This question is intimately connected to the Picardy Place and Leith Street threads. I used to work for the Council but that was a millennium ago, so I'd like to know, if anyone here has insights, what the planning procedure for roads infrastructure is supposed to be - not so much the decision making by elected members, but the process by which advice and proposals are drawn up by non-elected officials. For example; How do the road planning people and active travel people interact? Are they in different departments? Do roads have to consult active travel and take their views into account? What factors are considered when planning city road alterations and how are they prioritised? Who takes the final decision on what is put forward to Council?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Questions/Support/Help
What is the CEC planning procedure for transport infrastructure?
(14 posts)- Started 7 years ago by ih
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
not resolved
-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
A lot is done under delegated powers, as far as I'm aware.
Basically as far as roads are concerned the council can do pretty much what it wants (ie. what it has power to do). Objections can be made (for example) to RTOs and RSOs and the council is supposed to take these into account, however a "hearing" (inquiry) is only necessary in very limited circumstances. Unless a "hearing" is held then any objectors who have not been persuaded to withdraw their objections will be informed by the council of its decision to go ahead.
On major changes that cover big areas, consultations are held: not sure if this is a statutory obligation or just "best practice" and a pragmatic way to potentially lower the number of actual objections by assuaging public concerns. Also at any "hearing" the council can say to the inspector "we consulted and a majority of respondents supported the plans".
Er, that's it.
(Planning control and permission comes into play for certain infrastructure like tram halts, bus stops with advertising in conservation areas, etc.)
Specifically regarding Picardy Place, although the designs formed part of a planning application in 2006 for the tram works, as Klaxon pointed out some time ago the actual works proposed at the moment do not involve building a tram halt, just the roads and footways. So as the planning and roads authority effectively the Council can do as it pleases. Something very close to the current designs was passed by full council last year in a process involving what I would label cunning sleight of hand.
Any consultation on these plans really is what Cllr McInnes insisted it wasn't: "a sop". Council officials know they can steamroller this through if they have to. Tinkering and tweaking around the edges after consultation will be shown to have "addressed public concerns" while "balancing different interests". All entirely reasonable and entirely above reproach, naturally.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Thanks @crowriver. What I'm really trying to understand by this question though is how do they reach the position where certain plans are put forward into the consultation and RTO/RSO process. We hear a lot about how the PP and LS proposals are 'the best balance'. Where does that idea of balance come from? Who decides on the balance? What influences the planners to place their thumbs on one side of the balance or the other? I can more easily understand the political decision making where politicians have an eye on their constituents, re-election and business, but how on earth do the non-elected officials come to the conclusion that the present offerings represent 'the best balance' for all users?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"how on earth do the non-elected officials come to the conclusion that the present offerings represent 'the best balance' for all users?"
Good question.
Mix of 'based on what was done before' and 'what we can get away with' - in terms of not upsetting councillors (or the public too) much.
BUT I really don't understand why they don't have more ambition, look around at other cities (even Glasgow now!!)
As for "balance" they are inexplicable stuck with 'balance between traffic flow and the rest'.
ALSO 'economic development' in the most narrow sense (and the interests of developers and things like pop-up 'entertainments' on George Street) seem to score disproportionately highly.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The problem is there is no transport masterplan.
The council (and others) just make it up as they go along. Which is why everything is a piecemeal dog's breakfast.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The problem is there is no transport masterplan.
Somebody made the highly illuminating point here earlier that in the UK transport policy is just sticking plaster for the unhinged housing policy.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I was in Social Work for many years and Leisure and Recreation for two. Council committees have to link their decisions to a series of priorities such as coalition pledges, Council priorities and single outcome agreements. These are meant to ensure that there's a consistency across departments. For example, the Transport and Environment Committee's minutes from 30 August last year discuss City Centre West to East Cycle Link and Street Improvements project. The minutes link to the various pledges, priorities and agreements that the wider Council has agreed to. The quality of the decision making depends on the committee members knowing what these are and to that end a good departmental head will have summarised the various targets ahead of time and will provide guidance during the meeting. I don't know how well projects have to meet these aims. And if I was to put my cynical hat on for a moment I would suspect that they are there at least in part to meet the need for performance indicators.
Posted 7 years ago # -
ih - my take on the PP proposals is that officials have had the gyratory plans in the bag for the last 10 years. The detailed plans are being handled by the St James developers, relieving officials of a good deal of work. All of a sudden, opposition to the plans has blown up.
The instinctive reaction of any official will be to defend the current plans - they worked on them and any revision looks bad for them and involves more work (for which there are no resources). There is only one group that need to be convinced these plans are the best - Councillors. That is a small group, ultimately dependent on officials.
How to defend the plans? Use word like "balanced","fair", "take account of the needs of all users". Councillors are not generally subject experts - these words offer assurance about the fairness or equity of the proposals. They also allow opponents to be painted as against fairness, favouring the needs of one group over others.
I'm not saying this is some kind of campaign by officials - its probably all unconcious or driven by a lack of resources. Think how you would react to a piece of work being criticised by a third party generally considered by many to be a huge pain in the rear.
Posted 7 years ago # -
That's an interesting summary @Cyclingmollie and I suspect "The quality of the decision making depends on the committee members knowing what these are and to that end a good departmental head will have summarised the various targets ahead of time and will provide guidance during the meeting." lies at the heart of some major blunders. I think I've seen these Council priorities listed at the end of Council papers, and they always look like an afterthought, and box-ticking exercise. There certainly doesn't seem to be much analysis of how the priorities inform the plans, or vice versa how the plans will impact the priorities. (I could be wrong). So putting my cynical hat on, I think that road infrastructure changes are driven by outdated thinking that tips the balance towards traffic flow and any elements of active travel are fitted in if possible without affecting the flow. And it's probably quite easy to bamboozle a committee with 'science' based on wrong assumptions.
"why they don't have more ambition, .." Yes, yes, there is a trend, both national and international but they just don't see it.
I was struck by Council leader Adam McVey's comment (that was posted elsewhere) that basically said that We (the Council) have to be honest with people and tell them that space must be taken from motorised traffic to meet other objectives. If that is Council policy, then all road plans should have it front and centre.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Morningsider. "I'm not saying this is some kind of campaign by officials - its probably all unconcious or driven by a lack of resources. Think how you would react to a piece of work being criticised by a third party generally considered by many to be a huge pain in the rear."
I do understand that sentiment. I would guess it's more born out of unconscious institutional bias rather than deliberate malice, but I despair that they are not more open to clearly apparent trends and wholly desirable aims.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The problem is there is no transport masterplan.
This is it:
City of Edinburgh Local Transport Strategy 2014 - 2019.Posted 7 years ago # -
"How to defend the plans? Use word like "balanced","fair", "take account of the needs of all users"."
Which sounds good, but I think there are (at least) two problems.
1) the model of balance is outdated (arbitrary notion - balance 5 motorists against 3 pedestrians and 1 cyclist), times change - quite rapidly in last few years.
2) the 'secret balancers' of vested interests, development/growth and other agendas.
Nothing to do with fair or democratic...
Posted 7 years ago # -
chdot - yes, I agree. I think dealing with the PP proposals needs a two-pronged approach. As many people as possible need to respond to the online survey, clearly opposing the proposals on directly practical issues, e.g. it will create a terrible gateway to the World Heritage Site and a very unpleasant place to wait for a tram/bus. When the officials compile their report for Councillors there will be a clear story - people oppose this idea.
The second prong should be sprung (is this right?) in the week before the report is considered by Councillors. Here, we flood councillors with messages opposing the scheme- but specifically challenging the claim that the current proposals are "balanced". Officials will report our concerns, but argue we are misguided as the proposals are balanced. We can't change official's minds on this - but we could sway the councillors.
I would also suggest a demonstration/photo op the day before the meeting - get lots of pedestrians to stand in the middle of the current roundabout to highlight how rubbish a place it would be for a public transport interchange.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I would also suggest a demonstration/photo op the day before the meeting - get lots of pedestrians to stand in the middle of the current roundabout to highlight how rubbish a place it would be for a public transport interchange."
CCE good at planning unplanned events.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
