Merchiston Community Council — Minutes of Public Meeting (by Zoom)
Date: 18th February 2025
Chaired by Ian Doig, Chair of Merchiston Community Council (MCC)
Present:
MCC Members: Ian Doig (ID, Chair), Vivien Kitteringham (VK, Vice Chair, Zoom Host), Mairianna Clyde (MC), Joan Houston (JH), Bridget Stevens (BS), Roma Menlowe (RM), John McKenna (JM), Klaus Glenk (KG), Frances Hawarden (FH)
Councillors: Cllr Christopher Cowdy (CC, Conservative), Cllr Mandy Watt (MW, Labour), Cllr Marie-Clair Munro (MM, Conservative)
Residents: Ian Pattison (IP), Valentina Oyarzun
1. Introduction, Apologies & Declarations of Interest
Apologies had been received from Daniel Cairns, Vanessa Meadu, Helen Zealley and Raphael Uddin.
There were no declarations of interest.
2. Dundee Street Fountainbridge Active Travel Project – Klaus Glenk
KG spoke to VM’s comments prepared on behalf of MCC, which have been circulated to all members for information. In summary, the CEC team have been working on these planned safety improvements to infrastructure on Dundee Street for the past few years, and MCC broadly welcome the plans as they will improve the experience for all who travel along this route, inviting a presentation on these designs for the following MCC meeting (18th March 2025).
3. Residents’ Issues Forum
- ID noted that none of the residents who raised the discussion around 8A Napier Road at the previous meeting were in attendance, but ID wished to reach a conclusion on this issue. There were differing views expressed on specific details of the planning renewal, including:
MC, MCC’s planning lead, explained that there has been no change in the application, instead just a renewal of the permission, and as nothing has changed in the planning policies or regulations to warrant the rejection of the permissions, MC feels there is no reason to submit an objection.
BS stated that the circumstantial reasons for the building no longer apply and that this should be noted as this still features in the application. VK confirmed this after examining the application, however it was said that the very brief reference to this would be unlikely to have had any influence on the decision, and it should be kept in mind that the design of the building is still to provide disabled living facilities, regardless of the occupant.
FH concurred with the previous decision MCC made when this application was originally submitted, which was for MCC to remain neutral. She felt that opinions within the Community Council would naturally differ, but that MCC can still provide a space for residents to express their views without the Community Council taking sides. FH also pointed out that there is a severe lack of suitable housing for disabled people in the area, and that this should also be noted alongside other views to form a balanced neutral response from MCC.
BS felt that it was reasonable to ask community councils to come to decisions on resident’s issues, including taking sides with some residents and opposing others, however ID pointed out that MCC has not been contacted by the current owners, meaning that one side to this discussion has been unheard, and given that this is a planning issue where MCC has no power or authority, MCC can instead consider itself a neutral platform for discussion, allowing residents to express themselves without taking further action.
RM agreed that MCC should maintain a neutral stance and submit a comment that shows this, which explains that neighbours have views which opposed the original planning permission and still feel this way. RM also noted that as nothing has changed, including the planning policies and the fact that the building will cater for the accommodation requirements of a disabled person, it seems obvious that the decision made will almost certainly be the same.
While MC stated that complaints made by neighbouring residents were not well supported by the evidence, particularly regarding obstruction of views, it was still agreed that their discontent towards the building of the proposed property can still be expressed, and that, in order to help conclude the situation rather than cause further tensions, a neutral stance by MCC should be kept.
MW highlighted that individual residents will have had the opportunity to comment themselves, so any references to their complaints in an MCC comment will only repeat that, meaning that only if there was a valid, previously unheard objection would there be any influence on a decision by CEC Planning.
ID then encouraged MCC to reach a consensus, and it was agreed that a small group (comprised of ID, VK, BS, FH and MC) could work this by incorporating the above comments into one neutral comment with a balance of views/observations that MCC could submit. - IP raised the issue of Edinburgh Napier University’s plans to redevelop their campuses, including Merchiston Campus. It appears that they propose work to readdress work done on Merchiston Tower that is more in keeping with today’s heritage standards. However, it is also possible that the redevelopment may block the right of way through the campus, though none of this is known for certain, and there is nothing that MCC can do until a planning proposal has been submitted to CEC. MC was invited to comment but had left the meeting earlier.
- IP mentioned that when previously discussing the trees of Merchiston Campus with the university, he was told that Napier was previously invited to have a representative on MCC but this invitation was not taken up by Napier, and that since Napier are looking to consult with students and staff on the design, and it is uncertain if or when community consultations will be made, MCC working on better engagement with community groups would help facilitate this, and help with any similar situations in the future. ID agreed that a representative of Napier University would be helpful and would discuss engagement with local organisations further in his chair’s report.
3. Minutes of Public Meeting of 21st January 2025; Matters Arising
The minutes of the previous meeting, having been amended in light of feedback on the draft, were approved, with no matters arising that hadn’t been incorporated into other items on the agenda.
4. Chair’s Report
ID spoke to his report (circulated), discussing a variety of issues including:
- Community Council Elections 2025
- ID said that the short deadline of 27th February and rules regarding the nomination process are putting a considerable strain on Community Councils, saying that he feels that many CCs won’t be able to maintain the minimum number of members and will therefore no longer exist. ID summarised the rules and intentions of members based on his recent discussions with them, saying that it is likely that MCC will reach the minimum number of 8 nominations needed, however, as several existing members intend not to continue, new members will be required.
- ID also noted the tighter regulations around co-option (a method of acquiring members which has provided necessary to keep MCC afloat in the past when members moved away or resigned) and increased administrative requirements by CEC. CC said that despite what appeared to be a general consensus from councillors that this was too onerous a system for both CCs to complete and for CEC staff to spend time on, CEC officers felt this was necessary and managed to put these rules into place. CC praised MCC for their positive work done for the community and hoped that the elections process would prove successful for MCC.
- VK noted that the nomination forms had been quite ambiguous, but that it has now been clarified that you can propose one person AND second another, and these people can also be family members.
- ID has been thinking recently about involving community groups, referred to by CEC as Local Interest Groups, however with the extensive form needing completed and the tight deadline it is unlikely that having groups as official Local Interest Group members with voting rights will be possible. Although this may be the case, they could still send associate members as regular representatives at meetings to ensure MCC establishes consistent, positive links with various local organisations.
- Engagement with schools has been positive at times, but “patchy”. There has been little engagement recently, with Boroughmuir saying they had no student representatives interested this year. ID expressed the need to work with schools more actively and encourage school representatives to participate in MCC meetings.
- ID will keep track of CEC’s updates and ensure members up to date with the latest totals of nominations received for MCC.
- EACC
- ID thanked Cllr Val Walker for her recent promotional article for Community Council Elections featured in the Edinburgh Evening News, where a subsequent EACC article was also published. ID also reported that there will be a CEC induction session for new members of each community council on Sat 26th April, at City Chambers. An introductory EACC session about RAMPS will be organised later, a system that will help community councils with planning work.
5. Planning Report – Mairianna Clyde, Planning Lead
MC had had to leave earlier, but ID discussed plans for hockey pitches at George Watson’s College, addressing a drainage problem by installing astroturf. MM has been inquiring about this on behalf of residents and explained that she’s looking into whether they are going to be leasing the pitch to other schools or groups. JH said that there will be an in-person consultation early in March, alongside an online consultation, and ID said it would be good if a member of MCC went along to one of these.
VK spoke about the synthetic rubber balls commonly used in astroturf to help with drainage, and how these act like microplastic “nurdles” as they easily disperse into the environment, end up in the sewers and then into the sea, which raises environmental concerns about the plans. However, a design that prevents the runoff of these balls might be possible, and MM said that the school would likely be willing to listen and take these concerns on board.
JM suggested using grass and installing drainage around the pitch, but MM said that the astroturf is to allow games at all times.
Concerns were also made about the differences pupils would face from playing on grass to laying on astroturf, but MM said she believed this kind of pitch is quite standard across Edinburgh.
ID also inquired about updates regarding Dalton’s Scrapyard, which has now ceased its operations. CC said that proposals for a student accommodation development appear to have stalled at the moment, and city councillors were encouraged by ID to keep MCC updated if that changes.
6. Licensing Report – Bridget Stevens, Licensing Lead
BS reported on the licensing application for Margiotta’s new café on Ashley Terrace, which MCC couldn’t recall seeing the planning application for. Margiotta’s are looking to have a licence running until 9pm, which VK said will be a good addition to the cafés in Shandon, as many close much earlier than that. BS will submit a comment noting the application on behalf of MCC.
7. Polwarth Project – Roma Menlowe
RM, VM and VK were at the Polwarth roundabout twice in the past month to showcase the project to the community and encourage residents to sign up for updates. There are nearly 100 households signed up so far, and a newsletter has recently been sent out, with another on traffic survey results coming soon. The project team have maintained good connections with CEC’s project officer for the redevelopment, who has been corresponding with Lothian Buses about finding a suitable location for a loading bay.
Designs will likely materialise shortly after Easter, and CEC will consult with businesses on their views, at which point MCC (with the help of planned visualisations created by a landscape architect) will begin consultations with residents. MM offered to inquire about any more updates, but RM said that for the moment things were going along smoothly and they’ll hopefully hear back from CEC soon, when designs are ready. ID praised RM and the project team for a successful and profile-raising project.
8. Local History Project – Frances Hawarden
FH is inquiring about dates following RU’s suggestion for a “Talks and Tea” sit-down event to replace the History project talks that were going to take place at the in-person event but were agreed to be moved to a later date due to time constraints at such a busy event.
FH has suggested the Merchiston Tennis and Bowling club, and RU has reported that there are the appropriate AV facilities for the event there.
FH would like to expand the number of speakers from 3 to 5, and in light of recent conversations about Merchiston Tower, it would be good to have someone from Edinburgh Napier University to talk about its history, which may even provide an opportunity for them to speak about their plans for the future of the campus.
FH will also be visiting the National Library of Scotland to do some research on the historic Écurie Écosse motor racing team which was formerly based in Merchiston.
9. Thank You Reception – Joan Houston
JH said that following discussions with HZ, they feel the event was a success, however there are things they would change next time. These include using the small hall, with a capacity of 30, instead of a large capacity venue, and holding the event on a weekday early afternoon rather than a weekend. JH will keep FH up to date on how much was spent on food and drink, what was used, what was returned etc.
ID suggested that, in due course after the CC elections, a discussion about holding an MCC annual social event and what form that might take should be discussed after the CC elections.
10. Treasurer’s Report – Frances Hawarden
FH has been looking into setting up online banking, as well as switching to a bank that won’t charge MCC fees each month for having an account as Bank of Scotland is introducing. Further investigations and decisions will need to be made after Community Council Elections about this.
Also, FH reminded members with outstanding cheques to ensure these are paid in as the end of the financial year approaches. ID asked for authorisation of a repayment to RU for printing of promotional materials for MCC, which was approved by members.
11. City Councillors’ Reports
CC discussed the sudden Harrison Road closure, which has occurred due to a significant fault found in the railway bridge which requires repair, with the bridge over the canal also closed to vehicles. It appears that it will take several months for work to be completed. For now, it remains open to pedestrians and cyclists. Recent traffic diversions have rerouted vehicles along Ashley Terrace, and this is likely to exacerbate this.
VK added to this, explaining that roadworks have appeared on Ashley Terrace without warning, making it difficult for vehicle owners on the street.
MW thanked MCC for the thank-you reception on Sunday and provided details about the upcoming CEC budget.
JM raised the issue of graffiti, and MM discussed various methods of possibly tackling/deterring this.
12. Other Reports & Correspondence
VK reported on MCC’s recent initiative to facilitate Blister Pack recycling. There had previously been no way for these to be recycled in Edinburgh until MCC’s collection was set up in the Eric Liddell centre. However, Eric Liddell decided not to continue with it and the collection box was needing relocated, however Boots has now announced it is rolling out a Blister Pack recycling collection.
VK has recently heard from Bruntsfield Pharmacy, who would be interested in taking on the box but would need a financial contribution to do this, but since Boots will now be offering that service, this may not be necessary.
13. Future Meetings 2025 – 18th Mar, 20th May, 17th June, 16th Sept, 21st Oct, 18th Nov