Category Archives: Council Policy

Living Streets webinar on Local Place Plans

Consultation Response, Council Policy, Public Event,

The webinar on Local Place Plans has now taken place. You can watch the webinar here:-

Local Place Plan webinar – from Living Streets Edinburgh

It’s time for our first webinar of the year! It’s for anyone interested in Local Place Plans, and how they can positively impact your community. You might be working on one already.

A Local Place Plan allows you to shape the future of your local area by creating a plan that addresses local needs or concerns. All LPPs must be submitted by September 2026 and will be considered by the Council as it develops the City Plan 2040.

LPPs include things like:

  • where new homes will be built and what kind of homes are built
  • providing services that people need within easy reach
  • making sure there are enough places of work within the city
  • improving walking, wheeling and cycling routes and access to public transport
  • supporting residents physical and mental wellbeing
  • protecting the natural environment
  • responding to the climate crisis, such as adapting to increased flood risk

Improving walking and wheeling routes is our bread and butter, and we want to empower community councils and groups to work on and submit their LLPs before September.

For the webinar we have two speakers:

  • Anna Grant of the development planning team, Edinburgh Council
  • Joanna McClelland, accredited conservation architect and founder of EALA Impacts, the not-for-profit built environment consultants Followed by a Q&A.

Worried about the September deadline?

We will also cover the Council’s ‘call for ideas’ starting in July – meaning that everyone can contribute to their community’s well-being, whether or not you will submit an LLP. Join us to find out more.

LSEG comment on council plans to allow two-way cycling on Rose Street

City Centre Transformation, Consultation Response, Council Policy, Cycle Routes

Rose Street is the closest thing that Edinburgh has to a pedestrianised street. Cycling through the street, as opposed to accessing the shops and restaurants on it by bike, should be strongly discouraged. Encouraging cycling on this unique street would invite conflict with pedestrians, as has been widely acknowledged and especially create a more hostile space for older, disabled and blind people. Even in the Netherlands and Copenhagen’s famous Strøget, cycling on pedestrian shopping streets is discouraged – or prohibited entirely.

Council officials recommend setting aside objections by LSEG, Edinburgh Access Panel and New Town and Broughton Community Council to proposals to allow two-way cycling on Rose Street in a report to the TRO subcommittee on 11 October 2025.

The report claims that there is no intention to use Rose Street as an alternative cycle route to George Street. However, the report to TEC* which first suggested exempting Rose Street from the one-way prohibition set out exactly this as the rationale for this exemption: “4.21 Redirecting cyclists down Rose Street offers a low-cost alternative route [to George Street] that can be implemented quickly without the need for major infrastructure changes.” Using Rose Street as a cycling route “presents a quick and low-cost solution”. These comments were made under the heading: “CCWEL Alternative Routes Prior to George Street Completion”.

Accordingly, we retain our concerns that removing the one-way exemption would mean that Rose Street could still very much be seen by officers as a viable alternative through-route across the city by bicycle. If Rose Street is no longer considered as a suitable cycle route, then the rationale for introducing the TRO in the first place falls away.

The report went on to acknowledge that “integrating cyclists into a space primarily designed for pedestrians presents challenges. The narrow width of Rose Street, combined with the high footfall at certain times, could lead to safety concerns between cycling and walking/wheeling.” While most cyclists are considerate of other road users, we don’t believe that the suggested mitigating measures such as “Share with Care” signage would be effective in deterring those who are not. We hope therefore that the Committee will uphold our objection to the TRO allowing two-way cycling on Rose Street.

  • TEC 30 January 2025, Item 7.2

Deputation to TEC on Road Safety, November 2025

20mph, Council Policy, News, Road Safety, , , , ,

Deputation by Living Streets Edinburgh Group regarding TEC Item 7.6, 13 November 2025 (Road Safety Plan Update)

This report includes a number of important topics particularly school travel plans and pedestrian crossings as well as road safety. We would like to make the following brief comments on some key aspects.

Resources

All these crucial activities are hampered by lack of both capital budget and staff resources. We were disappointed that these themes were not included in the list of programmes for capital funding when this committee carried out its prioritisation exercise in May. We hope that at there will be explicit programmes for these items when TEC next reviews capital priorities. For example, funding for the ‘Action for Better Crossings’ initiative, which is a central part of the CMP’s active travel plan, would enable a much more strategic approach to investing in traffic signals and pedestrian crossings. This would not only help people to cross the road safely and easily, but also enhance bus and cycle priority through better use of smart technology. Capital funding needs to be matched by appropriate levels of staff capacity.

School travel plans

We understand that the onus on completing and publishing school travel plans is increasingly shifting from transport staff to schools. We think this is a mistake and will only weaken efforts to encourage safe and sustainable travel to school, given that schools and their head teachers have so many other responsibilities and priorities. Committee has previously observed that only nine school travel plans are currently published on the Council’s website https://www.streetsaheadedinburgh.org.uk/school-streets-1.

Communication and coordination between plans for school travel on the one hand, and active travel on the other, need to be improved. This is illustrated by the recent proposal for three zebra crossings in the Shandon area as part of the Dundee Street active travel scheme. The proposed crossing on Ashley Terrace linking with a new cycleway is more than 50 metres away from the location where the community has wanted for 10 years or more: Craiglockhart Primary School,

Pedestrian crossings

We are disappointed to see continued (partial) reliance on the so-called PV2 method to assess the need for pedestrian crossings which we consider to be obsolete. We would welcome discussion with officers on the methodology, in line with the suggestions which we made in 2022: https://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2022/07/19/lseg-suggestions-on-a-new-approach-to-pedestrian-crossings-july-2022/

Enforcement of speeding and other traffic offences

We have actively supported the Council’s introduction of 20mph speed limits for more than 10 years, and continue to support measures to reduce speed which have undoubtedly saved many injuries and prevented some deaths. However, we are surprised at the absence of any mention in the report of speed and red light cameras, which are a crucial tool to encourage responsible driving. This is especially true for roads which are engineered for higher speeds than 20mph, where compliance with speed limits will be low. Our Freedom of Information request in August revealed that one third of cameras in the city are currently ‘bagged’ and no fewer than 8 were taken out of action this summer alone: bit.ly/47Vjm2W. We recognise that it is the Safety Camera Partnership led by Police Scotland which is responsible for these cameras, not the Council; but as a key partner, we urge the City of Edinburgh Council to press for more use of safety cameras.

We have also written to both Scottish and UK ministers calling for the revenues from these cameras to be retained by the enforcement agency, Police Scotland bit.ly/4mEjR5B. This is necessary because Police Scotland bears the cost of maintaining and replacing cameras which generate no income to them from penalties. This provides an unhelpful financial incentive to withdraw cameras, rather than to extend their deployment as needed.

Living Streets Edinburgh Group

November 2025

Two-way cycling on Rose Street: Objection to TRO24/27

Consultation Response, Council Policy, Cycle Routes, , ,

We object to the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO/24/27 bit.ly/3IFOQQ6) allowing two-way cycling on Rose Street. The idea of promoting two-way cycling on the street was raised in a report to the Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) on 30 January 2025, as a means to facilitate cycling across the city while the CCWEL route through George Street is not yet in place.  We made our objection to this proposal at that time.

The Council’s own report recognised that “integrating cyclists into a space primarily designed for pedestrians presents challenges. The narrow width of Rose Street, combined with the high footfall at certain times, could lead to safety concerns between cycling and walking/wheeling. With no dedicated cycling infrastructure, conflict could be created between users.”

It is not appropriate in our view to encourage Rose Street – the closest thing Edinburgh currently has to a pedestrianised street – as a major cycle route. The proposal does not respect the Council’s agreed travel hierarchy which places walking and wheeling first. The TRO is especially inappropriate given that the TEC recently decided that two way cycle access should be maintained on George Street itself during any redevelopment works. 

“We are all pedestrians”: Transport convener addresses Living Streets Edinburgh AGM

Council Policy, Public Event, , , ,

Following criticism about “vanity prestige projects” being prioritised over pedestrian access, Stephen Jenkinson addressed our AGM

Edinburgh Council’s Transport Convener has sought to reassure Living Streets Edinburgh Group supporters that pedestrian access is a top priority for his committee.

“We need to ensure that we keep [pedestrians] front of our minds and decision-making when we implement projects and developments across the city,” Stephen Jenkinson, Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at Edinburgh Council, told the volunteer group.

The comments at our AGM on 29 May follow concerns that the committee has given the go-ahead to what our convener David Hunter named “vanity prestige projects”, rather than focus on less expensive but more beneficial, pedestrian-focused projects.

Jenkinson acknowledged the concerns and added: “I would challenge that in a little way. I think the City Mobility Plan, in a grand sense, is about delivering big projects. The scope of a lot of those projects will include pedestrian and public realm benefits.”

The convener said that when he took over from his predecessor, Scott Arthur, now MP for Edinburgh South West, he discovered a large list of proposed projects listed under the 10-year City Mobility Plan, and tasked council officers to prioritise them.

He explained that many schemes have to compete with other local authorities for external funding, and the funding framework has moved from multi-year to single-year.

“I want to reassure you that pedestrian priority is a priority not only for me but many members of the committee and the council. It isn’t a zero-sum game when it comes to moving people and vehicles around the city,” he added.

Helping everyone to get around the city

The need for pedestrian priority is urgent. Two disabled person’s rights advocates from the Lothian Centre for Inclusive Learning – Ashleigh and Kirin – told the AGM that floating bus stops, incorrectly placed dropped kerbs, a lack of space around disabled parking bays, and cycle lanes in the middle of pavements, all hinder those with sight and mobility issues.

Kirin, who has sight issues, praised the banning of advertising boards – a campaign led by Living Streets – but said there is still a lot of street furniture to navigate.

“I just want to get around the streets, just like you, but it’s trickier because I can’t see as well,” she said.

Kirin also joked about using her cane: “The pavement parking ban has been very helpful which has stopped us from scraping your cars!”

Positive noises from the TEC?

Jenkinson pointed out:

  • £4-6 million funding will be invested in the Granton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme, which will bring pedestrian benefits.
  • the 2025/26 budget for dropped kerbs has doubled to £400,000, thanks to Transport Scotland funding.
  • in response to concern that the council has frozen the footway budget this year, Jenkinson said the budget has increased 25% since 2022.
  • the success of the pavement parking ban means footways will generally see less wear and tear from vehicles.

Engine idling: Will the council act?

Jenkinson said he had also written to the Scottish Government to advocate for higher fixed penalty notices for engine idling, which currently stands at £20 and would not cover the cost of enforcing the fine.

In contrast, fixed penalty notices for pavement parking stand at £100 and have generated more than £244,000 in revenue for the 12 months ending February 2025 alone.

Living Streets Edinburgh convener David Hunter thanked Jenkinson for standing strong on no exemptions for pavement parking and for attempting to answer audience questions:

  • Will the Council monitor pedestrian movement, and use that data?
  • Will the Council follow other countries like the Netherlands and re-design junctions like Toll Cross before resurfacing them?
  • Will the Council re-consider removing the Braidswoods modal filters, which have successfully reduced daily vehicles from 10,000 to 6,000?
  • Will the Gorgie Liveable Neighbourhood retract its proposal to include floating bus stops?

Watch this space.