Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-11 02:37:10 EDT

Explore

PostsPeople
LatestRanked
@spokes.org.ukSep 10, 2026, 9:18 AM

#EdinWebcast ... #Tram to #Granton

Deputations by 'Looking for Growth' (+ written attached)
- #Roseburn route essential, retaining adjacent 🚶👩‍🦼🚲 path

& Tram-Trains for Edinburgh
- Support full tram extension, tied in with South Sub route. Entire route essential

Looking For Growth Edinburgh: Written Deputation to TEC 10/9/2026 Calum McCutcheon on behalf of LFG Edinburgh, 8/9/2026 My name is Calum, I live in Leith, and I’m here representing the Edinburgh chapter of Looking For Growth. I am here today to speak for the huge share of our city who are eager to see the long-promised tram to Granton built, a group that your own market research shows is twice the size of those who oppose it. I ask this committee to show bold leadership and stand by our transport experts, who make a compelling case that a Granton tram is not just a nice-to-have, but a necessity. The line to Granton forms a large part of the case for tram extension in the first place. It is a region that has been historically neglected with poor access to cars and public transport. Unlocking the £1.3bn of Waterfront investment depends on this tramline being built. The SBC presents an urgent need for more mass transit to the city centre, forecasting a 50% increase in demand whilst our bus network has little room to grow. The report demonstrates how a tram to Granton could transform people’s access to work, healthcare, and the many green spaces this city has to offer. Yet the diluted recommendations today to delay or even scrap the northern extension seem at odds with the stark evidence in the full report. You are being asked to cut off half of the deprived communities who would benefit from this massive investment, until unspecified further work can be done. But no amount of "further work" will unearth a secret third route to Granton. The Orchard Brae route is not viable – we’d spend 50% more whilst getting fewer riders and slower journeys as trams get stuck behind cars. The genuine concerns about the Roseburn Path have already been accounted for: the path will remain, and adjacent active travel routes will be enhanced. The “further work” which needs to be completed before construction is entirely political – standing up for the northern extension that will keep our c…Calum McCutcheonRob Falcon, TTfE
@spokes.org.ukSep 10, 2026, 9:09 AM

#EdinWebcast Transport Cttee (TEC)

Papers--> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocume...
Watch--> edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/...

#Trams extension #Granton #BioQuarter
#TROs simplification
#Lothianburn junction
& much more

@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 3:23 PM

#EdinWebCast #PrincesStreet

Vote

☹️ 7 SNP/Lab/Con - Option 1
👍 2 LibDem - Option 2
🤔 2 Green - neither

SNP drops their 2nd point, re need for 🚲 lanes on George Street. Convener says this will be discussed at TEC (? !)

Spokes conclusion:

Scotland's premier street remains dominated by roadspace

Cllr Griffiths
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 3:12 PM

#EdinWebCast #PrincesStreet

Conservative Cllr Mitchell says Option 1 is 'truly ambitious' as council is not good at resurfacing footways etc and this will do it. It is deliverable, whereas Option 2 less clear

Con Cllr Cowdy: what will Princes St be like in 5 years? no idea, so be incremental now

Cllr MitchellCllr Cowdy
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 3:06 PM

#EdinWebCast #PrincesStreet

Green cllr @alexstaniforth.bsky.social agrees with much of Lib Dem
On cycling, George St suffering continual delays

Cllr @chasbooth.bsky.social asks to ensure safe 🚲 on Princes St, but Option 2 also a problem

Complex Green amendt says not Option 1 or 2

Amendment by the Green Group Planning Committee 9 September 2026 Item 7.3 – Non-statutory planning guidance – Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy Update Delete recommendations and insert: 1. Thanks officers for their work on the report and all those who attended and presented at the workshop on 8 June 2026 for their contributions. 2. Notes that option 1 in the report does not respond to the decision of committee on 12 November 2025 that a “more ambitious and exciting strategy” should be brought forward. 3. Notes that while option 2 does appear to respond to the decision of committee on 12 November, it nonetheless has many challenges, not least affordability, and also has wider questions about the impact on public transport and specifically on buses. 4. Notes that enhanced cycle segregation is a key policy in the City Mobility Plan, notes the work that Spokes and others have done in highlighting that over 420 incidents have occurred with cyclists on tram tracks in Edinburgh, with 191 injuries and one fatality. Further notes that over £1.2m has been paid out in compensation as a result of these crashes up to July 2022, with further claims in process, and agrees that cycle segregation should always be pursued where feasible and in line with broader policy objectives; further notes that all of the cycle improvement schemes outlined in paragraph 4.5 have either been delayed, put on hold or are so early in their development they’re not listed on the Active Travel Improvement Programme. 5. Further notes that heritage bodies are reported to be relaxed at the idea of relocating the boundary fence between Princes Street and Princes Street Gardens, noting in particular that the fence has not always been in this location. Page 9 6.6. Welcomes the proposals for enhanced accessibility for West Princes Street gardens set out in 4.2.2 but notes that the installation of lifts could create maintenance burdens and that, when lifts are out of order they create significant accessibility barriers, and that DDA-compliant ramps are a preferable approach due to their significantly lower maintenance burden, so long as this can be achieved without significant loss of biodiversity. 7. Agrees not to pursue either of the options in the report, but rather to ask officers to: 7.1 Take forward a workstream to deliver accessibility improvements, improved lighting and longer opening hours at Princes Street Gardens, work to enhance and expand the footway along Princes Street, and more space for pedestrians waiting at bus stops, in particular in East Princes Street, without delay. 7.2 Engage with colleagues from transport, to consider how motorised traffic other than local buses can be reduced or excluded from Princes Street, including but not limited to by means of a traffic order, as was proposed in 2015, or by means of the mechanisms set out in appendix 4 to the report, and to further consider whether relocating the fenceline between Princes Street and Princes Street Gardens could be achieved in a way that minimises biodiversity and heritage impacts, and to return to committee within four cycles with a proposal that supports placemaking, improved accessibility, improved pedestrian space, improved cycle safety including segregation, and which retains local bus services on Princes Street. 8. Agrees to refer this report on to the Transport and Environment Committee on 10 September 2026 for consideration of the transport implications of the report. Moved by: Alex Staniforth Seconded by: Chas Booth
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 3:00 PM

#EdinWebCast #PrincesStreet

LibDem Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social says Option 1 is not the ambitious strategy councillors has asked for. It's just a 'glorified resurfacing project'
He asks why SNP changed its mind

LibDem Cllr Osler Need a transformation now, not incremental 'resurfacing project'

Amendment by the Liberal Democrat Group Planning Committee 9th September 2026 Item 7.3 – Non Statutory Planning Guidance - Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy Update Committee deletes 1.2 and 1.3 and inserts: 1.2 thanks officers for the considerable work which has been undertaken since November 2025 to engage with stakeholders on the Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy, and recognises that the proposals as set out in 4.2 under "ambitious pragmatism" represent an important improvement from those presented to committee last year. 1.3 nevertheless recognises the historic and exciting opportunity, as described in paragraph 4.7 of the report, to reimagine Princes Street as "an iconic civic destination" and to position the street as one the world's great places to visit and experience. 1.4 therefore agrees in principle to pursue Option 2 as set out in the report and seeks further information on the financial implications and budgetary requirements of doing so. 1.5 thanks Richard Murphy Architects for challenging conventional thinking around what the Princes Street and the Waverley Valley should look like, and recognises the importance of ensuring a fair and competitive procurement process to determine the exact details of how this part of our city centre will look and feel under such a 'radical rethink'. 1.6 recognises the implications that could arise from repurposing space on Princes Street for people rather than motor vehicles in terms of buses services, and therefore asks that officers undertake the necessary studies in collaboration with bus providers to determine how individual services could be maintained via alternative core city centre routes, while Page 7 maintaining as many as possible on Princes Street and with the aim of no reduction in overall service. 1.7 recognises this new approach, once more clearly defined, will need to go to further public consultation, and agrees to receive the details of how this will be done in due course. Moved by: …Cllr Osler
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:54 PM

#EdinWebCast #PrincesStreet

Cllr Griffiths moves to support Option 1, but says officers will ensure 🚲 safety, and scheme needed now

SNP Cllr @davidfkey.bsky.social amendt supports option 1 as can happen soon & helps 🚌🚊🚶
BUT problems for 🚲 so seeking seg lanes & remove parking on #GeorgeStreet

Cllr GriffithsAmendment by the SNP Planning Committee 9 September 2026 Item 7.3 – Non-statutory planning guidance – Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy Update Delete: 1.1.3 New 1.1.3 Agree that a revised Princes Street and Waverley Strategy, based on the enhancements set out in Option 1, will be returned to Committee in early 2027. Further to the above, a scoping out of options for segregated cycle lane(s) and removal of parking on George Street and a review of how to minimize non-essential traffic on Princes Street. This will provide an ambitious, exciting and deliverable strategy for Princes Street and Waverley Valley. Moved by: Councillor David KeyCllr Key
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:47 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet

Cllr @davidfkey.bsky.social asks what for 🚲 in #GeorgeStreet if Option 1 approved

A: "conversation is ongoing" [under-statement !] But there is unallocated (visitor levy?) money that councillors could decide to use

Cllr Key
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:38 PM

#EdinWebCast #PrincesStreet

Officer: Many good things in Option 2, could be considered in future

Cllr @chasbooth.bsky.social highlights dangers to 🚲 if footways closer to tramlines

A: Council legally not allowed to build something that makes it unsafe

Note: www.scottishlegal.com/articles/cyc...

@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:28 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet

Officer: If Option 1 agreed, could move towards Option 2 in future

Cllr @davidfkey.bsky.social concern re 'bus wall' e.g. blocking views
A: Many people, so hard to reduce 🚌, but tram will help

Cllr @alexstaniforth.bsky.social says Option 2 makes a better 'place'

Cllr David Key Cllr Staniforth
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:10 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Cllr Lang: Does recent fire suggest need buses on George St, for resilience ?

Officers: 1. Princes St needs 4 lanes for its resilience
2. The George St design would allow buses if needed for resilience

Cllr Mitchell: Legal problems banning non-local buses?

@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 2:02 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Q: Cllr @kevin-lang.bsky.social: Option 1 not really ambitious?

A (planning officer): Yes, ambitious, new paving (& other things) is "ambitious" though "not radical"
A (transport officer): It is the best possible compromise to cater for public transport & 🚶

Cllr Lang
@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 1:56 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Chief Planning Officer says south 🚶footway too narrow, and no space for segregated🚲 lanes..

BUT his recommended Option 1 retains 4 traffic lanes throughout Princes St, so extra 🚲 width is not available and only slight 🚶 widening

@spokes.org.ukSep 9, 2026, 1:41 PM

#EdinWebCast ... #PrincesStreet future

Planning Committee papers (7.3) --> democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/ieListDocume...

Option 1: 'pragmatism' - improve footways
Option 2: 'radical' - reconsider roadspace

Watch here--> edinburgh.public-i.tv/core/portal/...

Spokes submission - bluesky above

Council report Exec Summary Non Statutory Planning Guidance - Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy Update 2. Executive Summary 2.1 This report responds to a motion put forward by Councillor Lang, adjusted and approved by Planning Committee on 12 November 2025 in respect of Non-Statutory Planning Guidance - Princes Street and Waverley Valley Strategy (The Strategy). 2.2 Following the elected member/officer/stakeholder workshop in early summer, it sets out a summary of the views expressed and the potential options available to Committee to bring forward a more ambitious and exciting strategy for approval, namely: 2.2.1 Option 1 – ‘ambitious pragmatism’ – a series of enhanced measures to address public and stakeholder issues (as per paragraph 4.2) to augment the current Strategy and redouble efforts to renew the street, working within the existing policy context in terms of the public transport network and heritage; or 2.2.2 Option 2 – ‘radical rethink’ - prioritising Princes Street as a civic destination but impacting its role as a primary public transport route, requiring review of how people and goods move around the city, and the function of city centre streets, including those in advanced stages of redesign e.g. George Street. 2.3 The report recommends taking forward Option 1 so that a significant transformation of Princes Street and the Valley can occur for the benefit of all. There would be an improved pedestrian experience with wider footways repaved with high-quality materials, a much more accessible West Princes Street Gardens, and the potential for opening the Gardens into the evening.spokes conclusion The report before councillors today basically means that a very costly George Street project, banning buses, and with partially compromised cycle space, is likely to go ahead at the expense of leaving Princes Street, Scotland’s premier street, dominated by roadspace, pedestrian congestion, unsafe cycling, and with its magnificent views not taken advantage of. These decisions will cement the future of Princes Street and George Street for years, maybe decades. Both streets, in a European capital city like Edinburgh, should be places for walking, cycling and public transport – not seeking a supposedly gold-plated solution for one, whilst sacrificing the other.