Edinburgh Spaces for People: Botched handling by city council has harmed scheme's environmental credentials – Steve Cardownie
Its internal audit report did not pull any punches when it stated that the specific measures were based on suggestions from “a relatively small group of officers and external stakeholders” and most were initially prioritised by six project team members “with limited justification available to support prioritisation outcomes”.
So, as many people have long suspected, the proposals were hastily drawn up by a small group of people and rubber-stamped by Coalition councillors with “limited justification available” and then imposed on the Edinburgh public.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdNo meaningful consultation or engagement with local residents or community groups before implementation, just a “we know what’s best for you” attitude. It is little wonder then that the report gave the city council a “red” rating, meaning “significant improvement required”.
It does, however, beg the question of why was this allowed to happen? While it is recognised that many of the current group of councillors are relatively new to the job so could perhaps be forgiven for failing to identify the flaws in the implementation of the programme, there are others who have “been around the block” and should have known better.
From the outside looking in, it would appear that this whole issue has been led by a handful of individuals who, because of their unfettered zeal, have tarnished the whole concept of the “Spaces for People” programme and have ensured that the environmental principle behind the scheme has been diminished in the process.
A message from the Editor:
Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.
If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.