Leith Business Association

News that Edinburgh has been nominated for "Council of the year in Service Delivery" was received with some degree of incredulity by city residents observing the shenanigans surrounding the Edinburgh Tram Line according to an article in The Herald on 6 September:

Tram row council in running for major UK award

Gordon Burgess of The Bed Shop makes many very valid points - from the sorry state of the public realm in Leith, to the financial losses suffered by Leith businesses during the MUDFA utility works, and the potential for a group legal action.

Alan Rudland also questions the potential for future nominations as the city suffers from 30 years of tram-debt repayments.

Shops up and down Edinburgh’s Leith Walk are to be given the opportunity to be among the first in the UK to trial Scanzo a new form of shopper marketing based on QR codes, the strange black and white squares that are appearing on posters, advertisements and print items.

Each shop in the trial will display a unique QR code in their window, linking through to their own site or to a specially-created site featuring details of opening times, stock lines and points of interest about the shop.

Alan Rudland of Leith Business Association sees it as the next step in local businesses fighting for their share of shoppers’ spend,  "Leith traders are passionate about their businesses and the local area. We see Scanzo as a great way of competing with online traders, by fighting them at their own game. Our shops now offer a 24/7 interaction with shoppers and we hope this will bring new opportunities for everyone involved with the scheme.".

Chris Wilkins of Scanzo adds, "Shoppers still love the high street and local shops – the buying experience can be so much better than online. Scanzo gives smartphone users the chance to investigate a store even when it is shut, to find out more before they enter and enhance their shopping experience with the shops they love. For shops, it is an affordable way to add a new level of shopper interaction.".

If the trial is successful it is planned to roll out the scheme across the country.

Fully one year on from the first suggestion that a phased implementation of the Edinburgh Tram Project might not see trams running in Leith for the forseeable future, a report to be considered by the Council next week is finally recommending that the line be built only from the Airport to St Andrew Square.

A copy of the leaked Tram Report has been posted on the LBA Document Library - the document is also now available on the Council website. The report sets out three options for the project:

Option 1. : Continue the project in its present form to completion. i.e. full extent of Line 1a Airport - Newhaven.

Option 2. : Separation. - i.e. end the contract and cease the build.

Option 3. : Progress to St Andrew Square / York Place (with a sub-option to build to Haymarket).

Although there are a number of costs quoted in the report indicating anticipated costs for Option 3., none of these has been substantiated, or detailed. Reference is made in the report to a 'confidential appendix' which may contain further detail, although this has not been included in the leaked document, nor has it been published on the Council's website. Many of the costs were widely leaked in the media, although Councillors and council officials refused to confirm or deny the numbers. Those which have been most widely quoted are:

Cost to continue - the figure is not quoted directly in the report other than in reference to the confidential appendix. The report does however suggest that costs to build to the foot of Leith Walk could be up to £970M, and to Newhaven as being up to £1.09BN.

Cost to separate - the figure is also not quoted directly in the report, other than in reference to the confidential appendix, but it has been reported in the media as £750M.

Cost to build to St Andrew Square -  unlike the other options, costs for the preferred option are included and estimated at up to £773M. Cost to build sub-option to Haymarket - estimated at £700M.

Rank Hypocrisy

It is disgraceful that the full detail and breakdown of these costs has not been made available to the public in order that appropriate representation can be made the elected representatives.  This type of obfuscation is however endemic throughout every aspect of the Tram Project and has not changed despite changes of management at both tie and the Council.

It is also rank hypocrisy that the figures and their breakdown have not been published, when the report states at Section 2.2, 'It has been the intention throughout this process to be open and transparent'!

The Council as funder of last resort is responsible for all costs in excess of the £500M from the Scottish government. As of 21 May 2011, £461M had been spent/committed. The Council had originally expected to contribute £45M, of which only £17.6M has been realized. No decision has been made about how the funding ap between available funds and final cost will be met.

The future for Leith

The report is disgustingly biased towards Option 3., and if approved will see the tram stop at St Andrew Square / York Place.

Separation as proposed under Option 2., separation would have the same impact on Leith. 

The admission that trams will not come to Leith will doubtless cause mixed emotions for businesses here.  There will be disappointment that there is nothing to show for the years of disruption caused by the MUDFA works, and a sense of relief that the further disruption of the INFRACO construction will not have to be endured.

On a brighter note, it does however mean that early representations could be made to the Council to restore the public realm 'messes' left behind by the suspension of works.  Indeed mention is made of this within the report (sections 3.72-3.76), '...proposals for dealing with repair and reinstatement works for the Leith Walk section will be reported to the Council’s Transport Infrastructure and Environment Committee later this summer.'.

A ban on A-Boards on the High Street and Rose Street has had a negative impact on local business according to 78% of business owners and 60% of all categories of respondents to a survey carried out by the City Centre Neighbourhood Partnership.

A-Board ban fails to make improvements 

Analysis of data obtained under Freedom of Information legislation* shows that the removal of A-Boards from the High Street and Rose Street has not improved the appearance of these streets, nor has it made it easier for people to move around more freely - 60% of categorized responses disagreed that removal of A-Boards had made any improvement.

Alternative advertising arrangements such as the directory signage installed on Rose Street fared no better, with two-thirds of those categorized as city-centre visitors, or non-resident in Edinburgh branding them as ineffective.

When asked if they would support the removal of A-Boards from other streets in the city centre 59% of all categories said no.

A flawed survey and a failure to publish

In December 2010, the LBA wrote to the CCNP expressing serious reservations about the potential bias of the survey, which might skew the results in favour of supporting the ban. The CCNP declined to withdraw the survey and stated that the results would be published in January / February 2011.

Having pressed ahead with the survey, the CCNP should take note of the results - their failure to publish must raise concerns of their willingness so to do.

Despite the biased nature of the survey, the results show that there is little appetite for a continuation or extension of the A-Board ban.

(* The data on which this analysis is based is the property of the City of Edinburgh Council)