this bold programme for our city. Prioritisation allows us to work smarter with the resources we have available – making sure we have a clear and achievable path to achieving our objectives.
'This programme follows the successes of major infrastructure projects such as Trams to Newhaven and active travel projects including the City Centre West to East Link (CCWEL), Roseburn to Union Canal and Leith Connections.
'This is an extensive piece of work which allows the City Mobility Plan to be agile, and able to adapt in the future as necessary.'
Three projects were added to the list after amendments by political groups, and a fourth was added pending further work on how to fund it.
Among these was the Causey project, which seeks to turn the traffic island at the junction of West Crosscauseway and Buccleuch Street into a public events space.
The project, which campaigners have spent over a decade seeking funding for, was added to the priority list as a result of an SNP amendment.
The group also got the Portobello Town Centre project, which seeks to widen footways and reduce road traffic in the area, and a new cycle link over the bypass near Heriot Watt, over the line.
An amendment by the city's Labour administration, meanwhile, got approval for the funding of more toilets for bus drivers at the ends of routes, pending finding a funding source.
Cllr Jenkinson said: 'The project which I've identified as part of my amendment is a very particular project. It is currently marked for pause, but just for this financial year.
'The topic itself of provision of bus driver toilets at key locations, which are predominantly the terminuses for buses, is a very important one.
'Personally, and I hope the committee will agree, that it's a project that, once the uncertainty around funding is clarified, is unpaused.'
Graeme Smith, an industrial officer for Unite, which covers Lothian Buses, said: 'Access to a toilet at work is a basic right so it is important that the Council gets this right for our members in passenger transport.
'This is a matter of health and safety. It is also an equalities issue, more acutely impacting workers who are older, pregnant or have a health condition.'
By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter
Like this:
Like
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner faces Labour backbench rebellion over her plans to build 1.5million new homes in England by 2029
could face a backbench rebellion from Labour MPs over the party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. The Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary is fronting the Government's 'radical' overhaul of the planning system, which aims to revive housing targets for local councils and 'get Britain building again'. Its plans would require 370,000 homes to be built each year, which industry leaders claim there is 'little chance' of reaching as figures show the party is already falling short of its target by 170,000. And now, in the latest a blow to Ms Rayner's housebuilding goals, one Labour MP has threatened to trigger civil war over his demands to find a 'progressive alternative' to parts of her proposals. Labour 's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill ahead of its debate in Parliament on Monday. The North East Hertfordshire MP has suggested arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building. Mr Hinchliff has claimed he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. Mr Hinchliff said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election - 'growth' - he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need - the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties - they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' - a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. These amendments should be withdrawn.' The prospect of a backbench rebellion sparks another blow to the Government's housebuilding plans just one day after a report cast doubt on whether it would be able to meet its 2029 target at all. A bleak report by the Home Builders Federation yesterday showed Labour is falling short of its target by 170,000 homes a year. Industry leaders said the data was 'disastrous' and without urgent support from ministers there is 'little chance' of reaching the goal. Just 39,170 homes were given planning permission in England in the first three months of the year – the lowest quarterly figure since records began. That was a 55 per cent drop on the previous quarter and almost 32 per cent lower than a year earlier. The 225,067 units given approval in the 12 months to the end of March was the worst performance in 12 years. The federation said its data 'starkly illustrates the urgent need for Government to address the barriers to housing supply' if they are to get 'anywhere near the much-vaunted' target.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reform is a serious political force in Scotland but Tories in trouble
Formerly a seat where the SNP could be confident of winning a substantial majority, Hamilton is now a marginal seat for the first time, with a Labour majority of just 602 votes over the SNP. Reform UK is clearly on the march in Scotland, and this result bears out the surge in support for the party seen in British-wide opinion polls so far this year, with over a quarter of voters who turned out in Hamilton casting their vote for the party. Read more It would be wrong to read too much into one by-election result. By-elections are unusual events, where governments tend to lose support, people may vote in protest and turnout is typically much lower than at Holyrood elections. Nonetheless, the result in Hamilton will matter to all Scotland's parties for its symbolic importance ahead of next May's Scottish Parliament elections. For Scottish Labour, this by-election win will help to reverse the recent narrative of Labour decline. Following the party's slump in the polls over the last 10 months, the result signals that Labour can still win in Scotland and will put wind back in the party's sails. It underlines that listening to and acting on voters' concerns can help to turn the party's fortunes around – Keir Starmer's announcement of a U-turn on cuts to the winter fuel payment may well have helped the party's popularity among voters in Hamilton. The win will also give the UK Labour Party a much-needed boost, after its heavy losses in parts of England at May's local elections, losing the Runcorn by-election to Reform UK and trailing 7 points behind Reform UK in the polls UK-wide. Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England (Image: free) The result is a major blow to the SNP, who were widely tipped to win the seat. While incumbent governments tend to suffer at by-elections, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is the kind of central belt seat that the SNP will need to retain if it is to hold onto power in Scotland next May. This result is an early sign that that will be a tough contest. The SNP has topped recent national polls, with a double-digit lead over Scottish Labour – a remarkable position for a party that has been in power in Scotland for 18 years. This by-election will be an unwelcome reminder that voters' preferences can and do shift. While John Swinney is widely seen as having steadied the ship since his election as party leader last May – and is the least unpopular of any of the party leaders among voters – this result suggests more turbulent times may lie ahead for the SNP. Reform UK were the unknown quantity ahead of this by-election. Their performance in Hamilton, finishing less than 1,000 votes behind the SNP, proves that the party can attract significant swathes of voters north of the border as well as in England. The result emphasises that Reform UK are now a serious political force in Scotland. Ahead of the next Holyrood elections, the party has a real opportunity to paint itself as the home for voters who want change. While Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England, this does not appear to have been holding the party back in the polls – reflecting that the rise of Reform UK may be being driven by wider public dissatisfaction and the unpopularity of other parties more than by views of its leadership. The result signals continued gloom for the Conservatives in Scotland. While the party was widely expected to come fourth, this was a poor result for Russell Findlay's party, who managed to hang onto their deposit with 6% of the vote. Read more The pattern seen in recent Scotland polls of the Conservatives haemorrhaging voter support to Reform has been borne out at this by-election. On this evidence, the Conservatives have a mountain to climb if they are to convince Scottish voters to lend them their votes next May. Will the result in Hamilton turn out to be a sign of which way the electoral winds are blowing ahead of Holyrood elections next May? It certainly underlines that this is a time of volatility in Scottish politics and shifting voter preferences. While Anas Sarwar and his team will take heart from this win, Scottish Labour's fortunes are closely connected with those of the UK party. How Scotland's voters are feeling about the UK Government's performance under Keir Starmer's leadership is likely to be an important factor shaping voter support at the ballot box. If it is to take seats from the SNP next May, Scottish Labour needs to show those who voted for the UK party at the General Election because of issues like public services, the cost of living and inequality that they were right to do so. Emily Gray, Managing Director, Ipsos Scotland
Edinburgh Reporter
4 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection
In just under a year's time the Scottish Parliamentary election will have decided who will be running the government for the following five years. As is the way of the polls there are some showing that Labour will win, and others that the SNP will win. The proportional representation by which MSPs are elected is not supposed to return a majority government – it happened only once, unusually, with the SNP under Alex Salmond in 2011. Labour won most seats and most votes in 1999 and 2003 but no overall majority. In 2021 the SNP was one short of a majority (there are 129 seats so the majority is 65). In an effort to do business more easily, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens and Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, the co-conveners of the party became government ministers. Now that there is one year before the election Lorna Slater said that her party offers the 'real, hopeful' and 'transformative' change that Scotland needs. We met with Ms Slater on the day when the programme for government was about to be announced by John Swinney the First Minister. She did not believe it would bring many changes, but was proved wrong on one policy – the scrapping of peak rail fares. However the Scottish Greens later responded to the announcement to say that while very welcome and a 'huge win for commuters and climate' the policy change amounted to a U-turn by the government. They also pointed out that this policy was 'initially secured by the Scottish Greens through budget negotiations in 2023 before it was then dropped by the SNP who said the numbers did not stack up to allow them to continue supporting it'. Ahead of the Programme for Government Ms Slater – who hopes to be selected to stand as Green candidate next year, and who hopes to continue as co-leader after an internal election in the summer, said: 'I don't think there'll be any new news. I think it will absolutely be a holding pattern. They don't have a plan for bringing down people's bills, because that would involve having an ambitious heat and buildings bill to insulate homes and improve the grant system and really roll out that programme. 'I think that they're going to kind of curl in on themselves and be unambitious because they're worried about doing anything ambitious before an election.' Out of government Asked if she misses being in government Ms Slater said: 'I really miss the ambitious positive energy we have because we had some really good, ambitious things going, and all the bills that have come out since we've been in government without our influence have been gutted. 'Natural Environment Bill, gutted, heat in buildings Bill, gutted, rent controls watered down. And it just goes to show that with the Greens in there, we were much more ambitious on taking practical action on climate, much more ambitious on tackling landlords, tackling polluting corporations, tackling the vested interests – and the SNP have a lot less interest in that. They have much more interest in keeping things as they are, sort of steadying the ship instead of making big change. And the Greens were about making that big change.' As to the fallout from Scotland's deposit return scheme which has landed the government in court, being sued by Biffa for their expenses getting ready for legislation which did not materialise, she is matter of fact. She said: 'The legislation for that was, of course, passed before I was elected. So in 2020 Scottish Parliament agreed that Scotland would have a deposit return scheme. So that already existed before I was in post, my role was to work with industry to implement that scheme. And that I did, we were weeks away from launching the scheme. 'We had nearly all the producers in Scotland lined up. I think it was 95% of the items that were on shelves in Scotland. The producers of those items had paid their money. They were part of the scheme and we had a workable scheme. It would absolutely have launched on time. It would have had maybe a bit of a rocky start, a bit of a phasing in period, but we absolutely would have launched on time. 'But then because Alister Jack (then Secretary of State for Scotland) interfered with it from February 2023 by putting doubts in the media, (and that was despite the fact that he had stood on Boris Johnson's manifesto to implement a deposit return scheme with with glass), he was able to use the internal market act to veto the scheme. 'Alister Jack never gave any justification or basis for that interference. We asked repeatedly why he didn't want glass in the scheme. He never produced any evidence for that. So that was purely political interference in terms of the scheme itself.' At the time in April 2023 the Scottish Greens called for an investigation into the comments Mr Jack made, saying he had misled the House of Commons. Ms Slater said that this particular interference shows how the Internal Market Act has been used to 'stifle devolution'. She said: ' The deposit return scheme was a fully devolved matter, protecting the environment, recycling schemes – all fully devolved. That the internal market act can be used to undermine Scotland's ambitions and to harm Scottish businesses is a shocking state of affairs.' Under the still relatively new UK government administration she still holds the view that devolution is under threat. She said: 'It's an interesting question about how the Labour government is going to treat this. I have noted of course, that Wales is being allowed to continue forward with a deposit return scheme that has glass in it, even though that does interfere with the Internal market act. So why can't Scotland? Why does Wales get a free pass, and Scotland doesn't. So it isn't clear at all that Keir Starmer is changing direction. He hasn't said he will repeal or even revise the internal market act. So the status quo remains. It depends on the goodwill of individual ministers.' One of the reasons that the Scottish Greens and the SNP made for a relatively easy marriage was over the question of independence on which they agree. Ms Slater said: 'I'm a proponent of Scottish independence, and that is the only way we can be sure to put in place plans and programs that we know won't be interfered with by the UK government.' Whether or not I am selected as a candidate, the Scottish Greens will be standing on being a proudly progressive party of Scottish independence. Other parties, Labour, SNP, have conceded that left ground are moving toward the centre. They're allowing Reform to pull them in that rightward direction. You can see that with Labour, with its anti immigration policies, with its neglect of the social security net, the betrayal of the WASPI women, betrayal of disabled people, people who need benefits to live on – sick and disabled people. 'The Scottish Greens will not betray that ground. We are solidly behind equalities. We are absolutely trans rights supporters. We are absolutely in favour of ambitious work toward net zero. We are not going to give this ground. All of these things are really important to us. Human rights are important to us. A secure social safety net. Taxing the rich to pay for it is something we will we are not shy about saying, the rich for too long, have been under taxed. Have increased their wealth enormously well the poorest suffer. We have hungry children in this country. We also have billionaires. The Scottish Greens don't think that that's right, and that's the ground that we are going to contest the election.' This then shows little change in any policy which the party has stood on before – and their numbers improved at the last election. She continued: 'We are a party of values. We are a value led party. We believe in peace, equality, sustainability and human rights. Radical local democracy. We are not going to change our values, we believe that we set out a vision for a fairer, greener, independent Scotland, and it's how effectively we can persuade people that we have the power to implement such a vision, that it is possible that the future can be brilliant. We just have to decide to make it so. Constituency As to her constituents in Lothians they tell the stories of poverty and lack of benefits that are heard all too often. Ms Slater said that at the top of people's minds is their 'quality of life, and that includes everything from being able to pay their rent, being able to find housing in Edinburgh to anti social behaviour, whether it's in Portobello or Corstorphine. And people are experiencing anti social, social behaviour in the streets, all the usual troubles that go with having an NHS and care system industry and people being able to find places for loved ones in care homes people being able to get medical procedures in a timely manner. 'All those things are, of course, what people are concerned with. We also get a reasonable amount of case work because of decisions of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Those are decisions that are not taken it at the Scottish level, but we work with constituents who are, you know, facing exorbitant fees, deportation, uncertainty in their visa status because of paperwork problems, those are all the kind of things we can support people with.' But there is at least one small chink of light. Asked if it is easier to work with the UK Government under Labour she concedes it is 'slightly easier, yes it is slightly easier. The Conservative government was extremely hostile to Scottish interests. Some of their MPs wouldn't take, correspondence from MSPs, wouldn't help our constituents if they went through an MSP – so they had to always go through an MP. 'I think things are definitely more cooperative, but it doesn't solve the problem that so much of what we need to do we can't help people with because it has to go to London, because it's not devolved. 'And every single day we come across things, Oh, can we help with this? No, it's not devolved. If only Scotland were an independent country, we could take action these things, and that is frustrating every single day.' Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related
