Merchiston Community Council – May Public Meeting
Tuesday 21st May 2024, 7pm, by Zoom
Attendees: Members – Ian Doig (Chair); Frances Hawarden (FH); Roma Menlowe (RM); Bridget Stevens (BS); Joan Houston (JH); Raphael Uddin (RU); Vivien Kitteringham (VK); Declan Murray DM); John McKenna (JMcK); Helen Zealley (HZ).
City Councillors: Cllr Christopher Cowdy (CC); Cllr Ben Parker (BP).
Resident: Mr Miller.
Apologies Received: Klaus Glenk; Vanessa Meadu; Cllr David Key; Cllr Neil Ross.
- Introduction and welcome by Chair:
There are a few issues for tonight’s meeting – particularly Planning Report because our Planning Lead is in Norway and I’m uncertain whether Mairianna will be available to log in.
- Minutes of Public Meeting on 19thMarch 2024
Minutes of previous MCC meeting on 19th March had been circulated to members and comments arising had been incorporated. Minutes were proposed by the Chair as a correct record and seconded and approved.
- Residents’ Issues Forum: Forum is an opportunity for residents to raise issues of concern.
3.1 Chair: I welcome a member of the public, who wishes to raise an issue:
‘My name is Mr Miller, and I have already contacted you about the excessive parking charges in Newbattle Terrace ‘.
Chair: That’s a question for City Councillors; I will invite them to respond if you first tell us a little more – is it in Morningside?
GM: No, the Division between Merchiston and Morningside appears in the middle of Newbattle Terrace and my concern relate to the North side which is I why I have brought my concerns here because the Councillors to whom I have expressed my concerns have not responded.
Cllr Parker: Yes, I have your email and I haven’t replied, so can you please explain what the problem is.
GM: There has been a significant change in what parking is possible in relation to a specific ‘line’.
Cllr Parker: I can promise, on behalf of Councillors that we will get together and give you a response.
Chair: Hopefully MCC will get an update report at our next meeting.
ACTION: Cllr BP to explore the Parking problem in Newbattle Terrace and report to Mr Miller and to MCC.
3.2 Chair: I received a complaint from a resident in Gillsland Road about speeding vehicles, which I circulated to all members of MCC.
I sent a reply on behalf of MCC to the resident, saying ‘you are not alone’. Many complaints expressed by residents about speeding, both in Merchiston in other parts of Edinburgh. People complaining about speeding vehicles and aggressive driving, with a lot of incidents and near collisions because drivers are speeding and ignore roundabouts priorities and give-way signs. There are also concerns about delivery drivers and other vehicles still parking illegally on pavements.
Particular concern about speeding in Ashley Terrace near Craiglockhart Primary School. Like all other suburban roads, there is a speed limit of 20mph but neither the City Council nor the Police seem willing or able to enforce. Police report that “speeding” is not a priority, and Police seem unlikely to take action unless or until there in an accident.
Some local roads have had a ‘speed assessment’ by Police – but, unfortunately, only ‘average speed’ has been assessed. However, average speed is irrelevant – if one car whizzes past at 60mph while others are at 20mph or below, ‘average speed’ is totally misleading. What is of concern is peak speeding measurements, which appear not to have been measured.
Cllr CC: Parents at Craiglockhart Primary School had expressed concern to him about speeding cars and he had managed to get the Police to go and visit. Police responded by saying they had checked and that the ‘average‘ speeds recorded were “acceptable” – so no Police action was being taken. Therefore, the parents created a sign attached to a lamppost and railings. ‘I think it would be useful to arrange a ‘police officer look alike/cardboard police figure’ for outside the school. But there are very few available and a queue to borrow them, so it is a resourcing problem. Another possibility would be to get some ‘speed guns’ [see several references below].
RM: Re Polwarth Improvements Projects and road safety, she and JMcK had commissioned traffic counts and speed analysis from a traffic consultancy for the Pavements Project. The cost was not prohibitive, so MCC could use some of its funds to commission a traffic count which would provide hard data.
BS: I will speak later about the Police Forum which I attended. Speeding traffic was one of the items raised with a sad response from the Police that they haven’t got sufficient resources. Even more depressing, they mentioned they are considering shelving speed cameras. Good news was that I got an impression that they would be willing for responsible members of the public, like Community Councillors, to undertake hand-held speed checks using Police’s speed measurement devices.
Cllr BP: Speeding comes up a lot, so Councillors could request the Council does local speed surveys. I support what RM has proposed – but road works and pavement works are also a challenge.
Chair: When I attended an earlier Police Forum, Police referred to a legal or technical problem about fixed speed cameras on posts, so most fixed cameras are currently covered up. BS has confirmed that the police were considering the continuation – or not – of post-mounted speed cameras. I also understand from HZ that there are rubber strips across some local roads measuring the number of vehicles and their speeds – probably organised by the City Council. Another possibility, that has been tried successfully elsewhere, is for local residents to go out in high-viz jackets and point hair dryers (because they look like Police speed guns) at passing traffic as a deterrent to reduce speeding. Better if the Police would lend MCC real speed guns. Perhaps VK could explore this.
ACTION: VK: I can try. I’ll liaise with BS about who to ask.
3.Chair: MCC will keep pressing for measures to reduce speeding. It would be good if the City Council could put pressure on the Police to take action to reduce speeding.
ACTION: HZ report back if the speed assessment in Tipperlinn Road becomes available.
VK to explore borrowing Police speed guns
- Chair’s Report. A written report had been circulated by the Chair. Main points from report:
4.1 Community Council Elections:
Chair: Details in my Chair’s Report of arrangements for forthcoming elections for membership for all Edinburgh’s 46 Community Councils. Election arrangements are tightly prescribed by CEC. CEC will appoint a local Community Councillor to act as ‘Returning Officer’. Residents who wish to be elected will need to be proposed and seconded, and the CEC Returning Officer will arrange an election if the number of applicants exceeds 16 – i.e. the maximum membership of MCC. Elections were not needed at the last CC Elections because nominations did not exceed 16.
4.2 Annual General Meeting:
Chair: Despite uncertainty about timing of CC elections, MCC is required to hold an AGM to appoint Office Bearers and approve Accounts. We propose 18 June for MCC’s AGM, followed by a normal business meeting, before we break up for the summer recess.
4.3 CEC’s Review of Scheme for Community Councils and CC Boundaries
Chair: In my Report, I expressed disappointment and frustration at the proposals of CEC to tighten its control over all 46 CCs across Edinburgh.
CEC is considering a revised Scheme for CCs which proposes increased micro-management of CCs by CEC, including additional administrative workloads for all CCs, which many CCs do not have sufficient volunteer resources to comply with. CEC’s proposed new Scheme for Edinburgh CCs shows a lack of understanding of CCs, which are entirely resourced by volunteers and also have minimal financial resources. Most CCs are unhappy about the changes CEC is proposing.
Proposed changes include limiting the role of all CC Chairman to ‘One Term Only” with a 5 years maximum; the role of other Office Bearers to one year; and disappointingly no proposed extra resources for CCs.
On boundaries, CEC proposes to extend MCC’s boundary to the NE and this is not controversial.
A meeting of EACC (Edinburgh Association of Community Councils) showed that many CCs are expressing similar concerns about CEC’s revised Scheme proposals for CCs.
CEC has not yet made final decisions on the changes proposed in the draft Revised Scheme for CCs.
I would request our Ward Councillors to mitigate the more problematical and unrealistic micro-managing CEC proposals. As Chair of MCC, I would be very willing to discuss implications and “unintended consequences” further.
Cllr CC: I was at a CEC briefing today and they explained some of the “justifications” and reasons for the proposals. It is clear that all CCs are feeling unsupported; CEC is looking into whether they can help CCs and will publish a report in June with options suggesting that they have taken the concerns on board.
BS: Thanks for that interesting Chair’s Report. It all refers to similar papers from the CEC and concerns of CCs. The proposals that have been raised by CEC from previous consultations have been put into Standing Orders but not been strictly enforced by CEC. The concessions outlined by Cllr CC are good news.
Cllr BP: As a CEC Councillor, we had a briefing that there will be another 4-week Consultation. A lot of questions were raised about lack of training and support for CCs because it was reported that there had been little or none – and that training and support had not been effective. If CEC do get involved, they may start being more helpful and encourage more people to be involved in CC activities and provide additional training and support.
BS: CEC have had a programme of Training Courses – but not very well advertised. I have been on several – usually in areas of ‘responsibility’ like Planning or Licensing and they have been quite good.
RM: EACC has issued a brief, but eloquent, set of proposals in their joint response to CEC’s Consultation. which identifies many areas where support for CCs is needed; including where awareness-raising for CCs needs to be addressed; and encouragement of ‘new people’ to join CCs as the first tier of local democracy.
JMcK: I’m puzzled by why CEC wants to ‘police’ CCs because CEC has no resources to ‘police’ anything. I would urge our City Councillors to take a constructive approach, because increased CEC control of CCs is going to do no good and will leave the City with no CCs – so, Chair, I understand the ire in your Report.
Chair: When the City is under severe financial pressure and has had to downsize its services and staff, one would have thought CEC might give more support to CCs to share the work of supporting communities. Worth noting that a previous Accounts Commission report criticised CEC for its poor community engagement and recommended improved community engagement. CEC’s proposals for tighter control and tighter constraints on all CCs and lack of increased resources for CCs are the reverse of what would improve the community engagement situation. Chair: To summarise, a key issue is the objective and role of CCs, which were created as an additional statutory first tier of government, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
My understanding is that CCs were intended to be independent entities (not merely to be micro-managed by local authorities). The role of CCs is to support communities and express views of residents to local authorities and other public bodies.
CEC’s proposals are unrealistic and would make the work of CCs more tightly constrained, inflexible and difficult to sustain.
MCC is one of the largest CCs in Edinburgh and pretty active with a good – but small – team of volunteer members. However, MCC is already overstretched, because of a shortage of volunteers and overstretched administrative resources, like many other CCs. There is no evidence of a queue of residents seeking to become new community councillors, as CEC postulates; already very difficult to persuade new volunteers to come forward as members, especially to take responsibility as Chair and Office Bearers.
If the CEC proposals are enacted, CEC will be swamped by additional workload submissions it demands from all 46 CCs every month; how would CEC manage the increased administrative workload on CEC itself that CEC’s increased bureaucratic requirements would impose on CEC’s reduced staff? That and other practical implications and risks do not appear to have been adequately considered by CEC.
4.4 Community Grants:
Chair: A review and changes are taking place for the 13 Community Grant Committees throughout Edinburgh, which have evolved to operate in different ways. There has been discussion about ways in which Funding Panels could become more uniform in their assessment of applications for community grants and eligibility, plus reorganisation of CEC staff to a central support team.
4.5 Edinburgh Festivals:
Chair: EACC recently organised a constructive discussion with the leaders of the main Festivals (International Festival; Fringe; Book, Jazz etc), at which I represented MCC.
I expressed concern that festival venues have been far too centralised in the city centre, causing mayhem for residents, and with overlap and competition with each other. I suggested it would be better to spread festival events out throughout the city; I’m pleased to see that Churchill Theatre will be a Festival venue this year. Decentralisation would be good for local businesses such as restaurants if there were more local venues. This would also reduce excess peak pressure on city centre venues and transport. I recommended several potential festival venues in Merchiston, including Eric Liddell Centre and local schools with good facilities (Watson’s, Boroughmuir, Steiners and primary schools).
4.6 RBS Bruntsfield Branch:
Chair: MCC was disappointed to hear that RBS has decided to close its Bruntsfield Branch (further information in Chair’s report). I noted on a recent visit very few people in the branch because of greater use of on-line-banking and reduced footfall was confirmed by the staff. However, it is important that residents without internet banking facilities and companies working with cash have access to local banking facilities.
5. Polwarth Pavements Improvement Project: An update report from RM had been circulated.
RM: Report is for information only; no decisions required. It’s been sunshine and showers. The ‘sunshine’ takes the form of the new CEC local traffic improvement programme which was approved by CEC’s Transport and Environment Committee at the end of April – an interesting programme scooping up improvements which haven’t made it to the large programme of junction improvements and active travel. MCC was thrilled when the Polwarth project was mentioned in the papers for the meeting and Cllr BP mentioned us in dispatches – and we were ‘on air’. We have submitted our proposals with an updated report and we will see if we measure up to criteria. It’s also good that our Polwarth Improvement Project Team has been invited to give a presentation to an EACC online meeting on 27th June.
The current pavement re-surfacing at Polwarth is good – but not safer because it does not include safety crossings or the things our community so much wanted – like improved pedestrian crossings and provision for cyclists. Our main worry is that the considerable costs spent on resurfacing pavements will be taken as a reason for not proceeding with our improvement proposals. This will be very sad because the marginal additional cost of implementing our proposals at the same time as the re-surfacing would have been inconsequential – but sadly the opportunity was ducked by CEC.
The other disappointing issue is that there has been absolutely no response from CEC to our February submission where we offered the Pavement Project Report as an embryonic Local Place Plan – but we will chase that and, hopefully, by the end of June know whether we are in for the local traffic improvement programme. But we should not hold our breath because our set of proposals will cost more than the expected £50K project investment; but our proposals could be phased, so we hope with a little bit of creativity it might be possible to get some aspects going. I hope we can make some progress, because no action by CEC after two and a half years of MCC lobbying is really disappointing, despite support from local City Councillors.
Chair: Frustrating thing is the failure of CEC to recognise this as an ideal project to show what can be done through partnership working between CEC, MCC and our local community. MCC’s proposals and recommendations align with so many of the Council’s policies – safer streets; 20-minute walking neighbourhoods; 20 mph speed limit, increased road safety etc. This project is also a good opportunity for CEC to demonstrate effective community engagement and responsiveness.
It is also paradoxical that CEC, which pleads shortage of money, has spent scarce public money on re-surfacing pavements, giving dubious public benefits and apparent poor value, which is not the safety improvement priorities our community were asking for.
DM: What frustrates me about the [resurfacing of pavements only] work at Polwarth is that it does not deliver as beneficial improvements as work two years ago at nearby Temple Park Crescent – i.e. narrowing the junction and reducing illegal parking. Also, while I acknowledge potholes are a problem, it doesn’t seem right to smooth roads so that drivers can drive even faster.
Chair: I agree. it’s paradoxical that CEC can find money to do pavements resurfacing that are not on our community’s priority wish list. CEC say that safety improvements our community project has requested might be possible in CEC’s capital programme, but realistically 5 or 10 years ahead and only if funds permit. Disappointingly, CEC appears not to respond to residents who say: ‘CEC’s roads improvements and public safety priorities are not our community’s priorities’.
EACC, as the umbrella organisation for all CCs, is interested in the way the MCC has organised our Pavement Improvements Project, including our extensive community and business engagement and evidence-based approach. MCC considers that residents are getting the ‘run around’ between CEC departments and excuses “this is not a priority for CEC”, despite MCC’s evidence-based community pressures. MCC therefore needs to keep up advocating improvements and would welcome support of our Ward Councillors in advocating action by CEC.
ACTION: RM and VM to present the Polwarth Pavement Project at the EACC on 27th June
6. Trees Issues: RM had circulated a briefing report.
RM: The issue is the possible felling of an enormous mature tree – a bold, healthy and beautiful copper beech tree whose owners, according to the CEC ‘trees team’ have been advised by a tree surgeon that the boundary wall is being stressed by the tree. There is an argument that MCC, with an eye to the climate crisis and carbon capture by trees – as well as the well-being of the neighbourhood, should contact the owners and ask if they would be interested in taking the advice of an expert conservation stonemason to allow the tree to live and the wall to survive.
I pose the question as to whether MCC should allow the felling to proceed unchallenged; or to contact the owners to suggest that the advice of a stonemason might be useful before deciding the fate of the tree. However, I recognise that the owners may not wish to keep the tree, which would be sad.
Chair: I support what RM proposes. Felling of this beautiful mature tree would be a precedent for other tree-felling cases.
BS: I can ask my highly regarded tree surgeon to have an informal look. Our neighbourhood is full of bulging walls caused by trees – but I’m not aware of any walls falling down.
RM: I’d support that proposal – but I think we first need the view of the applicant, particularly about advice from a stonemason.
Chair: RM and I have discussed this offline. MCC has no direct powers to prevent felling of trees by residents. Therefore, MCC should handle this issue sensitively and avoid being perceived as interfering ‘busybodies’. However, RM’s letter offers constructive advice and help.
Chair: Agreed. MCC will send a polite and constructive letter to the tree’s owners.
RM: I also want to mention a wider matter I discussed with Cllr BP about trees. We have lost quite a lot of mature trees; sometimes for good reasons – disease, danger to structures – but the amount of re-planting, which is encouraged by CEC policy, seems to be negligible. I also suggest MCC could post advice on MCC’s website about trees, as some other CCs do.
Cllr BP: I would be happy to help on a project about tree loss and re-planting. CEC is aware that trees are important for climate action, particularly among Climate Action Groups. 6.
Cllr CC: I’m also supportive of MCC’s concern about trees – but I’m pleased that Cllr BP (Green Party) will be involved.
JMcK: At my property, our joint owners refer to trees in our joint garden which require insurance to prevent damage to people walking along the road. Bottom level pushing by trees is not a problem – but top wall level can cause serious problems if it were to cause a stone to fall on a passer-by. One of our trees fell over into the road; another was felled and replaced with a beech and sycamore.
RU: At Boroughmuir HS. we’ve been looking into similar things in the Eco-Committee and Sustainability Group. We brought in some local groups who are doing a range of things, including tree-planting. So we’re happy to work with MCC on trees in the future.
FH: In 2021, MCC agreed to make a donation to ‘Tree Time’ and established a little plaque on a cherry tree in Harrison park. I also wrote, at the time to the ‘Green Space Trust’ an initiative led by Edinburgh and the Lothians in partnership with CEC and the Woodland Trust, Scotland. Should we seek more advice from ‘Tree Time’?
Chair: Yes, in due course. Your reminder about our past initiative is helpful. Meantime we’ll proceed with RM’s letter to the copper beech owner.
ACTION: Letter to be sent by Chair to the owner of the tree in question.
Cllr BP to help with a project about trees in the neighbourhood, inc re-planting
7. Licensing Report:
BS: Nothing new to report on licensing. I have heard nothing from the Licensing Board about any licensing applications in respect of premises in our area.
Chair: EACC is setting up a licensing network to share experience across all CCs in Edinburgh.
BS: Individual circumstances are very different in geographical areas and we’re aware of the rules.
8. Planning Report:
Chair: MCC’s Planning lead, Mairianna Clyde, is in Norway and has not logged in. So, no formal Planning Report is available. Are there any planning issues anyone wants to raise?
VK: To ask our City Councillor if there have been any planning issues progressed in MCC’s area – especially near the Fountainbridge Cinema/Fountainbridge Library on Dundee Street where people have said that a large office block is proposed to be demolished and replaced by student accommodation.
Also, the Dundee Street/Dundee Terrace student accommodation – whether this is being moved forward.
Chair: I recently had a talk with Mairianna, MCC’s Planning Lead about three live planning issues.
- One is Dundee Terrace which is with CEC for decision.
- Second is the 1970s office block to which VK referred, opposite the Fountainbridge Library, with a proposal to demolish the whole site and replace it with flats- either for students or rental.
- Third is in Yeaman Place (former Car Parts building), where a resident has again complained to CEC Planning and to MCC about the impact on her property of the proposed building works.
9. Police Forum Report:
BS: I circulated a Report about the police Forum meeting I attended; Cllr CC was there as well. There was no formal Agenda and discussion covered many issues. Craiglockhart CC and Fairmilehead CC were also represented, together with two City Councillors.
Sergeant Coull was the Chair and very agreeable. Whenever a CC person asked ‘why something was not happening’ the Police answer was always ‘we have no resources’- and I got the impression that the same questions were raised at every single Forum meeting.
Thank you to those of you who responded to my request for topics. I raised the question of Community Beat Officers – they no longer exist because of funding cuts.
Officers with a presence around schools are a resource burden for the police because CEC no longer funds community policing. Residents will be pleased Police officers talked about the parents in large SUVs dropping children off at school; Police assured us that they move drivers on to prevent cars blocking safety sightlines and excessive exhausts contaminating the environment.
I raised a question about anti-social behaviour on the canal towpath – including cyclists. I referred to the Canal Festival on 15th June and the police were interested and will set up a presence in Harrison Park – offering free registration and advice about bicycles. Sergeant Coull reported that off-road bikes, motorised scooters and unregistered quad bikes are all increasing in numbers and becoming a problem. So are a lot of food delivery cyclists – often seen in the evenings with no lights and cycling on pavements. Apparently, some of this is picked up on CCTV.
We also discussed speeding – and the police seemed willing for CCs to help, by lending proper hand-held speed checker guns. The Chair produced a helpful Report the next day. Cllr CC have you anything to add?
Cllr CC: Yes, it was a good meeting. Craiglockhart CC have made notes as well and listed five main topics of concern raised; antisocial behaviour; road safety; drugs (especially in Gorgie/Dalry); violence and housebreaking.
BS: Someone asked about the possible closure of Gorgie Road – currently out by CEC for consultation.
Chair: This Police Forum is a new initiative by SW Edinburgh Police. I attended the first meeting and found it a constructive forum for discussion. Police are quite open about discussing a lot of issues. Police frequently refer to policing priorities and said of Merchiston there are comparatively few policing problems here, compared with priorities and emergencies that pull police resources away elsewhere in SW Edinburgh.
BS: An increasing amount of Police officer time is devoted to cybercrime and child abuse. This wasn’t the case ten years ago but there hasn’t been an increase in Police manpower and yet they are expected to do all this.
JH: I can order ‘graffiti’ clearing kits from Liam Bain of CEC, in the Graffiti Team.
BS: That would be a good thing to have graffiti clearing references on MCC’s website. We know that CEC will deal with graffiti if it is obscene or offensive – but the ‘trite’ stuff on the bridges over the canal etc is left to MCC to deal with.
JMcK; Aware of drug problems in Gorgie. While I was standing in a bus shelter in Gorgie Road, two drug handovers occurred – both to women about 30 and another woman about 20 came in. ‘Courier’ came in on a bike, gave them the drugs, took the £20 and went off. Police just need to stand in a bus shelter, and they can catch offenders. who are quite open about buying and selling drugs. There were kids there as well.
I share concern about the possible closure of Gorgie Road. It will just transfer traffic somewhere else, and I don’t see what CEC hopes to achieve by these road closures. I’m also concerned about all the other traffic changes happening in the city.
BS: Report the details of the ‘drug delivery’ to the Police. You could report the delivery to 101 and you can be anonymous.
ACTION: BS (and others) to explore the possibility of using police hand held speed guns
JH to order Graffiti Cleaning kit – and arrange for reference to graffiti kits on MCC website
JMcK to report the Drug delivery at the bus stop to the Police/101 service.
10. City Councillors Reports:
Cllr BP: Worth noting the CEC Local Housing Strategy. The Government requires a review every 5 years as an overarching strategy across the city – not just council housing. CEC consults each year in terms of rent rises and all other detail. But it is about – what does the City want/appearance/reflections on student housing? – a ’consultation’ or ‘the City Hub’. I think it is important – and good if residents can feed in their thoughts.
Cllr CC: What I’ve been mostly engaged in recently is road safety at Craiglockhart Primary School – also some of the Controlled Parking Zones and Bin Hubs around Harrison Gardens. There have been a lot of concerns in the Lockharton area because they are not included in the Controlled Parking Zone. They are arranging to meet representatives of the Transport Committee.
ACTION: All to look at Edinburgh Local Housing Strategy – respond to CEC by 14 June 2024
11. Recycling Box for Tablet Pack:
VK: I previously put forward a proposal for putting a used ‘Blister Pack’ Recycling Box at the Eric Liddell Centre. Sponsored by MCC and raising awareness of MCC. There is nowhere else that Blister Packs can be recycled, so it is worth offering at a site, with a lot of elderly participants nearby.
I was requested to come back to this meeting with a specific proposal with costs. It is possible to get a big ‘Recycling Container’ which will hold 4,300 empty packs and cost £140.
Cllr BP: I am very supportive of this proposal – and it should go on the city’s ‘recycling map’.
Chair: I suggest we ask MCC’s Treasurer about funding the £140 proposed.
FH: I would support this proposal. MCC has sufficient money to meet the cost.
Chair: Proposal agreed. The arrangement should go on MCC website, in due course.
ACTION: VK to arrange the supply of the Blister Pack Recycling Kit to Eric Liddell Centre.
12 Treasurer’s Report: Treasurer’s report had been circulated.
FH: For 2024-25, there has not been much expenditure to report; see report circulated. I will have an audited accounts ready to be presented at the AGM.
I am investigating how MCC, as a voluntary organisation needing two out of three signatories for each transaction, would operate digitally. MCC would operate along the lines of ‘card readers. I have been in touch with the Treasurer of Currie CC, who does digital payments.
Chair: I know of several Community Council Treasurers already doing digital payments, using ‘card readers’, with several signatories. I can give you more information offline.
ACTION: Chair and Treasurer to organise digital payments arrangements for MCC
13 Other Reports
13.1
VK: Outside my house, near the Bin Hub there was a collection of broken (windshield?) glass which I reported to CEC. It was partly removed but not completely. I’ve reported it again – and CEC cleared again – but there is still a mess outside my house.
Chair: That should go in the Minutes as a ‘follow-up action point’.,
Cllr CC: Yes, these Bin Hubs are important. Cllr BP and I can both raise this at CEC
ACTION: VK to report on progress with her local Bin Hub at next meeting.
13.2
Chair: I also saw an initiative to set up a recycling bin for small electrical items – e.g. mobile phones etc.
Cllr BP: The CEC partnership with ‘Re-Makery’ has started putting certain recycling facilities in libraries. I’m not sure where, so I’ll find the map and circulate it; and I’ll add MCC’s ‘Blister Pack’ recycling initiative as well.
ACTION: Cllr BP to circulate the Re-Makery Recycling map
13.3
Chair: I have some positive progress re MCC’s website. RU has helpfully identified a staff member at Boroughmuir School who is very good at working with websites and is also interested in local history. He says he has archival information for local history that could dovetail into the MCC Local History Project and MCC’s website. I propose that I and VK go and discuss with him.
RU: Yes; Neil Anderson is one of our janitors – involved in many projects; has his own website; runs the Boroughmuir HS gardening club and life around the school and canal.
RU: I also wish to mention our Boroughmuir HS Summer Fair, which will be on the same day as the Canal Festival – so do come along and have a look at our various stalls.
13.4 VK: Canal Festival ‘Heads Up’. It runs from 12.00 to 5.00. MCC team needs to be there by 11.30 -to prepare; and remain until 5.30 – to tidy up. We need two people for each of the four time slots 11.30 to 1.00; 1.00-2.20; 2.30-4.00; 4.00-5.30 one of a half hours each.
ACTION: 15th June 2024: Canal Festival and Boroughmuir Summer Fair
18th June 2024 MCC AGM and final meeting before summer recess.