Gd in Bvrg H
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Item no + GD INBVRG H+ 7 THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Report no PC/041/03-04/CD Edinburgh Tram Project Planning Committee 2 October 2003 1 Purpose of report 1.1 The Purpose of this report is to provide a review for Committee on the public consultation recently completed by tie on the Edinburgh Tram Project for Lines 1 and 2. Copies of the public consultation report are in the party group rooms. This report reviews the extent of the consultation, the key issues raised, and the outcome in terms of tie's response, together with the Department's views. 2 Summary 2.1 tie have completed an extensive public consultation exercise, outlined comprehensively in their full report, summarised in Appendix 3. This has raised few issues over and above those raised in the previous Committee Report. The appendices attached summarise tie's response to the Planning Committee's comments (Appendix I),and to all comments received (Appendix 2). Committee are asked to note these responses in advance of receiving a revised proposal for Tram Lines 1 and 2. A progress note on other matters is also included as well as a list of the additional documentation which should be submitted for consideration at the next Planning Committee meeting in November, and by Council in December, prior to formal submission to the Scottish Parliament. 3 Main report Public Consultation 3.1 The public consultation period ran from 14 May to 10 July 2003. The consultation devices used included: 1 Exhibitions - an exhibition was in place at 1 Cockburn Street from 2Ist May until 2!jth June. Touring exhibitions visited Leith Walk, Stevenson College, Ocean Terminal, Saughtonhall Church, Gorgie Church, Granton Primary School, Sainsbury’s Craigleith, and the Gyle Centre. The length of exhibitions varied from 2 days to 6 days. Leaflets - two leaflets were produced (one for each line), and were delivered to houses in affected areas. The leaflets provided general background information on the concept of trams, some statistical information, and anticipated the most frequently asked questions. A tear- off response slip invited comments on trams in general, the routes, the options and stop locations. This made clear that analysis and publication of consultation responses will be kept anonymous. Leaflets were distributed to 125,000 households, and some re-leafleting was carried out when backchecking revealed that not all the households targeted had received a leaflet. 0 Leaflets with a covering letter inviting comments - this approach was used for various organisations. Meetings for Groups - several meetings were held for different groups. An open meeting was held for disability groups, private transport groups and environmental groups. Another meeting was held for business influencers and tourism bodies. A meeting was held for MPs/MSPs and a separate meeting for local councillors. A presentation was also given to the Leith Ahead Co-ordination Group. Community Council presentations - Four presentations were given to community councils. Individual meetings were held for West End and Trinity Community Councils, and two additional combined meetings were held - one for Gorgie Dalry and Corstorphine Community Councils, and the other for Craigleith and Drylaw Community Councils. At both of these a number of other groups were represented, and the meetings were open to the public. Public Meetings - Seven public meetings were held at the Assembly Rooms, Leith Academy, Granton Primary School, Craigleith, Trinity, Tynecastle High School, and Balgreen. A total of 676 people attended these meetings. 0 Website - This was launched on 14 May, attracted between 30,000 and 50,000 “hits” per week, and gave rise to 481 responses. 3.2 A summary of the consultation process is included as Appendix 3. A full account of the public consultation has been put together by tie and is available in the Party Group Rooms. The report comprises 11 sections, as follows: 2 Section 1 - “Public Consultation Overview” - a description of the different elements involved in the public consultation. Section 2 - “Tramtime consultation network analysis” - an analysis of the effectiveness of the different elements of the consultation in relation to “reach” and number of responses received. Section 3 - “Final Analysis Report” - reviews the number of responses, levels of support for Line 1 Line 2, the different Options and Stops. Section 4 - “General Comments” - provides details of all general comments received (listed anonymously), divided into reasons for supporting trams, and reasons for not supporting. 0 Section 5 - “Line 1 Comments” - provides details of comments relating to Line 1 (listed anonymously) - the Route overall, the Stops, the City Centre Options, and the Craigleith Options - divided into those which support and those which do not support. Section 6 - “Line 2 Comments” - provides a full list of comments relating to Line 2 - the Route overall, the Stops, the lngliston Options, the Gogar Options (i.e. the Gyle) and the Roseburn/Carrick Knowe Options - divided into those which support and those which do not support. 0 Section 7 - Summary of Responses. Section 8 - “Third Party Consultation” - lists the various organisations consulted with reference to the method and substance of their response. Section 9 - “Timeline” - puts forward a list of key dates in the programme for progressing with the Tram Project. Outcomes 3.3 It is clear that tie has consulted a wide range of individuals and bodies through various media, and they advise that they have received 3,000 responses. This is a large number of responses which reflects the scale of the project and the number of households affected. Some problems were raised by residents who claimed not to have received leaflets. Back-checks were carried out whenever there was a report - verbal or written - of people not having received a leaflet. tie instructed the distribution company to re-leaflet. Some areas were leafleted a second (and in the case of Trinity - a third) time. Overall it is considered that public consultation was adequate. 3 3.4 As a follow up to the consultation, tie has prepared an “Issues Based Analysis” detailing their response to the issues raised. Appendix 1 details tie’s response to the issues raised at last Planning Committee; Appendix 2 summarises tie’s response to all the key public consultation issues. 3.5 tie’s response to the key planning issues raised in the previous committee report are now reviewed below. Princes Sfreef or George Sfreef Princes Street is recommended by tie as part of the final route. This option was the more popular route option, with equally strong submissions from the public, business and heritage bodies. Responses highlighted that Princes Street offered the best balance between accessibility for the public, visual impact and commercial gain for city centre businesses and tourist attractions. Tie is preparing a preliminary design based on partial shared running between trams and buses. Planning and Strategy will continue to work alongside tie to bring forward the principles of a framework design for Princes Street to the next Committee meeting. This may be in the form of a draft proposal for further consultation. An objective will be to maximise the pedestrian space, taking into account the opportunities created by shared running. Telford Road or Railway Corridor The consultation responses favoured Telford Road. Some of the weighting, however, is the result of a number of petitions and actions by cycle groups. There was strong support for the railway corridor as a means of segregating trams from traffic and lessening congestion in the Telford Road area. Following further analysis tie is recommending the railway corridor as the preferred option due to: improved operations and running time; segregation from other traffic and additional safety factors; conversion of disused rail is more cost-effective; no cycleways will be lost - these will be reinstated as part of the construction process. This was the main factor for influencing choice of Option B -the railway corridor option. 4 Given these factors, and that the railway corridor option is in line with the safeguarded route in the adopted local plan, the Department is minded to accept tie's position. However, in view of the strength of public opinion, tie is requested to carry out further consultation with local people to discuss how their concerns can be addressed through design and mitigation measures. Hayrna rke t tie is proposing to revise the proposed tram alignment to ensure urban design and public transport interchange objectives can be met. While the key issue remains the creation of public realm, there may also be opportunities for redevelopment. The development of the Master Plan for Haymarket requires further work on network rail and other issues that are not tram-related. tie is continuing with masterplanning work but suggests that it is not necessary for a full Master Plan to be completed before the tram bill is lodged with the Scottish Parliament in December 2003. This response is not fully accepted. There is a need for some further design work to reassure the Committee that high standards of design are being set in this location, and are achievable. While it will not be possible for the Department to complete the work on a Master Plan in the limited time available, it can take forward the work being done by tie with a view to presenting a draft Framework Design for consultation to the next Committee meeting. Roseburn and Coltbridge Viaducts The future of these structures did not figure as a major issue in the public consultation exercise. tie is preparing preliminary designs showing possible solutions for discussion with Planning and Strategy. This response is accepted provided these designs are submitted within two weeks of this meeting to enable full discussion to take place with Planning and Strategy and, if appropriate, with other external parties.