CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL of Edinburgh... · 2006. 6. 1. · GD I N BVRG H THE CITY OF EDINBURGH...

+ GD I N BVRG H +

THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Committee Mi n Utes

The City of Edinburgh Council Year 2006/2007

Meeting 2 - Thursday 1 June 2006

Edinburgh, 1 June 2006 - At a meeting of The City of Edinburgh Council.

Present: - LORD PROVOST The Right Honourable Lesley Hinds

COUNCILLORS

Elaine Aitken Rev Ewan Aitken Robert C Aldridge Donald Anderson Phil Attridge Jeremy R Balfour Ian J Berry Andrew Burns Robert Cairns Stephen Cardownie Maureen M Child Bill Cunningham Trevor Davies Jennifer A Dawe Michael P Dixon Paul G Edie Edward B Fallon William Fitzpatrick Sheila Gilmore George Grubb The Hon David Guest Kenneth Harrold Ricky Henderson George A Hunter Allan G Jackson Shami Khan Douglas J Kerr Allan Laing John Longstaff

Jim Lowrie Gordon Mac ke nzie Kate MacKenzie Fred Mackintosh Marilyne A MacLaren Elizabeth Mag inn is Lawrence Marshall Mark Mclnnes Eric Milligan Gordon J Munro Ian Murray Jack O’Donnell Liz O’Malley Alastair Paisley Ian Perry Thomas V Ponton Frank K Russell Jason G Rust Andrew A Scobbie Lorna Shiels Kingsley E F Thomas Marjorie Thomas Susan B Tritton David J Walker Phil Wheeler lain Whyte Chris Wigglesworth Donald Wilson

2

The City of Edinburgh Council 1 June2006

1 Licensing of Taxis - Proposed Amendment to Edinburgh's Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers

The outcome of an independent review by Colin Buchanan of the current Council Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers was provided. The review made recommendations on:

Taxis - Condition 181 - The Turning Circle Requirement Taxis - Sliding Doors Taxis - Split Rear Windows Taxis - Powered Steps Taxis - Passenger Access from Both Sides of Vehicle Taxis - Distinguishing from Private Hire Cars Taxis - Advertising Private Hire Cars - Record of Hire Taxis and Private Hire Cars - Receipts

(a) Deputations

(i) John Paton & Sons Ltd and LTI (London Taxis International)

John Loudon detailed his clients' concerns over the proposed changes to the current conditions of fitness for taxis. He outlined areas of concern in relation to public safety, the impact of the change on the existing taxi fleet and the potential loss of the black cab image, which was an easily recognisable part of Edinburgh's character. He added that there was no public demand for the proposed changes.

His clients were of the view that the Buchanan Report had not reviewed the totality of taxi conditions as had been agreed and that the report was opinion-based rather than evidence-based. He stated that Edinburgh should be setting standards for the future not following others standards.

He asked the Council to reject the proposed changes to the licensing conditions and to maintain the status quo and the iconic Edinburgh taxi.

(Reference - e-mail from John Paton & Sons 7 March 2006, submitted).

3

The City of Edinburgh Council I June2006

(ii) Scottish Taxi Federation (STF)

Jim Muldoon and Alan Johnston said that the STF represented the vast majority of taxi drivers. The Council was being asked to make this decision at the request of one vehicle supplier, not the taxi trade or the public. The supplier could comply with the turning circle condition but thought it was too expensive.

If the conditions of fitness were amended it would change the face of taxis in Edinburgh, with an increased variety of vehicles registered as taxis causing customer confusion and affecting personal safety. The black cab was fully wheelchair accessible and there was no evidence to suggest that the alternative vehicles offered an improved service

The Buchanan report did not acknowledge the views of taxi drivers and users of the service; 85% of respondees to a questionnaire had voted to retain the tight turning circle.

Although the taxi trade would like a choice of vehicle this was too high a price to pay and the deputation therefore urged the Council to reject the proposed changes to the licensing conditions.

(Reference - e-mail from Scottish Taxi Federation 8 March 2006, submitted.)

(iii) Democracy Disability and Society Group (DDSG)

Raymond Harland explained that disabled users had been impressed by the E7 taxi as it offered better access for wheelchairs and improved headroom and allowed for the use of leg extensions or a walking aid. Research undertaken by DDSG indicated that there were a number of disabled people who were currently unable to access suitable transport.

Although the DDSG had concerns about the E7, they were confident the vehicle was a safe taxi for disabled users which had the capacity to allow disabled passengers to travel with friends and family and carers. They urged the Council to amend the taxi licensing conditions to allow the use of a vehicle which would give disabled people a greater measure of independence.

(Reference - e-mail from Democracy Disability and Society Group 17 April 2006, submitted.)

4


(iv) Edinburgh Taxi Association (ETA)

Eric Shade and Raymond Davidson said they had a petition of around 600 signatures in support of amending the conditions of fitness for taxis. The E7 vehicle conformed to European safety standards and had been licensed for use as a taxi throughout Europe. The E7 model was of a suitable size and design and was fully accessible to all customers.

The deputation urged the Council to remove condition 181 and to allow a choice of vehicle to both customers and drivers.

(Reference - letter from Edinburgh Taxi Federation 9 May 2006, submitted .)

(v) Edinburgh Disability Equality Forum

Muriel Williams and Maggie Killin stated that although the E7 vehicle was not perfect it was fully accessible for wheelchair users; it provided improved headroom and had the capacity to allow for carers to accompany passengers. The E7 model gave a greater measure of freedom to disabled passengers and the deputation therefore urged the Council to allow the E7 as an optional addition to the Edinburgh taxi fleet.

(Reference - e-mail from Edinburgh Disability Equality Forum 11 May 2006, submitted.)

(vi) Allied Vehicles Ltd

Gerry Facenna stated that there was no evidence to suggest that vehicles without the tight turning circle manoeuvre would be any more dangerous to the public. He explained that Allied were not asking for the tight turning circle requirement to be removed, only that a further choice of vehicles be permitted to be used as taxis. He asked the Council to vote to provide drivers with a choice of vehicle.

(Reference - e-mail from Allied Vehicles 29 May 2006, submitted).

(b) Report by the Director of Corporate Services

The Council was asked to adopt in principle a number of new conditions of licence for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers and to consider whether to accept the consultant’s recommendation to remove condition 181 - the turning circle requirement.

5


Motion

1) To note the outcome and recommendations of the review of the Council's Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers.

2) To specifically note, and agree, the recommendation that the current turning circle requirement, Condition 181, be removed.

3) With respect to all other proposed revisions to the conditions, to accept the recommendations of the Director of Corporate Services.

- moved by Councillor Anderson, seconded by Councillor Maginnis.

Amendment

To express disappointment that the Buchanan Report did not fulfil its remit to "review the totality of taxi licensing conditions without regard to the needs of any specific model or manufacturer" as requested by Council on 24th June 2004 and again on 14th October 2004. In light of the lack of presented evidence, to retain the existing conditions.

- moved by Councillor O'Malley, seconded by Councillor Wheeler

Voting

For the motion - 38 Foramendment - 18

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Anderson.

(Reference - report no CEC/30/06-07/CS by the Director of Corporate Services 5 May 2006, submitted.)

Declaration of Interests

Councillor Cardownie declared a non-financial interest in the above item, took no part in the discussion and did not vote.

Bath Road Waste Facility - Update Report

The future of the current waste transfer facility at Powderhall was being considered as part of the Area Waste Strategy. Regenerate Scotland, a private waste management company with a facility at Bath Road, Leith, had

6

The City of Edinburgh Council I June2006

approached the Council with a view to this facility being used as an alternative to Powderhall.

Deputation - Regenerate Scotland

Joe McCann explained that the Bath Road recycling facility in Leith could provide a suitable, more cost-effective alternative to Powderhall. The use of the facility would be a better, healthier alternative for the environment instead of the use of landfill sites. The Bath Road facility was the only location with the capacity to replace Powderhall. The deputation asked the Council not to accept the recommendation in the report by the Director of Services for Communities.

Report by the Director of Services for Communities

Although the current waste transfer facility at Powderhall was under review, no decision had been taken to use a private waste transfer facility. The proposals by Regenerate Scotland had been evaluated and it was recommended that the Council reject the use of the Bath Road Waste Facility as an alternative to Powderhall.

Decision

To reject the proposals by Regenerate Scotland for the reasons stated in the report by the Director of Services for Communities.

(Reference - report no CEC/31/06-07/SFC by the Director of Services for Communities 25 May 2006, submitted.)

Questions

Questions put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in the Appendix to this minute.

Minutes

Decision

To approve the minute of meeting of the Council of 4 May 2006, as submitted, as a correct record.

7


5 Leader‘s Report

The Leader presented his report to the Council. The following questions were raised:

Councillor Paisley - Licensing Section - staffing levels

Councillor Kate MacKenzie - Recycling of plastic

Councillor Cardownie - P I and P2 composite classes

6 Child Protection: Letter of Assurance to Scottish Ministers

Endorsement was sought for a joint submission to Scottish Ministers from the Council, Lothian and Borders Police and NHS Lothian on the implementation of child protection measures.

Decision

To endorse the draft letter to the Scottish Ministers, as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report by the Chief Executive, in relation to the implementation of child protection measures in the Edinburgh area, subject to the inclusion of comments by Lothian and Borders Police and NHS Lothian.

(Reference - report no CEC/33/06-07/CE by the Chief Executive, submitted.)

7 Waverley Railway Project - Revised Project Governance Structure

An update on the Waverley Railway Project was provided. A new management structure was proposed which would replace the Waverley Railway Joint Committee with the Waverley Railway Strategic Board.

Decision

1) To approve the winding-up of the Waverley Railway Joint Committee.

2) To approve the appointment of the Waverley Railway Strategic Board.

3) To approve the Strategic Board’s Constitution, attached as Appendix 1 to the joint report by the Directors of Corporate Services and City Development, and to delegate the Council’s powers to the Strategic Board for the discharge of their functions and powers but only insofar as wholly and necessarily required for the procurement and delivery of the project.

8


4) To note the Council’s continued support for the project.

5) To appoint Councillors Andrew Burns, Executive Member for Transport and Development, and Lawrence Marshall as the Council’s elected members on the Strategic Board.

6) To appoint the Director of City Development (or substitute) as the Council’s officer member on the Strategic Board.

7) To give a qualified commitment, should a scheme funding shortfall arise in the future, to consider a funding contribution from future capital budgets. This would be reported to the Council at the appropriate time.

(References -Acts of Council No 13 of 13 October 2005 and No I 2 of I 8 August 2005; joint report no CEC/22/06-07/CS&CD by the Directors of Corporate Services and City Development, submitted.)


Councillors Anderson and Davies declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Directors of Shawfair Developments Ltd. Councillor Davies declared a non-financial interest in the item as a member of the Shawfair Joint Management Company.

8 Edinburgh Lifelong Learning Partnership

The findings of the internal audit review into the Council’s involvement with Edinburgh Lifelong Learning Partnership Ltd (ELLP) were reported, together with a response to the questions raised on the matter in a motion by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie. Details were also provided of the governance arrangements for monitoring the company’s delivery of the Council’s aims and objectives.

The personnel issues which arose during the review would be reported by the Monitoring Officer to the Council meeting on 29 June 2006.

Motion

1) To note the report by the Director of Finance.

2) To acknowledge the achievements and benefits Edinburgh Lifelong Learning Partnership (ELLP) had brought to many adult learners in the city and to continue to take part in the ELLP Board.

3) To note with concern the failure of governance in ELLP as outlined in the Director’s report.

9


To instruct all Directors to ensure the lessons learned were incorporated in staff training and guidance for all appropriate staff to prevent the future occurrence of similar governance failings by any companies in which the Council had an interest. c

To instruct the Director of Corporate Services to report on the completion of the legal transfer of City Connect and myEdinburgh resources and domain names to Council ownership.

To reserve the right to review the Council’s position on disciplinary or other action which might still be required, depending on the contents of the Monitoring Officer’s report to the Council meeting on 29 June 2006.

To instruct the Chief Executive to take the following action and report back to the Council:

to review the comments in the Director’s report about the action of staff in the Children and Families Department and take appropriate action;

to review the training and monitoring of staff who were involved in companies as part of their remit;

to review all Council policies and guidance issued to staff to prepare them to deal with companies in which the Council had an interest;

to review the reporting arrangements to the Council of organisations to which it subscribed;

to outline the methods of ensuring good standards of corporate governance in companies in which the Council had an interest; and

to consider whether there was a need to set up an independent compliance unit within the Council, which would be separate from the Companies Team in City Development.

- moved by Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken, seconded by Councillor Maginnis (on behalf of the Labour Group).

Amendment

1) To express concern that the report by the Director of Finance confirmed the allegations made about the operation of Edinburgh Lifelong Learning Partnership (ELLP) that were the substance of the motion to full Council in February 2006.

10


2) To note that the Director’s report raised a concern that the Directors and the Company Secretary of the Partnership and senior Council officers failed to ensure proper control over the operations of the Partnership and public funds invested in the Partnership

3) To note that a report was due from the Monitoring Officer for the full Council on 29 June 2006 on personnel issues relating to this case.

4) To carry out a focused independent inquiry of all aspects of the workings of ELLP, the Cityconnect project and the conduct of the Board of the Partnership and Council officers.

5) To instruct the Chief Executive to report to full Council on 29 June 2006 on the constitution and appropriate remit for the inquiry following consultation with party group leaders.

6) To instruct the Chief Executive to carry out an urgent review to ensure that existing Council policy was being maintained with regard to oversight, audit, report and control of conflicts of interest and conflicts of responsibilities for all companies where the Council had a significant shareholding or significant funding responsibility.

- moved by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie, seconded by Councillor Mackintosh.

Voting

For the motion - 42 votes For the amendment - 14 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken.

(References - Act of Council No 13 of 23 February 2006; report no CEC/31/06- 07/F by the Director of Finance, submitted.)


The Lord Provost and Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken declared a non-financial interest in the above item as Chair and Board member respectively of Edinburgh Lifelong Learning Partnership.

9 Craigmillar Partnership Funding

The findings of an investigation, commissioned by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, into allegations of bias with respect to funding decisions made by the Craigmillar Social Inclusion Partnership and its Funding Panel were presented.

11


Motion

1) To note that it had been the practice in the past for the Council to make recommendations to the Boards of Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPS). However, given the long standing nature of the difficulties encountered by the Craigmillar Partnership and the fact that certain previous recommendations made by the Council had not been accepted by its Board, to direct the Board to make the following changes to its governance and management arrangements:

a) The Craigmillar SIP Funding Panel should be chaired by the Partnership Manager or a Board Member who was not a community representative. The Funding Panel should have a balanced membership reflecting Board membership.

b) In respect of conflict of interest, to make it clear that all members were personally responsible for deciding on the materiality of an interest but should consult the Partnership Manager or the advising Council Officer to assist their decisions when in doubt.

c) Agendas for meetings should have as an early item the opportunity for declarations of interest.

d) Once a member had declared a material interest, he or she may no longer take part in the discussion or voting on matters relating to that interest. In respect of pecuniary interest, the member should leave the meeting during the relevant discussion and voting. (Clarification on what constituted a conflict of interest should be reissued to all members of the Board.)

e) The present arrangement whereby the Council Officer had a vote on the Funding Panel should cease.

f) The Partnership Manager in chairing the Funding Panel, or otherwise, should not have a vote.

g) The practice of tabling papers at meetings of the Board or Funding Panel should be permitted in exceptional circumstances only and should be agreed by all members present.

h) The practice of voting for a package of awards to a number of projects created a difficulty. Any member of the Panel with a declared interest on any one project was unable to exercise a vote on a package of proposals. Agendas should be arranged and votes taken on a project by project basis to minimise the effects of declaration of interests in disenfranchising members.

12


The Partnership Board, or its re-constituted Funding Panel, should re-consider the funding proposals for 2006/7 currently before them with the objective of clarifying the strategic justification for them and removing concerns that they were based on personal interest or adjusting them to achieve this objective.

The Partnership Board should endeavour to make clear to all interested parties the rationale for its funding decisions, including a thorough evaluation of the merits of competing bids based on up-to- date information.

To forward the Monitoring Officer’s report to the Craigmillar Partnership Board for its consideration and adoption of the changes required.

To forward the Monitoring Officer’s report to the following organisations for their interest and, where appropriate, action:

0 Communities Scotland 0 Edinburgh Partnership 0 Capital City Partnership.

To direct the Board of the Craigmillar SIP Funding Panel to make the changes set out in paragraph 1) above and to instruct the Monitoring Officer to report to the Council meeting in January 2007 as to whether these changes had been made.

- moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Cunningham (on behalf of the Labour Group).

Amendment

To note with concern the failure of the Craigmillar Partnership Board to adopt proper rules of corporate governance.

To accept paragraphs I), 2) and 3) of the motion.

To find that the Labour Councillors who were Board members had failed to fulfil their role as Directors, namely by failing to ensure adequate standards of corporate governance and transparency in allocating public funds, despite one of these members holding the Chairmanship of the Board.

To express no confidence that these members could resolve the difficulties which they had allowed to arise.

13


5) Accordingly, to call on Councillors Perry and O’Donnell to resign from their positions as Directors so that the Council might appoint replacement members on a cross-party basis.

- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Paisley (on behalf of the Conservative Group).

Voting

For the motion - 43 votes For the amendment - 13 votes

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Davies.

(References - Executive 23 May 2006 (item 15); report no CEC/34/06-07/MO by the Monitoring Officer; letter dated 31 May 2006 from the Chair of the Craigmillar Partnership Funding Panel, submitted.)


Councillors O’Donnell and Perry declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a Director and Chair respectively of the Craigmillar Partnership Board.

I O OneCity Trust - Progress Report

An update on the development of the independent OneCity Trust, which was operated through Trustees within the Scottish Community Foundation, was provided. As a result of slower than anticipated progress with fundraising, approval was sought for further financial support from the Council.

Decision

1) To approve three-year in principle revenue funding for development work for the OneCity Trust as detailed in the report by the Director of Corporate Services at a recurring level of f29,000, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the Director’s report.

2) To review the level of staff support from 2007108 to match the grant level or to supplement it from other income.

3) To disburse the f 100,000 allocation during 2006/07 to form part of the permanent OneCity Endowment Fund.

14


4) To instruct the Director of Corporate Services to submit a progress report to the Executive in six months.

(References - Executive 30 July 2002 (item 13); report no CEC/23/06-07/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)


The Lord Provost declared a non-financial interest in the above item as President of the OneCity Trust. Councillors Wigglesworth and Mackintosh declared a non-financial interest in the item as Directors of the Trust.

11 National and Regional Sports Facilities Strategy: Appointment of Design Teams

The outcome of the selection process for the appointment of Design Teams in connection with the National and Regional Sports Facilities Strategy was detailed and approval sought to appoint the successful applicants recommended by the strategy’s Project Board.

Decision

To approve the outcome of the selection process and to instruct the Council Solicitor to accept the tenders submitted by the winning organisations.

(References - Act of Council No 14 of 15 September 2005; joint report no CEC/25/06-07/C&L+CD by the Directors of Culture and Leisure and City Development, submitted.)

12 External Audit and Inspection Programme

In response to a motion by Councillor Whyte, the audits and inspections of Council services which had been undertaken in the last five years and those anticipated to take place during the next two years were detailed. The cash and in kind costs to the Council of the audit and inspection programme were also provided.

Decision

To note the report by the Director of Corporate Services.

(References - Act of Council No 21 of 23 March 2006; report no CEC/24/06- 07/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)

15


13 Adoption of Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

Approval was sought for the formal adoption of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan following completion of the required regulatory procedures.

Decision

To adopt the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

(References - Planning Committee 9 March 2006 (item 4); report no CEC/26/06-07/CD by the Director of City Development, submitted.)


Councillor Longstaff declared a non-financial interest in the above item as an objector to the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan and a financial interest in the item in relation to his ownership of property in the Plan area and left the Chamber during the debate on the matter.

14 Chair of the Board of tie Ltd - Appointment

The Recruitment Committee recommended an appointment to the post of Chair of the Board of tie.

Decision

To appoint W G Gallagher as Chair of the Board of tie.

(References - Act of Council no 8 of 23 February 2006; report no CEC/27/06- 07/RC by the Recruitment Committee, submitted.)


Councillors Burns, Child and Wheeler declared a non-financial interest in the above item as non-Executive Directors of tie.

15 Edinburgh Tram Project: Delegated Powers

The Planning Committee had recommended an addition to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers in respect of the determination of prior approval submissions relating to the Edinburgh Tram Project.

16


Decision

1) To extend the Scheme of Delegation to Officers to include “Prior Approval” submissions relating to the Edinburgh Tram Project.

2) In the light of the complexity of the Tram Project and the need for ongoing quality decision making, to instruct the Director of City Development to report (following consultation with TEL) on how an informal working group or forum could be established where local elected members and the transport spokespersons of the political groups on the Council could have an early and effective involvement in the ongoing design work on the Tram Project as it affected local communities during the development, design and construction phases of the project.

(Reference - report no CEC/28/06-07/PC by the Planning Committee, submitted .)


Councillor Mackintosh declared a non-financial interest in the above item as a non-Executive Director of TEL.

16 Realignment of Lower Granton Road - Motion by Councillor Jackson

The following motion by Councillor Jackson was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“The section of Tram Line 1 along the seafront - Le. Starbank Road, Trinity Crescent and Lower Granton Road - is now in Phase 2 and unlikely to be built in the short to medium term.

The tram proposal has held up the realignment of Lower Granton Road. This realignment would mean removing the unnecessary double bend at the Lower Granton Road junction with Trinity Crescentrrrinity Road and moving the carriageway northwards to create more space in front of housing on Lower Granton Road.

Council now calls for an early report on the realignment of Lower Granton Road. The report should focus on:

the estimated cost of such a realignment and how the cost may be offset by any existing or future Section 75 agreements;

the scope for including this realignment project in the Council’s capital budget;

17


any matters which may hold up this urgent and necessary work.”

Decision

1) To approve the motion, subject to the replacement of bullet point 2 with:

the scope for an early inclusion of this realignment project in the Council’s capital budget.

2) To agree that no work should commence on the Trinity CrescenVRoad improvements until funding for the full Lower Granton Road realignment package was identified and in place.

17 Civic Reception - Sighthill Library Team - Motion by Councillor Anderson

The following motion by Councillor Anderson was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“This Council recognises the success of the Sighthill Library Team in being named Outstanding Public Service Team and Local Government Team of the Year at the UK National Public Servants of the Year Awards 2006. Council calls for these achievements to be appropriately honoured through a civic reception.”

Decision


18 World War II Monument - Motion by Councillor Anderson

The following motion by Councillor Anderson was submitted in terms of Standing Order 28:

“Last year, the 60th anniversary of the end of World War I I was marked throughout the country. In Edinburgh this took the form of a Service of Remembrance at St Giles Cathedral, a procession and a ceremony at the Stone of Remembrance here at the City Chambers.

While there are a number of war memorials in Edinburgh, none relate to all those who fought in World War II.

That the Council considers a suitable commemoration to recognise all who fought in World War II; that this should be sited in the city centre, possibly in

18


Princes Street Gardens; and that the Chief Executive is instructed to investigate options and costs.”

Decision


19 Portobello High School - Fire Safety of the Tower Block - Motion by Councillor Berry

The Lord Provost ruled that the following item, notice of which had been given at the beginning of the meeting, be considered as a matter of urgency in order that it be considered timeously.

The following motion by Councillor Berry was submitted in terms of Standing Order 27:

“The Council notes that due to pressure on the maintenance budget in the Children and Families Department, it has not been possible to ensure that all the lifts at Portobello High School remain fully operational at all times. As a result of this, there is increasing use of the stairwells which places additional pressure on these areas and on the associated internal doors, in particular on the fire doors, during peak periods.

An examination of many of these doors has revealed that they are in need of repair or replacement, but that the funds necessary to do so are beyond the affordability of the school’s devolved budget. Council notes that due to higher priorities, particularly in older buildings with few alternative fire evacuation routes, Portobello High School is not included in the ongoing fire upgrade project.

In view of this, the Council instructs the Director of Children and Families, in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer, to report as a matter of urgency on the following:

1) all the potential health and safety implications of the present condition of the stairwells, fire doors and other means of escape from the building;

2) when Portobello High School will be included in the fire safety programme; and

3) the respective responsibilities of the devolved school budget and the Children and Families Department budget for these matters;

the report to be submitted before the consultation exercise in the autumn on the proposed relocation of Portobello High School.”

19

The City of Edinburgh Council 1 June 2006

Decision

To refer the motion to the Executive (including Education) on 20 June 2006.

20 Civic Reception - Heart of Midlothian Football Club - Motion by Councillor Fallon

The Lord Provost ruled that the following item, notice of which had been given at the beginning of the meeting, be considered as a matter of urgency in order that it be considered timeously.

The following motion by Councillor Fallon was submitted in terms of Standing Order 27:

“The City of Edinburgh Council congratulates Heart of Midlothian Football Club on winning the Tennents Scottish Cup season 2005/6 and qualifying for the UEFA Champions League 2006/7 and agrees to hold a civic reception to mark t h e se si g n if i ca n t sport i n g a c h i eve men t s . ”

Decision

To approve the motion by Councillor Fallon.

21 Sir William Y Darling Bequest for Good Citizenship

The Council, in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, excluded the public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business for the reason that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 7(A) of the Act.

Details were given of the nominations for the award of the Sir William Y Darling Bequest for Good Citizenship for the municipal year 2005/2006.

Decision

To award the Sir William Y Darling Bequest for Good Citizenship for the Municipal Year 2005/2006 to Betty Stevenson.

(Reference - report no CEC/29/06-07/CS by the Director of Corporate Services, submitted.)

20


Appendix (As referred to in Act of Council No 3 of 1 June 2006

QUESTION NO. 1

Question

Answer

By Councillor Mackintosh answered by the Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance

When will the report into Edinburgh’s Lifelong Learning Partnership instructed by the full Council on 23 February 2006 as a result of the motion by Councillor Gordon Mackenzie be published?

The report is included on the agenda for this Council,

21

QUESTION NO. 2

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

Question


By Councillor Mackintosh answered by the Executive Member for Children and Fa m i I ies

(1) When was the myedinburgh e-mail service suspended?

(I) The myedinburgh email service has not been suspended.

(2) How many registered e-mail accounts were in operation on the myedinburgh system when it was suspended?

(2) There are currently 5,397 registered accounts. The email service has not been suspended.

(3) Who authorised the suspension of the myedinburgh e-mail service?

(3) See answer to question (1).

(4) Why was the myedinburgh e-mail service suspended?


(5) Was the myedinburgh e-mail service any less secure to users than the public email services operated by Hotmail or Yahoo and if so why?

22


Answer

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

(5) We are not aware of the levels of security offered by Hotmail and Yahoo but all these systems rely on the use of the internet, which is a public network. A recent reminder email was sent to staff highlighting the risks of “forwarding” of Council email to internet based email systems, such as those listed above. Any internal email and file attachments sent to such email addresses would be passed across the internet. There is a risk that this could lead to a security breach with the potential for mail to be intercepted, diverted, copied or lost. The scale of this risk is obviously dependent on the content of the email which has been forwarded. This advice is contained within the current Code of Conduct for Electronic Communications for staff published in 2002. Staff have been advised that if they require access to emails from outside the Council, they should use the Remote Access System rather than forwarding emails to other internet based systems.

(6) What were the terms of the notice sent to the users of the myedinburgh e-mail service informing them of the suspension of the service and when was that notice sent?


(7) What action is being taken to ensure that the circumstances that resulted in the suspension of the myedinburgh e-mail service will not occur again?

(8) See answer to question 1. Further, we are not aware of any wrongdoing in relation to the administration of the myedinburgh email system.

(8) When did the Council first become aware of allegations that the myedinburgh e-mail service was less than secure?

(8) The Council became aware of unsubstantiated allegations on 8 May 2006.

23


Question (9) Are any other e-mail services operated by the Council outwith the operational control of BT Sy nteg ra?

Answer (9) No.

Supplementary Question

My supplementary question is about the answer to question (8) which states that the Council became aware of unsubstantiated allegations about the security of the myedinburgh e-mail service on 8 May 2006. If that is the case, why do I have a copy of an e-mail from a Community Education Manager to the Head of Community Education, dated 30 September 2004 at 12.1 1 so you can find it, on the subject of e-mail forwarding explaining why it’s not suspicious that Council e-mails sent to the myedinburgh address were passing through a third party internet site and server whose name happens to be Wabster,net? Why is someone trying to explain there wasn’t a problem in 2004 if the first time you heard about it was in 2006? Could that have something to do with the fact that no one did a risk assessment on the incorporation of myedinburgh into the Council’s system?

Supplementary Answer referred to Wabster which is separate altogether. If

The question was about myedinburgh. You’ve

you give me the details, I shall investigate and get back to you.

24


QUESTION NO. 3

Question

Question

Answer

By Councillor Mackintosh answered by the Executive Member for Sustainability and Finance

(I) What was the value of capital receipts from the disposal of the Council’s interests in land anticipated for the following financial year in each Council budget from February 1995 until February 2006 inclusive?

(2) What was the value of capital receipts from the disposal of the Council’s interests in land actually received in each financial year 1995/6 until 2005/6 inclusive?

The present Council began in April 1996 and receipt records are from that date.

Since 2003 receipts anticipated and received in any given year have been included in an annual report prepared by the Director of Finance and submitted to the Council in August.

The anticipated capital receipts for the Council’s Capital Investment Programme for each financial year in the period in question 1995/2005 are as undernoted at Table 1.

The actual receipts received for the Council’s Capital Investment Programme in each financial year for the period in question are as undernoted at Table 2.

Receipts from interests in land utilised for specific projects (i.e. as distinct from contributing to the Capital Investment Programme) are as published in the Council’s Corporate Asset Management Plan (January 2006) and as undernoted at Table 3.

25


The information given below needs to be interpreted in the following context:

Anticipated receipts are based on estimates prepared in advance by the Director of Finance in conjunction with the Director of City Development on a three yearly cycle which is then adjusted annually as the programme rolls forward.

Inherent in these estimates will be transactions which later prove abortive for extraneous reasons. The resulting shortfall is carried forward and has to be off-set by substitution transaction which become increasingly harder to identify .

Prior to 2004 receipts taken were subject to annualisation with the need for Section 94 consent .

This means that in the last quartile of each financial year the taking of receipts was often reprofiled 'to balance income against expenditure.

Reports or statements relating to Capital Receipts are by their nature a snapshot in time. Slippage in projected expenditure is reflected in a slowing of Receipts with increased carry over and the programme rolling forward on this basis.

It follows from the above that no meaningful inference one way or the other can be drawn from the juxtaposition of information in Table 1 with that in Table 2 on an annual basis.

Receipts from disposals forming part of the FFF Project are included and are timed to align as far as possible with anticipated expenditure/office relocations.

26

Financial Year 1996/1997 1997/1998


Amount f 13.8m f 9.4m

Table 1 - Anticipated Receipts (Triennial Capital Investment Programme) I99512006

~~~

1998/1999 199912000

f 13.0m f 3.5m

20 05/2 006 TOTAL

f6.6m f 107.7m

Table 2 - Actual Receipts (Capital Investment Program me)

Project

Education PPPl Meggetland Hawkhill Playing Fields Davie Street School TOTAL

Gyle Centre

Table 3 - Property - Linked Receipts Already utilised for specific projects

Amount f 122,000,000 f 30,000,000 f 9,600,000 f2,600,000 f 650 , 000

€1 64,950,000

27

Number of transactions of expected value of:

€250,000 to €499,999


Financial Year Financial Year Financial Year 200314 200415 200516

3 1 1

QUESTION NO. 4 By Councillor Mackintosh answered by the Executive Member for Property and Business Management

Question (1) How many transactions were authorised by a Director, the Executive or the full Council between April 2003 and March 2006 inclusive where the Council was to dispose of an interest in land and expected at the time of authorisation to receive a capital receipt of more than €250,000?

Question (2) Please complete the following table in respect of those transactions:-

I €500,000 to €999,999 I 6 I 1 I 2 I I €1,000,000 and above I 2 I 2 I 4 I

Question (3) How many of the transactions disclosed in the answer to question (1) were completed and the capital receipt received?

(a) (b) (c) (d) transactions remain uncompleted.

within six months of authorisation. within six months to one year of authorisation longer than one year after authorisation.

28

Details

Former abbatoir. Complex claw-back agreement in favour of CEC Vacant ground assembled and sold on to Housing Association Small areas of ground assembled by CPO to create development site for


Value

f475,000

f437,500

f 500,000

Question

onward sale. Former community centre.

(4) What are the locations, details and values and dates of authorisations for any transaction disclosed

f650,OOO

in answer to Question 3 (c) or (d)?

Answer (4)

(c) Completed longer that one year after authorisation:

provision of replacement. Former Greyfriars Hostel.

Location

f550,000

Chesser Avel New Mart Road

Linked to 2 other transactionslprovision of replacement hostel facilities. Former Traverse Theatre. Problem building to be retainedllinked to adjoining transaction. First payment in complex JV with EDI. Former community centre. Linked to transaction with Stevenson College involving replacement facility. Last stage payment after completion of development . ‘Marriage value’ transaction involving former roadwaylwaiver of

Duff Street

f550,817

f5,190,000

f 1,310,000

f275,OOO

f 500,000

Brewery Close, South Queensferry

title burdens. Complex disposal of 2

Davie Street

f 8,962,000

Cowgate

West Bow

Morrison Street/ Hay market Stenhouse Street West

Coalhill

New Mart Road

Lochend Butterfly

Transaction linked to I

sites 1 landlocked. Legal challenge by aggrieved under-bidder.

Date of authorisation 2411 0100

28102102

3010 1 IO 1

1 510 1 102

1 510 1 102

2211 0102

30/07102

0411 210 1

28/03/95

20105103

15/08/00

29

Location

Veitch’s Square, Stockbridge


Details Value Date of authorisation

Car park. Backland. f 506,000 1 0/11/04 Difficult planning -

Coalhill/ Sheriff issues/drief. Land. Linked to 2 other f 770,000 2 810 810 1

Brae

Craig hall Gardens

Lochrin Place

(d) Transactions remaining uncompleted:

transactionslprovision of hostel facilities Former tennis courts. €1,561,000 2 1 /I 0/03 Linked to refurbishment of adjoining changing facilities. Former garage premises. f3,000,000 30/07/02 Linked to redevelopment of adjoining si te/delive ry of Master Plan.

Location Description Value

Morrison Vacant land. Initial €250,000


I am grateful to the Executive member for the answers to this and the previous question.

Date of authorisation 13/02/00

The Scottish Liberal Democrat Group has asked on two occasions for a detailed report on how to improve the efficiency of the capital receipt programme. When is that report due?

Crescent/ West transaction with Housing Approach Road Association collapsed due

to site problems. Included with transaction below at the instance of Planning to help deliver Master Plan.

Brandfield Street Ground. ‘Marriage value’ transaction to help deliver Master Plan for Fountain Brewery redevelopment.

Supplementary Answer

I do not have the date of when that report is to come but I can get it and advise Councillor Mackintosh.

f 1,650,000 0 1 /02/05

30

5 Day 9verage 4,096 3,704

3,325

2,435

2,392

2,283

1,790


Location At Gogarmount 220 metres West 0 Cammo Road, Edinburgh

Calder Road between Saughton Cultins Road & Wester Hailes Road.

Just South of The Jewel, Edinburgh.

Between A720 & Swans ton Avenue, Edinburgh

Lanark Road, between lnglis Green Road & Craiglockhart Avenue,

Seafield Road East, North of Fillyside Road, Edinburgh

QUESTION NO. 5

Question

By Councillor Cunningham answered by the Executive Member for Transport and Development

Could the Executive Member provide average peak (08.00-09.00) AM traffic flows (for combined directions) for the 10 busiest roads within the City of Edinburgh, tabled for Monday through to Friday, and with 5-day total and daily average vehicles per peak AM hour listed.

Answer

Ten Busiest RouteslStreets in Edinburgh - Average Traffic Flows, Combined Direction 08:OO - 09:OO Hours

Route A8 A90

-

A7 1

A I

A702

A70

A I 99

:ordon Outer Outer

-

Outer

Outer

Outer

Middle

Middle

tear !005 !005

-

!005

2004

2005

200:

200t

Mon 4,040 3,521

-

3,156

2,325

2,314

2,293

1,709

Tue !,I 54 3,796

-

3,370

2,418

2,433

2,342

1,813

Wed 1,093 3,793

-

3,433

2,474

2,432

2,368

1,826

Thu 1,180 3,831

3,372

2,465

2,461

2,383

1,838

- Fri

1,014 3,581

3,294

2,495

2,321

2,029

1,762

-

m i T Total 20,481 18,522

-

16,625

12,177

11,961

11,415

8,952

Route A900 -

5 Day Average

1,790

1,701

1,434

Zolinton Road

Location Leith Walk, between Brunswick Road & Albert Street, Edinburgh

Colinton Road, between Glenlockhart Valley & Craiglockhart Avenue, Edinburgh

Straiton Road, approx 55 metres South of Burdiehouse Square

A70 1

Zordon AQS

Outer

Outer

- fear !004 -

- ,005

2005

Mon 1,725 -

1,626

1,372

31


Tue 1,801 -

1,679

1,470

Wed 1,845 -

1,743

1,455

AQS = Air Quality Monitoring Site. Source: ATC Annual Analysis, 2005 & 2004

Thu 1,802 -

1,749

1,476

Fri 1,775 -

1,707

1,397

5 Day Total 8,948

8,504

7,170

32

QUESTION NO. 6

Question

Question

Answer


By Co u nc i I lor Jackson answered by the Executive Member for Sport, Culture and Tourism

(I) The “Adult Membership Form” for Edinburgh’s Libraries lists the “Council Tax Book” as one of the acceptable proofs of identity.

In response to my questions on the scrapping of the Council Tax Book last month Councillor Child stated that “No Councillor was briefed by me on this ... issue”. Do you think she should have mentioned it to you to enable you to organise a change in the membership form?

(2) If not, why not?

The Library Service is aware of the scrapping of the Council Tax Book and is taking steps to ensure that it no longer appears on the membership forms.

It appeared on the form only as one of ten examples listed as acceptable proof of identification for library membership.

As the Library Service is shortly planning to introduce a membership book for each library, to be signed by new library members, to break down barriers to use, only very small print runs of membership forms are being ordered and stocked as they are due to be phased out.

33



The question hasn’t really been answered so I’ll make up my own answer. I am delighted to see that the Library Service is now aware of the scrapping of the Council Tax Book, albeit they are still ordering these forms, presumably since I raised the question. I was wondering if there was any chance, suggestion or possibility that in the last 11 months or so of Labour rule in Edinburgh, Executive members will consult each other to give departments time to do things or is it really just too late for you to bother?


If Councillor Jackson is asking if we discuss plans with each other and if departments work together, then the answer is yes, they do.

34


QUESTION NO. 7

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

Question

Answer

Question

By Councillor Paisley answered by the Executive Member for Education and Care Standards and ICT

(1) How many e-mails have been blocked by our system in the last year?

(1) It is estimated that over 1,290,000 emails were blocked by the filtering system in 2005/6. Of the emails blocked by the filters only 7,668 (0.65%) were subsequently released on the request of users.

(2) Does BT Syntegra make a charge to release each blocked e-mail?

(2) Within the annual core contract charge paid to BT the Council is provided with access to labour resources equivalent to 52.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) each year. The Council uses a proportion of this pre-paid labour resource to release blocked e-mails.

(3) If the answer to (2) is yes, how much is this charge per e-mail?

(3) Each e-mail released incurs a debit against the pre- paid labour resource allocation referred to at Q2 above. This debit is equivalent to 8.7 minutes of the time of a Technical Support Specialist (TSS).

(4) What has been the total cost to this Council for unblocking e-mails in the last year?

35


Answer (4)



The Council used the equivalent of 0.7FTE of a Technical Support Specialist (TSS) from the pre- paid labour resource allocation for the release of e-mail in 200516.

I’ve never seen such a complex answer to a simple question. I was looking for the cost of these blocked e-mails. I’ve had to look at the average cost of a technical support specialist, take his salary, check it through and it works out basically that every blocked e-mail that comes to the Council costs between f 2 and f 4 . So on the basis of the 7000 or so that have been blocked, we spent f23,000, as best I can establish, on blocked e-mails many of which are bona fide - Councillor Wilson’s e-mails from the Science Festival are blocked - and we are having to pay to get them released. Is it the fault of our system that it is not able to accommodate some of these or is there some other reason why we’re blocking these e-mails and what action does the Executive member propose to take to save the Council f23,OOO per annum?

With respect, in actual fact I think the problem is that Councillor Paisley hasn’t understood the answer and that may be due to the fact that he considers it to be unduly complicated, so let me clarify.

The question simplified is do we delineate the cost for each individual e-mail? The answer is no, we do not. We pay a block core grant to Technical Support Services and it’s the same that we’ve agreed to pay for all the technical support services, we do not delineate one particular cost per e-mail. So, the answer is no, we don’t have that figure because we don’t do it that way. The way it is outlined here, albeit maybe complex, is in fact the way that we actually pay for this particular service. would also ask that, if Councillor Paisley is questioning the value for money of that, how long he thinks it would take in officer time, which of course is money, to deal with 1.29 million e-mails which would otherwise flood the e-mail system.

I

The cost would be absolutely prohibitive. I think it’s excellent value for money if we pay this very small amount to unblock e-mails, 7000 of which would

36


actually, and this has been brought up on many occasions, flood the e-mail service of the Council and take a huge amount of time to deal with.

WPJICECICECOI 0606IAS

CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL of Edinburgh... · 2006. 6. 1. · GD I N BVRG H THE CITY OF EDINBURGH...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL of Edinburgh... · 2006. 6. 1. · GD I N BVRG H THE CITY OF EDINBURGH...