Category Archives: Council Policy

Craigmillar Niddrie Connections: comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

20 minute neighbourhood, Consultation Response, Council Policy

‘Craigmillar Niddrie Connections’: comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

This is the formal response by Living Streets Edinburgh (LSEG), the local campaign for everyday walking and wheeling, to the current consultation on the ‘Craigmillar Niddrie Connections’ proposals: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cycling-walking/craigmillar-niddrie-connections.

Our understanding of the proposals

It is often difficult to understand the most significant features of proposals like this from visualisations and drawings. From looking at the plans and from correspondence with council officers, we understand that key features are:

  • a continuous two-way cycleway from Prestonfield Avenue to Fort Kinnaird;
  • space for the cycleway on Peffermill Road to be taken from what is currently the carriageway;
  • space for the cycleway on Niddrie Mill Road Road to be taken from what is currently the northern footway;
  • the southern footway along the route will be largely unchanged;
  • a number of bus stops to be merged and all to have cycle bypasses (floating bus stops);
  • new bus lanes eastbound approaching the junction with Duddingston Road West and westward, for example from Hay Drive;
  • junction treatments to be altered to favour pedestrian movement (corner ‘tightening’,  continuous footways, etc) and more significant re-design to reduce motor traffic priority at key junctions like Greendykes Road and Craigmillar Castle Road;
  • public realm improvements and new paths, for example at Cairntows Park, Castleview school etc.

Overall concept

This project originated as a ’20 minute neighbourhood’ project:

“We want to revitalise the area around Niddrie Mains Road by creating better spaces for recreation and socialising alongside safe, high-quality walking, wheeling, and cycling routes. Our plans also include improving access and amenities around Cairntows Park.”

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cycling-walking-projects-1/20-minute-neighbourhood-projects

Responses to the consultation broadly appear to have endorsed the followine objectives:

“When asked about what could improve the experience of spending time on the High Street, most comments were about maintenance, safety, environment, and amenities, such as:

  • Better care and maintenance of public realm around shopfronts, more bins, and upgraded street furniture.
  • More greenery, benches, better pavement, and less traffic.
  • More police presence to deter antisocial behaviour.
  • More local shops, family friendly cafes, pubs, and better leisure facilities.”

https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/craigmillar/

We are therefore disappointed to see little emphasis on many of these issues. What was originally envisaged as a ‘placemaking’ exercise appears to have transformed into an ‘active travel scheme’ on a two mile long travel corridor from Prestonfield Avenue (or Cameron Toll as originally planned) to Kinnaird Park.

We understand that the Council’s 20 Minute Neighbourhood team has been disbanded; the reduced emphasis on ‘place’ is evident in these proposals which appear to prioritise the introduction of a continuous segregated cycleway. An emphasis on place would require not only changes to road design but also economic and social interventions, for example to enhance the commercial viability of local shops, tackle anti-social behaviour, etc.

Pavements

Craigmillar and Niddrie are unusual in that there are several extremely wide footways, as a result of major changes introduced before 2000. Normally, we would object in principle to conversion of pavements to other uses (road, cycleway, etc.) as being contrary to the sustainable travel hierarchy which puts pedestrian movement first. However, we accept that a lot of pavement space in the area is poor quality and in places excessive, adding little to the quality of the area, so consideration of alternative use of some space (e.g. for cycleways or bus lanes) could be justified.

Nevertheless, more new quality space with greenery should be integral to the scheme; as it stands, we understand that sections of the northern High Street pavement will be reduced to narrower than the ‘desirable’ 3 metre standard set out in the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance. Adequate pedestrian space should be the top priority in any scheme prioritising ‘place’ over ‘movement’.

Other comments

We welcome a number of specific features:

  • the junction treatments at side roads giving step-free access and emphasising pedestrian priority. However, many of these (King’s Haugh, Dunkirk Road, Hay Avenue, Blackchapel Close) do not promote the natural direction of travel for pedestrians and also deviate the cycleway.
  • the simplifying of the Duddingston Road West junction; we hope that pedestrian phasing of the signals is optimised.
  • the redevelopment of Cairntows Park, where street trees are proposed along the high street and the Castleview school proposals.

We suggest:

  • consideration is given to enhancing some of the uncontrolled pedestrian crossings over Niddrie Mill Road in particular by adding zebra crossings.
  •  extending the 20mph speed limit from Niddrie Mains Rd (where it currently ends) all the way to Fort Kinnaird.

We have concerns at:

  •  the closure/merger of several bus stops, which is likely to make it harder for people with limited mobility to use local bus services.
  • the routine installation of ‘floating’ bus stops; we receive regular feedback that these are a problem for older and disabled people, especially visually impaired. We consider that the description of these stops in the consultation is misleading (“creating a safe place for people to wait for the bus whilst also providing continuous safe cycling.”)

Conclusion

While there are certainly aspects of the proposals which would improve the Craigmillar/Niddrie area and its travel links, we would like to see the Council sponsor fewer big expensively-engineered active travel schemes like this. Instead, there should be greater emphasis on smaller, local schemes especially to enhance pedestrian spaces, neighbourhood shopping centres, schools, health centres, etc. These interventions would benefit more people at reduced public expense.

Living Streets Edinburgh

June 2026

Living Streets calls for more spending on pavement maintenance

Consultation Response, Council Policy

The report on the Capital Investment Programme to Committee today (Item 7.1) proposes yet another freeze in the footway maintenance budget – at £3.5 million for the fourth consecutive year. At the same time, spending on carriageway maintenance has more than doubled. Our calculation is that, allowing for inflation, the footway maintenance budget has risen just under 10% since the administration came in – well below the 25% promised in the Labour Party manifesto. So an increase of half a million ££ (up to £4 million) in the footway maintenance budget would be required now, just to deliver that commitment.

We’ve also been told that there are:

  • 17,000 missing or substandard dropped kerbs.
  • 71 traffic signalled junctions with no ‘green man’ pedestrian facilities at one or more road.
  • 40% of roads in the city with pavements narrower than the 2 metres minimum set out in both national and local guidance (Sustrans WACI 2023).

To be fair, there is some progress in all of these areas, and we understand some TVL money will go on fixing the pavements, but this change is incremental at best.

Investing more in better pavements and pedestrian crossings would benefit residents in every ward inhe city and would receive wide public support. Local street improvements can also help deliver other transport priorities including buses and cycling. Far more so than the expensive and often over-engineered projects which occupy so much of councillors and officers time, perhaps exemplified by George Street.

When this Committee agreed project priorities for capital funding last May, there was one programme which did focus on improving local streets: this was branded “Liveable Neighbourhoods”. But it was ranked 71st in the list of priorities, so didn’t proceed. There are two petitions before the Committee today – in Broomhouse and Portobello – whose concerns would be directly addressed by this programme: are there really 70 other active travel and public transport projects which are more important than improving local streets?

We appreciate that the council has limited funds and also that there’s a lot of public concern at potholes on the road. But there are potholes in pavements too. The council does have options to change its priorities. If we are going to see the transformational change in walking promised, there has to be transformational change in Council spending.

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