CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

The Sustrans proposals for Picardy Place/Leith Street

(868 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by crowriver
  • Latest reply from crowriver

  1. crowriver
    Member

    @Klaxon, Having done a wee bit of Googoling at traffic orders in various LAs around Scotland, it appears some key areas are:

    - loss of footway area
    - road safety, e.g.. where a proposed redetermination makes roads more hazardous/dangerous for various groups of road users.
    - loss of parking/loading (obvs. "we" might not bother about that)

    And stuff like that.

    Then there's general planning arguments, such as loss of amenity, poor design, etc.

    Others may care to chip in if they have greater knowledge/insight?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  2. crowriver
    Member

    "That’s fine, can CEC tell him to plan for ways of discouraging traffic??"

    Why would they? He was part of the team responsible for the 2007 design, which apparently cannot be altered because of "Prior Approval" (I assume a reference to the tram Act Of Parliament).

    See these curious officer responses in the appendix to the 2009 "consultation" report:

    Posted 7 years ago #
  3. neddie
    Member

    Who wants to see a terrible redesign of Picardy Pl, sent to the Broughton Spurtle by a "concerned reader":?

    Thread:
    https://twitter.com/mark_lazarowicz/status/918056390400364544

    Spurtle tweet:
    https://twitter.com/theSpurtle/status/918055025972318208

    Posted 7 years ago #
  4. crowriver
    Member

    It's the kind of solution Glasgow or Milton Keynes would have built in the 1960s.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  5. crowriver
    Member

    Further to this, here's the relevant section from the trams act

    ---

    Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006

    3 Power to alter the layout of roads
    (1) The authorised undertaker may alter the layout of any road specified in columns (1) and (2) of schedule 2 in the manner specified in relation to that road in column (3) of that schedule.
    (2) Without prejudice to the specific power conferred by subsection (1) but subject to subsection (3), the authorised undertaker may for the purpose of constructing, maintaining or using any authorised road tramway alter the layout of the road along which the tramway is laid; and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the authorised undertaker may—
    (a) increase the width of the carriageway of the road by reducing the width of any kerb, footpath, footway, cycle track or verge within the road,
    (b) alter the level or reduce the width of any such kerb, footpath, footway, cycle track or verge,
    (c) reduce the width of the carriageway of the road by forming a reserved area in the road as a stopping place for trams or by carrying out other works for that purpose,
    (d) carry out works to the carriageway of the road for the purpose of deterring or preventing vehicles other than trams from passing along the tramway,
    (e) carry out works for the provision or alteration of parking places and bus lay-bys, and
    (f) make and maintain crossovers, sidings or passing places.
    (3) The powers in subsection (2) shall not be exercised without the consent of the roads authority, but such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
    (4) The alteration of the layout of a road under this section shall be deemed to be a determination of the right of passage along that road under section 1(1) (Powers and duties of local roads authorities) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54).

    ---

    SCHEDULE 2
    Roads subject to alteration of layout
    (introduced by section 3)
    In the local government area of the City of Edinburgh—

    1 and 2
    York Place, Picardy Place and, Leith Walk
    Layover siding to be located between points L1 and L2
    1
    York Place, Picardy Place, Leith Walk and Leith Street
    A realignment of junction and revision of kerblines, shown generally as RJ8

    ---

    Now I don't recall seeing these designs back in 2006, but regardless the act does effectively mean that if it's deemed part of the tram project, then the design can be carried forward regardless of any local concerns. Basically they can do what they want.

    Despite certain designs presumably being approved (Prior Approval cited above in the 2009 "consultation") changes *have* apparently been made, even if only really tinkering at the edges.

    What is rather infuriating (to me) is that council officials and certain councillors are pretending that the GAM contract is the stumbling block. This seems disingenuous at best, when it's clear that this junction design was decided in 2006 as part of the deal for the trams. How that design was reached is rather less than clear, but presumably included discussions with the developers and an opportunity to build a hotel on the traffic island in the centre of the gyratory.

    Also open to question is the role of Alasdair Sims in all this: why is he being kept on as a consultant, even accompanying Paul Lawrence to public meetings? It seems to literally be the tram legacy hiding in plain sight...

    ADDENDUM: There are references to route plans for Line One in these committee papers from the Scottish Parliament in 2005, however they appear to be with "hard copy only" or links to the now defunct TIE Ltd. web site...

    http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/tram-one-bill/papers-05/e1p05-11.pdf

    FURTHER ADDENDUM: Drawings and other documents can be found on the Edinburgh Planning Portal, Ref. 08/03723/PA
    "Prior approval is being applied for, for the erection of tram stop including associated shelter and furniture, hard landscaping, tram Overhead Line Equipment (OLE), street lighting and bus shelters (erection, retention and relocation) as part of the Edinburgh Tram | Picardy Place Edinburgh"
    Application validated: Mon 20 Oct 2008
    Granted: Thu 11 Dec 2008

    Note that the drawings as approved are dated 15 November 2006, i.e. more than a year after the Scottish Parliament committee scrutinised some drawings, and 9 months after the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Act 2006 was passed in parliament. Also note that earlier (superseded) drawings are dated 10 October 2006.

    So it's clear detailed designs were still being worked on in late 2006. Which implies that the designs can be changed, if the will is there. The council has the power to change them, it would seem.

    EVEN FURTHER ADDENDUM: From Edinburgh Tram Progress Report, TIE, September 2005

    "The design of the network ha recently commenced and work on utility diversions is programmed to commence following Royal Assent."

    http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/tram-one-bill/docs/Progress_Report_September_2005.pdf

    So Googolers need to be looking for designs from 2005...

    Posted 7 years ago #
  6. jonty
    Member

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

    Though the article on Poe's Law is probably more relevant when considering the responses.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  7. crowriver
    Member

    So, finally got to the bottom of the process by which this design for Picardy Place came about.

    Appears this planning permission was granted under delegated powers in 2008. The document outlining the rationale for granting the application application mentions Henderson Global's St James application, ref. 08/03361/OUT.

    St James application granted 4 June 2009, *after* Picardy Place designs granted permission under delegated powers. All approved *before* Picardy Place Design Principles published July 2009.

    In short, NO pre-consultation on any of the designs. Consultation only AFTER planning permission granted by Council officers. So any consultation from 2008 onwards has been, in Cllr Mcinnes' phrase, "a sop".

    The ONLY concession so far post-"consultation" was to put in the segregated cycle track on Greenside Place, plus that shared use fottway nonsense on the mega traffic island.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  8. Klaxon
    Member

    Is Alasdair Sim of Sweco due to give evidence to the tram enquiry, I wonder

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    @Klaxon, we shall see. I trawled through some of the evidence so far and there are allegations that the design process from 2006 onwards was beset by delays and disagreements.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. crowriver
    Member

    Further perusing planning documents, the permission granted to the Picardy Place junction design carries the following condition:
    ---

    Conditions:-
    1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced no later than five years from the date of this consent.
    Reasons:-
    1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.

    ---

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but given that permission was granted in December 2008, that means Planning Permission has now lapsed.

    Unless technical "commencement" actually occurred prior to December 2013?

    I have read the following on the internet:

    "In order to lawfully commence development it is necessary to satisfy the legal requirements in section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This says that “development is taken to be begun on the earliest date on which a material operation is carried out”. A material operation is defined in the Act and can include any works of construction, demolition, digging foundations, laying out or constructing a road and a material change in the use of the land."

    Have the Council done any of this prior to December 2013 I wonder?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    I hope someone is keeping copies of all the docs linked to in recent weeks.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  12. crowriver
    Member

    @chdot, I've got quite a few. Maybe I need to start a Google Doc/Drive repository for interested CCEers?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  13. Klaxon
    Member

    You don't need planning permission for pure roadworks, only if 'development' is involved.

    You know how what's currently proposed is no tram stop and no hotel...

    Posted 7 years ago #
  14. crowriver
    Member

    So why did they apply for planning permission then? Or "Prior Approval" under the tram powers which is basically expedited planning permission. Here's how it's supposed to work:

    (Click for bigger image)

    The main revisions I've noted at the Edinburgh Planning Portal (Ref. 08/03723/PA) were in 2009 regarding the re-sting of the Sherlock Holmes statue.

    Anyway, re-reading your post I see what you're saying. What is currently proposed is "enabling public works" for the St James redevelopment (which does have planning permission) and could be classed as "permitted development" under planning rules.

    It's just a coincidence that it is entirely based on an earlier planning application for the tram which has now expired...

    And anyway it's now part of a binding agreement upon which hangs the fate of £60 million in public subsidy.....an arrangement that was approved by Council with only two days' prior notice.

    To the barricades then?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  15. crowriver
    Member

    Oh my objection to RSO/17/13 is in.

    I objected on the following grounds:

    1 - Loss of footway to pedestrians
    2 - Worsening of road safety
    3 - Loss of amenity to pedestrians

    I urge you all to object to RSO/17/13 too.

    Deadline is 31 October. You can e-mail to trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk

    All the documents are here: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/2349/rso1713_leith_street_calton_road_greenside_row_waterloo_place

    Posted 7 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    Maybe time for more questions...

    A LAWYER has admitted he may have committed a criminal offence by knowingly allowing false information about Edinburgh’s tram contract to be submitted to the council.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15590625.Lawyer_admits_he_may_have_committed_fraud_during_delayed_Edinburgh_Trams_project/

    Posted 7 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    @Klaxon, oh and if you take a look at the detailed layout drawings of Leith Street they bear the logos of TH Real Estate and SWECO. The latter being the company for which Alasdair Sim is currently Technical Director (until a year ago working for Edinburgh Trams, before that TIE Ltd.)

    So many coincidences aren't there?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  18. crowriver
    Member

    @chdot, oddly enough I glanced at Mr Fitchie's 400 plus word witness statement to the enquiry today, looking for information about the design process. Here's a juicy quote I plucked out:

    ---

    Page 14 of STATEMENT OF ANDREW SUTHERLAND FITCHIE
    FOR THE EDINBURGH TRAM INQUIRY

    2.39  The SDS design contract was awarded to Parsons Brinckerhoff ("PB") in September 2005. At ITN, the design was anticipated to be substantially complete by second quarter 2007.
    2.40  In my opinion, and from what I could observe between October 2005 and October 2007, the performance of PB under the SDS contract was at times poor and erratic. The relationship appeared to start badly. By the time novation neared in 2008. PB were defensive and argumentative and had made two very substantial contractual claims !n the background.
    2.41  There were substantial delays in progressing the design spanning the entirety of the SDS contract period, which stretched from September 2005 to October 2010 (when I !eft my function) and well beyond that date. The scheme design, as far as I understand it, was never complete throughout this whole period.

    2.43  The SDS design delivery programme was amended 28 times between SDS contract award in autumn 2005 and lnfraco Contract award in May 2008. There was a serious lack of consented and/or detailed SDS design to inform the lnfraco bidders about the Project's scope and major tram infrastructure requiring civil engineering works (beyond the ERs). Instead of providing Infraco bidders with a substantially complete scheme design, in January 2007 TIE needed to notify the two bidders, BBS and Tramlines, that the SDS design would be released to them as and when it was produced by SDS. often only at preliminary stage. This meant the initial bid returns were very immature and did not contain any pricing for their proposals that could be evaluated by TIE.
    2.44  TIE and CEC knew about the state of the design: TIE was feeding SDS design piecemeal to the two bidders all through 2007 after the October 2006 issue of the Jnfraco ITN; and CEC was not only advised about it in project progress meetings in 2007 and early 2008 but was also fully involved in the delays on planning approval and design submission processing.

    ---

    Hardly inspires confidence in the 2008 Picardy Place design drawn up by Parsons Brinckerhoff...

    You can find ALL tram enquiry documents at http://www.edinburghtraminquiry.org

    Posted 7 years ago #
  19. Klaxon
    Member

    I would be VERY surprised if the Picardy and Leith St RSOs weren’t scheduled to be issued together but for the political intervention

    Spurtle just dangled a juicy carrot

    https://twitter.com/thespurtle/status/918248820470878208

    Posted 7 years ago #
  20. Stickman
    Member

    Another alternative plan. This one is actually pretty good.

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/time-t-picardy-place

    Posted 7 years ago #
  21. Trixie
    Member

    As a ped, I like the trees down Leith Street and the plaza. Much, much friendlier.

    As a cyclist, I might like a wee bike lane through the plaza to Broughton Street but I might be being greedy.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  22. ih
    Member

    This plan is much much better, and does imo satisfy the principles set out for the development in some of the documents referenced previously in this thread.

    It is infinitely better to have the tram stop in the centre of the road rather than slewing across to the triangle causing all manner of logistical problems and tramline hazards like at Haymarket. It can still be a transport hub without artificially deviating the tram tracks.

    The plaza would become a real human space and could be either developed sensitively (this is Edinburgh!?) or landscaped as a green space (sculpture park, fountain?) which would be better. This would genuinely be an eastern gateway to the city (a core principle) whereas a traffic dominated gyratory would not. I agree with @Trixie that cycle tracks through the plaza (Leith St to Broughton St, Leith Walk to York Place and to Little King St) could be designed into the plaza and is a perfectly reasonable request. It shouldn't be undifferentiated shared space for cycles and pedestrians.

    I could live with traffic heading all the way up Leith St (as opposed to Sustrans bus gate) but don't see why it should have more than one lane in each direction for general motorised traffic. The rest of the road could be designed for bus priority and cycle tracks. South of Calton Road there may need to be a shared bus lane/cycle lane but something has to be done about that awful cycle route (in the Leith St plan) across Calton Road. Also, if the bus stop is by the Omni rather than top of Leith St (consistent with there being a transport hub at Picardy Place) this would remove some of the cycle hazard at the top of Leith St because cycles would not have to pull out of the bus lane to pass stopped buses. This isn't ideal but a tolerable compromise I feel and could be improved in future.

    I also cannot see why this proposal should cause any significant delay to the SJQ development. It's a win all round.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  23. crowriver
    Member

    "something has to be done about that awful cycle route (in the Leith St plan) across Calton Road. "

    You could object to RSO/17/13.

    Deadline is 31 October. You can e-mail to trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk

    All the documents are here:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/2349/rso1713_leith_street_calton_road_greenside_row_waterloo_place

    Possible grounds for objection might include:
    - Loss of footway to pedestrians
    - Road safety

    Posted 7 years ago #
  24. ih
    Member

    You've done some fantastic document digging crowriver. I will put an objection in to RSO/17/13 don't worry.

    I want to object to the whole damned thing though, and I'm not sure what mechanisms are available because the gyratory appears to have been accepted in 2009. You have described how that planning permission may have lapsed but other posts imply that changes to the roads don't need further permission. I'm confused!

    Posted 7 years ago #
  25. crowriver
    Member

    @lh, I think a political process of "engagement" is underway for Picardy Place. We'll see what happens there but there's more time to influence things.

    However, Leith Street has slipped in under the radar so to speak. The only tool available to slow it down or stop it is objecting to the Road Determination Order (RSO).

    So that's what I've done, and I urge others to do likewise if you feel strongly about the proposed layout.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

  27. Klaxon
    Member

    From article

    Some variant on this to suit Picardy would seem good too

    Link to image

    Posted 7 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

  29. chdot
    Admin

    Leading independent economists, Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, are calling for a major review of the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), the government body that runs the schemes. There are “serious concerns” about how the whole system operates, they say.

    https://theferret.scot/private-finance-secrecy-corporate-power/

    Posted 7 years ago #
  30. ih
    Member

    "
    There are two general worries.

    One is that, following the letter of the law, developers have not approached key stakeholders in any meaningful discussion of these plans. Many of the latter have stumbled across potential issues by dint of their own independent researches.

    The other is that there isn’t enough detail in the plans that are available – things like crossings, types of surface treatment, profiles indicating kerb heights, dimensions (e.g. cycleway width) etc. – for observers to judge how the ‘right of passage’ would function.

    All of which goes to strengthen the unfortunate impression that when it comes to major projects like the St James Centre and Picardy Place, the developers and Council officials prefer to operate in a short flexible fog rather than in the extended clear daylight of public scrutiny."

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/unhelpful-fog-over-leith-street

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin