EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE TWO) BILL COMMITTEE AGENDA. Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee 11th Meeting, 2005 (Session 2) 21 September 2005

Transcription

1 ED2/S2/05/11/A EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE TWO) BILL COMMITTEE AGENDA Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee 11th Meeting, 2005 (Session 2) 21 September 2005 The Committee will meet at 9.30 am in Committee Room Late witness statements: The Committee will consider a paper by the clerk. 2. Consideration Stage: The Committee will take evidence on the Bill at Consideration Stage from Group 51: West Edinburgh Residents Trams Action Group (WERTAG) Promoter s witnesses Richard Mansfield, Technical Expert, Faber Maunsell John Hyde, Noise and Vibration Consultant Faber Maunsell Alasdair Sim, Technical Expert Faber Maunsell James Truscott, Technical Expert, ASH Archibald Brown Rintoul, Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Barry Cross, Depute Tram Project Director, tie Objector s witness Jacky McKinney, WERTAG

2 ED2/S2/05/11/A Group 52 : Miss H Reynolds Promoter s witnesses Richard Mansfield, Technical Expert, Faber Maunsell James Truscott, Technical Expert, ASH John Hyde, Noise and Vibration Consultant, Faber Maunsell Archibald Brown Rintoul, Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Objector s witness Miss H Reynolds 3. Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill (in private): The Committee will consider evidence taken during the day.

3 ED2/S2/05/11/A The following papers are attached for this meeting Agenda item 1 Late witness statements Agenda item 2 Promoter s Witness Statements: WERTAG Rebuttal Statements from WERTAG Objector s Witness Statements: WERTAG Rebuttal Statements from the promoter for WERTAG Promoter s Witness Statements: Miss H Reynolds Rebuttal Statements from Miss H Reynolds Objector s Witness Statements: Miss H Reynolds Rebuttal Statements from the promoter for Miss H Reynolds ED2/S2/05/11/1 ED2/S2/05/11/2 ED2/S2/05/11/3 ED2/S2/05/11/4 ED2/S2/05/11/5 ED2/S2/0511/6 ED2/S2/05/11/7 ED2/S2/05/11/8 ED2/S2/05/11/9 ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS The following documents, while not Committee papers, may be referred to during the meeting s proceedings P51/1 Systems Report, Faber Maunsell, November 2003 P51/2 Environmental Statement am2.htm#envstatement P51/3 Route Options Figure P51/4 Preferred Route Corridor Report endix%20k- Pref%20Route%20Corridor%20Development%201.pdf P51/5 Talktime Leaflet P51/6 Drawing C107 P51/7 Drawing C108 and Route Development Report Part A endix%20l-route%20dev%20report%20part%20a%201.pdf endix%20l-route%20dev%20report%20part%20a%202.pdf endix%20l-route%20dev%20report%20part%20a%203.pdf P51/8 Route Development Report Part B - Route Finalisation endix%20m-route%20dev%20report%20part%20b%201.pdf endix%20m-route%20dev%20report%20part%20b%202.pdf endix%20m-route%20dev%20report%20part%20b%203.pdf P51/9 Drawing C119 P51/10 Drawing C108 P51/11 Conversion of Guideway to tram trackbed P51/12 WEBS as built drawing

4 ED2/S2/05/11/A P51/13 Route options considered at the east end of the scheme P51/14 Stop/Layover drawing P51/15 Drawing C343 P51/16 Drawing R104 P51/17 Drawing R106 P51/18 Baird Drive High vs Low Options Report P51/19 Code of Construction Practice P51/20 Traffic Management Report P51/21 Design Manual Content.pdf Aspirations.pdf Parameters.pdf P51/22 Updated Design Manual P51/23 Noise and Vibration Policy ).pdf Sunlight Assessment Baird Drive July 2005 tie response to questions by WERTAG Drawing C291 Magazine article and photographs Terry Shevlin Senior Assistant Clerk Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee Room T2.60 Scottish Parliament EH99 1EP

5 EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE TWO) BILL COMMITTEE: LATE SUBMISSION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS Introduction 1. The Committee has received correspondence from representatives of Mrs Dalwinder Kaur (Objection number 33, Group number 54), requesting that they be allowed to submit late witness statements on her behalf and that these be considered by the Committee. This correspondence is contained in annexe The deadline for objectors and the promoter to provide witness statements to the Committee was 14 June. Information on Consideration Stage and the procedures for submitting written evidence was provided to Mrs Kaur in letters dated 16 March and 14 April As no response was provided to these letters, the Committee decided at its meeting of 18 May 2005 that this objector (in common with a number of other objectors) would not be allowed to provide witness statements and oral evidence. The Committee explained this decision to Mrs Kaur in a letter dated 18 May Again, no response to this letter was received from the objector. 3. The Committee has subsequently received witness statements from the promoter on Mrs Kaur s original objection, and is scheduled to take oral evidence from the promoter s witnesses on this objection. In common with all other objections considered at Consideration Stage, the Committee is required to come to a decision on Mrs Kaur s objection and report its verdict to the Parliament in its Consideration Stage report. Decision 4. On the basis of the information provided, the Committee is invited to discuss and agree whether it wishes to accept the late witness statements submitted on Mrs Kaur s behalf. Private Bills Unit September 2005

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 Group 54 Objection 33 Objector Witness Statement Guy Thorley, Lambert Smith Hampton Introduction My name is Guy Thorley. I am a Surveyor specialising in development and business space agency throughout the east of Scotland. Details of my qualifications and experience are contained in Appendix 1 to this witness statement. I refer to the ongoing objection on behalf of Mrs Dalwinder Kaur to the proposed loss of land and amenity in relation to the creation of the above tram line. It is understood that the subject property is divided into four sections, No. 380, 381, 383 and 386 as referred to in Sheet No.22 relating to the above Bill. The subjects comprise a 7 bedroom detached residential dwelling, with garage and ancillary outbuildings set in grounds extending to approximately 0.62 hectares (1.53 acres), in a strategic location at the corner of the A8 and Fairview Road. It is estimated that the proposed acquisition of land as part of the tram line would equate to approximately 0.20 hectares (0.50 acres), although Figure 8.3 of the Indicative Mitigation Commitments in relation to the Environmental Statement show what would appear to be a further 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres) to be utilised for mixed woodland planting. In addition, it is proposed to temporarily occupy the remaining part of the site, including the residence, during the course of construction of the tram line. An OS plan showing the extent of the proposed land take is attached for information. The particular objections to the Bill are therefore as follows: 1. Location The proposed Bill shows a station (Ingliston West) at close proximity to the subject property. It would appear that the purpose of the station is to serve the Royal Highland Showground at Ingliston. The proposed location, adjacent to the subject property, at the south-east corner of the Royal Highland Showground does not therefore appear to best serve the public s interests and should be located within the Showground boundaries. In consultation it has been stated that convenience was a priority of the trams, yet the proposed location of the Ingliston West station does not appear to have addressed this. Requests have been made to TIE to confirm the dialogue that has been had with representatives of the Royal Highland Showground to determine their position with respect to the location of the Ingliston West station and specifically why it is not contained within the Showground boundaries. To date no response has been forthcoming.

15 2. Noise It is understood that the trams will be electric with little or no pollution yet no assurances have been offered to our client with regard to noise control measures to be undertaken to combat the effects of noise pollution. It is anticipated that there will undoubtedly be noise from the trams slowing down on approach to and speeding up on departure from the station. This is in addition to general noise from passengers waiting to board trams, or even from people embarking and alighting from trams. Although there are proposals for landscaping the surrounding areas of the subject property the current proposals for acquisition of land do not appear to be sufficient in order to protect our client from the effects of noise pollution. Due to the close proximity of the Ingliston West station it may be that a greater land take will be required to ensure proper controls including those such as bunding against noise pollution. There is little doubt that the current proposals will have a material detriment to the subject property and that additional acquisition will further diminish the value and overall aesthetics of the property. 3. Nuisance It is anticipated that the proximity of the subject property to the Royal Highland Showground will result in a large footfall at the Ingliston West station. There are various events and concerts at the Showground, which will result in large volumes of people using the nearby station. With this use brings concerns such as the amenity and security of the subjects, which may require additional measures such as security fencing and regular clearing of litter or other detritus. 4. Route of Track It is understood that the City of Edinburgh Council would like to see the proposed tram line follow the A8 route as closely as possible. It has always been suggested that there is an alternative potential route for the tram line to continue to run north of the subjects and enter the Royal Highland Showground, avoiding the B Listed curtilage and buildings of Ingliston Lodge, before rejoining the A8 further west. It has been noted from meetings with representatives of TIE that the reason for this route not being considered is due to the Listed nature of the wall surrounding Ingliston Lodge. Requests have been made to receive confirmation that approaches have been made to Historic Scotland in respect of this and evidence be provided to support this, however no response has been forthcoming from TIE. 5. Disturbance

16 In addition to the general disturbance our client will suffer there are concerns surrounding the access required by the building contractors during construction of the tram line and station. A requirement for unrestricted access to and from the subjects with this interference will substantially affect our client s enjoyment of her property all to her detriment. In addition, the long term access to the property will continue to be restricted after the tram line becomes operational. It would appear from the proposed Bill that the whole of the subjects will be required during the construction of the tram line and station at which point it will not be viable for our client to remain in occupation of the subjects. Also, given the fact that due to the fact that the subjects enjoy a large garden, which will be extremely reduced after land has been acquired, it may be appropriate for the Council to make proposals for the acquisition of the whole site and we understand that this will be considered during the later stages of the Bill after the Notice to Treat. However, our clients right to sell the property have now been restricted by the Bill as have other potential avenues including potential future uses on the site. 6. Visual Impact In the event that the tram line is constructed at the current proposed route then there will be an obvious visual impact upon the subjects. The sections proposed to be taken for landscaping purposes include 381 and 386, which are outside the Limits of Deviation. However, as previously mentioned there appears to be shown within the Environmental Statement, a further area of approximately 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres) to the north of the dwelling, within the boundaries of the subjects, that has been allocated for mixed woodland planting, without being included as an area for acquisition. In the event that this additional area is required for acquisition then there will be an extremely limited area of garden ground remaining, which will have a material detriment to the house. In the event that the subjects were not a residential property but were commercial in nature, for example an hotel or office, and the land take could be minimised, it is perceived that there may actually be a benefit of the current proposed tram route and station location. However, as the property is residential and alternate use would require planning consent, it is considered that the current proposals will have a significant material detriment to the property. APPENDIX 1 I have a BSc. in Land Economics and joined LSH in 2002 based in the Edinburgh office where I am the Head of Office with specific responsibility for Development and Business Space agency work throughout the East of Scotland. I also sit on the Scottish board of LSH.

17 I commenced my career in 1987 with Glasgow City Council Estates Department with particular responsibility for the Council s commercial and residential property portfolio within the east of Glasgow being involved with the Compulsory Acquisition of residential properties within Easterhouse. Subsequent to this I have worked for GVA Grimley and Gooch Webster in a development agency role having also worked for Southwark Investments and Highland Properties, two private development companies. In my role at Highland Properties I was responsible for the day-to-day management of New Ingliston Ltd s 250 acre landholding adjacent Edinburgh Airport including involvement with the negotiations in respect of the CERT line through the site. I have acted for a number of clients including Fyffes Group Ltd, The EDI Group Ltd, Royal London Group, Miller Developments, Scottish Courts Administration, Boots plc and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh & Lothians Recent projects include: Providing consultancy advice on a 30 acre potential residential site in West Lothian for D S Orr & Sons 74 acre land acquisition in West Lothian for residential development on behalf of Fyffes Group Ltd Providing development and agency advice for a 150,000 sq ft proposed office park east Edinburgh on behalf of EDI Group Providing consultancy advice for a 410 acre mixed use development East Lothian as part of a proposed joint venture. Disposal of a 6.3 acre former industrial site Carnoustie for residential development on behalf of Greencore Malting Group Consultancy and disposal advice of an 8.5 acre warehouse site West Edinburgh subject to outline planning permission for residential use on behalf of Fyffes Group Ltd Providing consultancy advice for the potential redevelopment of 420 acres of land South Edinburgh currently zoned as greenbelt, to landowner.

18 Group 54 Objection 33 Objector Witness Statement Tanmanjeet Dhesi Introduction My name is Tanmanjeet Dhesi. I am 27 years of age (D.O.B. 17/08/1978). My home address is 4 East Mains, Ingliston, Edinburgh EH28 8NB (hereinafter referred to as the Property ). I am the son of Mrs Dalwinder Kaur who is the owner of the Property and am acting as her agent with her authority. I have lived in the Property with my family for 3 years and would consider it our family home. Early in 2004 I received four statutory notices from the City of Edinburgh Council proposing to acquire land and/or rights to use land. These notices indicated that (i) a significant part of the Property would be taken over for the construction of the tram line; and (ii) the rest of the Property would require to be used during the construction phase. This would render me and my family temporarily (if not permanently) without our home and it is for this reason that I object to the Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill (hereinafter referred to as the Bill ). I instructed Davidson Chalmers LLP as my solicitors and Guy Thorley of Lambert Smith Hampton as my surveyor with a view to making an official objection to the Bill on behalf of my mother as the owner of the Property. My solicitors raised such an official objection to the Bill insofar as it relates to use/destruction of the Property and its garden on 25 th March 2004 (a copy of the objection letter is attached to this statement). The objection relates to: (i) the location of the tram station (Ingliston West); (ii) disturbance by contractors and the location of the station; (iii) noise from the trams themselves and general passenger noise; (iv) general nuisance; (v) the route of the track; and (vi) the visual impact effects. That objection was accepted by the Committee considering the Bill. My solicitor s received a letter on 30 th September 2004 from the promoter of the Bill, Transport Initiative Edinburgh ( TIE ) stating that prior to the beginning of the Committee s consideration stage they would provide me with a substantive response to the points which I raised in my objection. I assumed as a result of this letter that TIE were giving appropriate consideration to my objection. No response was received from TIE in relation to the objection prior to the consideration stage commencing and my solicitors did not hear from TIE again until February At that point I informed my solicitors that I would be keen to meet with TIE and attempt to resolve the situation. I did not feel that without an appropriate response from TIE that I was in a position to present evidence to the Committee and therefore did not take up the opportunity to expand on my objection at the initial consideration stage. The relevant meeting was not held with TIE until 11 th August At this meeting it became clear that, contrary to what I had been led to believe by previous correspondence from TIE, my objection, and in particular the rerouting of the tram line, had not been given proper consideration. As I understand it, the tram station is intended to serve the Royal Highland Showground and it would therefore seem sensible to have the tram station

19 within its perimeters. TIE indicated to my surveyor that there is an alternative route which would not impact on the Property. The current proposed route of the tram line and the position of the tram station is well outside the showground s boundary and will effectively render the Property uninhabitable. There is another possible alignment of the tram line in this area which would not affect residential property. I am not satisfied that the other tram line route was considered in sufficient depth by TIE nor was it discussed at length with the Royal Highland Agricultural Society of Scotland. My mother as the owner of the Property would not be interested in selling off parts of the Property which include garages, workshops and lawns/gardens. My mother may be prepared to sell the whole Property but this would not be the preferred option bearing in mind that the Property is my family home. The preferred option for all concerned, and especially for my family and I, would be for an alternative route, closer to/within the boundaries of the Highland Showground, to be used.