We are currently working that up, though addressed to TEC and TRO Sub conveners - but Paul Lawrence also a good addition to that list and point taken about cold, hard, dead trees.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
TRO Sub-committee
(35 posts)-
Posted 6 days ago #
-
I have never heard of Councillors being involved in detailed decisions on materials and layouts for other road schemes.
In fairness, occasionally someone will query whether it is really imperative that so much money is spent on setts.
I did find myself wondering earlier what would happen at planning committee (also quasi-judicial) if a councillor asked whether the applicant was sure they could afford what they were applying to do.
Posted 6 days ago # -
@Frenchy - At planning committee, any answer given by an applicant about funding would have to be disregarded by decision makers as it is not directly concerned with the development or use of land.
Posted 5 days ago # -
To me, the most salient point is that the Rosehill cycle defenders are not relevant to the TRO. They aren't regulated like signage and can be installed without a TRO at all, and conversely if the new TRO fails to be approved in time, while the double yellows may have to be burned off it doesn't follow that the defenders have to be removed.
Since the defenders can be added or removed without any regard to the outcome of the TRO it feels irrational for the committee to put such weight on them
Posted 5 days ago # -
This morning we delivered an Open Letter co-authored by Spokes and edi.bike, and co-signed by sixteen other Active Travel organisations in Edinburgh, to the City Chambers - by bike, of course.
A bit more context over here:
https://buttondown.com/edi.bike/archive/edibike-an-open-letter-to-the-city-of-edinburgh/
Posted 2 days ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
