Update 6: Greenbank-Meadows Quiet Route
What next for the Greenbank-Meadows Quiet Route?
At today’s Transport and Environment committee meeting, Councillors made a big decision to refer the existing experimental traffic order (ETRO) to the Council’s traffic regulation order (TRO) sub-committee to consider whether or not to make the scheme permanent. This is a huge step forward in terms of securing the long term future of the Quiet Route and also introducing some certainty for residents.
Read on to find out more about the decision, and you can also watch back the Council webcast of the meeting, including deputations from local residents and groups, here.
What got us here?
Many people will be aware that the matter of the Quiet Route has been ongoing for several years. I have always been a firm supporter of the route, and you can read my previous updates at different key moments in the creation of the Quiet Route as below:
The trajectory of the Quiet Route changed most recently, however, when a hearing by the Standards Commission in March 2026 found that both Councillor Marie-Clair Munro and Councillor Neil Ross had breached the Councillor’s Code of Conduct in relation to their participation in the decision around the Greenbank-Meadows Quiet Route in 2023 and 2024. This finding called into doubt the legitimacy of the previous committee decision to withdraw the modal filters from the route (a decision which I did not support at the time). Because of the Standards Commission findings, an urgent report was submitted to today’s Transport and Environment committee setting out (new) options for next steps for the route (A, B and C) given that context and the fact that the (existing) ETRO is due to expire in June. You can read more about this in my most recent update here.
What was the Green position at today’s committee meeting?
In today’s meeting, I supported Option C; to refer the route in its current form (with modal filters intact) to the TRO subcommittee. I also moved an addendum to request a further update at the next Transport and Environment committee meeting after the TRO subcommittee to enable Councillors to reflect on any implications which arise from the subcommittee decision.
I thought it would be helpful to set out some of my (high-level) thoughts about the options below:
Option A - to remove the route in its entirety:
This is not supported by the community - especially in the north of the route around James Gillespie’s.
This is not in line with Council policies or ambitions relating to active travel and tackling the climate emergency.
Option B - to introduce a further 18-month “trial” period for an amended route without modal filters, based on previous Committee decisions:
This introduces a significant amount of risk to the Council given the Standards Commission report which highlights issues with previous decisions and the genesis of the options which had been consulted on previously.
This further prolongs the period of uncertainty around the route which many residents tell me they object to.
This is a significantly more expensive option.
Option C - to refer the route in its current format to the TRO subcommittee to decide whether or not to make it permanent:
The current scheme is supported by many residents, has significantly reduced traffic in the local area and supported more people to walk, wheel or cycle, including many children on their route to school.
This introduces certainty for the community.
Even after the TRO subcommittee meets, there is the option to further supplement the route (with additional filters or pavement widening) to iron out any remaining issues with the scheme.
In the meeting I also asked Council officers to explain more about why other options - for example, to simply extend the existing temporary traffic order for a further period or use a different kind of traffic order - were not taken forward. In short, this is because these options are not possible or suitable under existing legislation. You can listen back to the answers from Council officers on the webcast.
What was the decision and what will happen next?
In the meeting, Labour, SNP and Green Councillors voted for Option C (7 votes) and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Councillors voted for Option B (4 votes). The committee also agreed the Green addendum for a further update at the next meeting, as well as the Labour addendum which requested that, should the TRO subcommittee choose to make the scheme permanent north of Cluny Avenue, processes to introduce a further modal filter at Clinton Road would begin as soon as possible to alleviate some of the issues which have been reported throughout the previous consultations. This is something I was very happy to support.
The TRO subcommittee will now meet on 2nd June to determine the long-term future of the route. The subcommittee can choose to make some, all or none of the route permanent. I am hoping that the full scheme will be made permanent, though this is not my decision to make - the TRO subcommittee is a separate committee to the Transport and Environment committee and you can find a list of Councillors who sit on the subcommittee here.
I want to thank everyone who has contacted me about the Quiet Route over the past few years. This has been a very lively discussion within the ward and I am grateful for all of the correspondence which has helped me to form my view.