GROUP 45

OBJECTION NO 213: THE FRIENDS OF URBAN WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

PATRICIA ALDERSON

Increasing colonisation of Corridor by badgers: Success of badgers in accessing foraging grounds, impact of restricting movement

Patricia Alderson, Coordinator, Edinburgh and Lothians Badger Group states:- I have been studying badgers in the Edinburgh area for 11 years and am consulted by the Planning Department and Scottish Natural Heritage on badger issues.

One of the advantages for badgers of having setts on the Roseburn Corridor, is the security it gives for accessing foraging areas and for traveling to mark their territorial boundaries at their latrines. Very clear badger trails are found along the top of the banking descending to cross the cycle/walkway and pass under the bridges. At some seasons there are trails of vegetation across the cycle/walkway showing that they have taken bedding material from one embankment up to the sett on the opposite side.

It is proposed that tunnels will be provided to allow safe passage for badgers below the tram tracks, but road engineers refuse to construct badger underpasses where new roads are in cuttings (eg the proposed M9 extension). This poses serious problems as a badger underpass is most likely to be successfully adopted by badgers when it is located on the precise line of a badger trail. On the Croyden line, there is a low water table but on the RC there are already drainage difficulties. Badgers like to keep their feet dry, so tunnels must be well drained; this may be prove impossible and be a serious impediment to providing badgers with safe access along and across the cycle/walkway.

Although little surveying has been done by TIE to follow badgers’ excursions away from the RC, badgers clearly visit adjoining gardens where their welcome can be deduced from the effectiveness of the fencing householders have erected – quite often it is substantial indicating that badgers are already doing significant damage to adjoining gardens. Removing 25% of the RC embankments will exacerbate this problem because it supplies a need for woodland foraging.

It has been stated that there is little evidence of foraging in the RC but I know of several examples in suburban Edinburgh where ground in a badger territory, showing little sign of badger foraging, has been developed for housing and both the new and existing gardens 1/2km away have started to suffer damage once development has taken place. It is an unsatisfactory policy to deliberately increase badgers’ dependence on gardens for food.

As shown by their heavily used trails, urban badgers’ prefer foraging in woodland and on short grass such as that found in parks and playing fields to the more risky and unpredictable sources in gardens, but they can only reach parks and woods from the Roseburn Corridor by going through gardens, by crossing roads and, most importantly, by following the corridor itself.

The proposed tram route will have points where the tramlines and cycle/walkway occupy the full width leaving no more than a fence/sound barrier with no room for badgers. At these points badgers will need to use gardens but risk the householder blocking the route with effective fencing - or owning a dog.

Badgers will also have serious access problems at bridges over and under roads and the Water of .

This may be solved by mitigation but, during construction, routes could be impossible for badgers, forcing them onto busier roads where they are likely to be killed. In recent years there has been a change in the occurrence of road kills in Edinburgh clearly associated with developments and social groups have disappeared following the construction of major roads especially the M8 extension where 2 clans have been wiped out. A large housing development to the east of Hill deprived badgers of horse pasture foraging; this is resulting in an increase in road kills especially on roads to the west of the Hill, the major reduction in size of the most affected main sett, a significant reduction of badger numbers and apparently, with a fragmentation of the badgers’ territory.

The other main badger problem difficult to resolve by mitigation will be preventing badgers getting on to the tram line at pedestrian crossing, being trapped, unable to reach the sett and consequently being killed by the first tram of the day.

As the Badger Mitigation Plan is not available at the time of writing I would reserve the right to comment on its ability to overcome serious difficulties.

One possible compromise would be single track running which would create a scenario for wildlife habitats more closely resembling the Croyden line where twin track without a cycleway could be accommodated along the disused railway line. There, earthworks were required only at passing loops where tram and railway shared the route. Two theoretical alignments were suggested in the Witness statement from Andrew Oldfield to the Parliamentary committee on 27th June, the second of which would eliminate the need for the extensive earthworks at Dykes that are required for twin track running which so detrimental to the badgers in the nearby sett. Greater consideration of this option could improve the tram line both for badgers and the people who use the cycle/walkway.

GROUP 45

OBJECTION NO 213: THE FRIENDS OF ROSEBURN URBAN WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

PETER P C ALLAN resident, Craigleith View, Edinburgh

1. Introduction

1.1 My name is Peter Allan. I am a local resident living at Craigleith View, Edinburgh. I am a chartered architect and town planner by profession.

1.2 Parliament has approved the construction and operation of Tramline 1 in principle.

1.3 In doing so, the Parliamentary Committee charged with making the recommendation had before it many documents and background papers. These were stated to support the proposals. In particular, the various planning documents were referred to as justifying the Tramline 1 proposal. I understand that these documents are in the public domain and that I do not require to lodge them now. The documents are:

A) The Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015, and accompanying Action Plan B) The Central Edinburgh Local Plan C) The North-West Edinburgh Local PLan

1.4 One of the Promoter’s latest documents that I have seen is the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan for the Roseburn Corridor 1 April 2005 which refers to the support for the project on page 2, first paragraph, as emanating from the "Edinburgh Local Plan". There is no such plan in existence. Would that there were such a plan whose preparation would have involved the citizens of Edinburgh and provided the democratic means for discussion of such matters as the use of the Roseburn Corridor for a tram.

1.5 While accepting that Parliament has given approval in principle to Tramline 1, (which says no more than what is contained in the structure plan), the use of the Roseburn Corridor for Tramline 1 as proposed in the Bill has not been authorised by the development plan, contrary to what you have been told. I will refer to Documents RC 45/Impact 01, 02 and 03 in this regard.

1.6 I have explained what I think the development plan does allow. I therefore incorporate my evidence in this regard from my evidence in section 2 on behalf of Group 34. My colleagues and I have suggested that the Bill is amended so that Tramline 1 does not use the Roseburn Corridor but another route from Granton to Haymarket.

2. The changing planning circumstances

2.1 Evidence has been given by the Promoter regarding the history of the Granton Tram proposals. At that stage, the tram was seen effectively as a replacement for a road scheme that had been advanced by the City Council in the 1980s designed to get access to an industrial Granton. The road was needed for commercial traffic as explained in the North-West Edinburgh Local Plan.

2.2 The current structure plan allocates 1,700 new houses to the Edinburgh waterfront. In a statement to the Press, the Convenor of the Planning Committee, Councillor Trevor Davies, announced that the Waterfront development was now 33,000 homes in size, a very different proposition and not yet sanctioned by a replacement structure plan, and certainly not in any local plan (see Evening News press report 27 June 2005).

2.3 While accepting of course that Parliament has approved the principle of Tramline1, which says nothing more than the current structure plan, examination of the exact routeing of the loop is the subject of this current detailed stage of scrutiny.

2.4 While it is evident that the initial developers’ scheme was to serve Granton, as the original name of the tram showed, the tram should now be called the Leith tram, since the vast majority of Councillor Davies’ 33,000 flats will be built there. I am sure that the assumptions made about the useage of the various parts of the loop did not envisage 33,000 flats generating traffic from Granton to Roseburn and Haymarket.

2.5 These announcements by Councillor Davies, if for no other reason, in my view warrant a re-think of the route.

2.6 However, as the objectors have shown, there are many other reasons too for suggesting a route change, including safety and amenity, planning policy, industrial archaeology, and construction.

3. National Planning Policy Guideline 17 – Transport and Planning

3.1 In my view, the Promoters have not paid sufficient regard to national policy as expressed in NPPG17.

4. Environmental Mitigation in the Roseburn Corridor

4.1 The objectors have a number of difficulties with the mitigation and management proposals put forward on behalf of the Promoter.

4.2 Firstly, it is their understanding that once the Bill is approved, the Promoter can do anything within the LoD area. The objectors therefore wish that the Promoters promises in these documents should be written into the Bill by means of specific proposals as set out below.

4.3 Secondly, in any event, the feasibility of the Promoter’s schemes are highly dubious. Evidence is produced as to the contradictory statements that have been made and of course no account was taken of the likelihood that the various bridge structures would be listed. Given the Promoter’s own local policies, it is a disgrace that they did not seek the listing of these structures themselves.

4.4 Thirdly, as discussed in my statement on behalf of Group 34, it is the objectors’ opinion that the construction of the tram along the Roseburn Corridor will have a devastating effect on the wildlife that has colonised the former rail route. This if allowed would be directly contradictory to the declared policies of the development plan.

4.5 My comments on multi-modality given on behalf of Group 34 are incorporated into this statement.

5. Amendments

5.1 In order to deal with loss of amenity and adverse effect on wildlife, the tram should be required to travel at no greater speed than on a true multi-modal corridor, viz, 20mph or 30pmh maximum.

5.2 In addition, consideration should be given to single line operation with passing loops only at stations or where operationally necessary.

5.3 Preferably, an on-road alignment should be chosen.

5.4 In the Bill, insert ‘footpath/footway and’ whenever the Bill mentions ‘cycleway/cyclepath’.

5.5 Require a minimum width of 4.0m for the walkway and cycleway

5.5 Require preservation and enhancement of the industrial archaeology of the

Roseburn Corridor.

5.6 Develop the Corridor in short phases designed to minimise construction disruption.

GROUP 45

OBJECTION NO 213: THE FRIENDS OF ROSEBURN URBAN WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH

Issues: a) Use of Roseburn Corridor (inadequacy of route sifting process) b) Alternative alignments to the Roseburn Corridor which have not been properly assessed (especially from an environmental impact standpoint) c) Possible Amendments to Bill re alternative alignments

a) Use of Roseburn Corridor

1. The Roseburn Corridor is a much-used verdant “linear park” which is enjoyed by large numbers of Edinburgh residents and visitors. A green artery which joins communities together, the Corridor provides freedom of movement, a traffic-free environment and an interface for humans and wildlife which is scarce and highly valued in such an urban context.

Policy Context

2. The Roseburn Corridor is a designated Urban Wildlife Site in the extant 1997 Edinburgh Central Local Plan. Whilst the Corridor is also “retained for possible transportation purposes” in the same local plan, we believe that “transportation purposes” reflect its current role as a cycle and walkway, linking several communities together and forming part of the National Cycle Network. Where a light railway/tram proposal appears on the same local plan (along Leith Walk and Princes St), a different colour symbol is used to represent light railway.

The Corridor is also, under its Urban Wildlife Site designation, “to be protected from potentially damaging development”. This policy conflict within the Tram Line One proposal for the Roseburn Corridor remains unresolved by the Promoter, who is also the planning authority and protector of biodiversity. There is no evidence that the Council’s Natural Heritage section was given the opportunity to have input into the choice of alignments, from an environmental point of view. It seems that the Council’s Transport section’s interpretation of the Edinburgh Central Local Plan took precedence, without discussion or debate, over any claim the Natural Heritage section may have had over the Urban Wildlife Site. Under the Freedom of Information Act, I have requested evidence of consultation between the two sections of City Development, and there was none over the principle of using the Corridor for Tram Line One.

3. This leads us to conclude that, where the City of Edinburgh Council’s own development is concerned, normal inter-departmental consultative responses were waived. There appears to have been some limited exchange with regard to environmental scoping and mitigation, but none regarding the alignment choice.

Current Management and Responsibilities

4. In general terms, the Promoter, in its role as the statutory local authority, has failed to implement proper management of the Roseburn Corridor. This is evidenced by the North Edinburgh Railway Path Network Management Plan of 1989 (Document KR1), by the Promoter’s Urban Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Edinburgh and by the Council’s own Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2000-2004, none of which were enacted. The Urban Wildlife Conservation Strategy document states that “development is the most serious threat to these [disused railway network] sites. It is ironic, then, that the protector of the Roseburn Wildlife Corridor now also represents the “threat” of development.

5. The Promoter’s own arboricultural consultant, SAC Arboriculture Services, is critical of the City of Edinburgh Council’s lack of tree management. In the full tree survey reports, the consultant describes “the lack of active management” and the need for “a more active management programme”. Where some attempts at managing trees have been made, these are described by the consultant as “not to current best practice”.

6. Local people feel very strongly that the Council cannot be trusted to manage the Corridor for the benefit of wildlife, as their track record shows, and this is why a conservation action group, the Friends of the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor, was set up to press for proper management and funding allocation. Local – and citywide – commitment to this venture has led to over 250 members, many of whom help with regular litter picks along the Corridor.

7. We note that the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2000-2004 was vigorous in its description of the importance of the Roseburn Corridor as an artery for wildlife. We note that the recent Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2005-2009 (Document KR3) has watered down its commitment to the Corridor, and takes the Tram Line One proposal as a given. We take this as an indication of the City of Edinburgh Council, when it is a developer itself, moves the goalposts and is less than robust in its protection of biodiversity. This sets a very unfortunate and unacceptable precedent. We also feel that the dual role of the City of Edinburgh Council as Promoter/developer and as planning authority/protector of biodiversity and Urban Wildlife Site designation represents essentially a conflict of interest.

8. We believe that the use of the Roseburn Corridor for Tram Line One conflicts with national biodiversity policy (“’s Biodiversity”), particularly as there is negligible clean air benefit, a minimal reduction in car use (with most passengers transferring from buses) and that the net environmental loss is enormous, for little, if any environmental gain. The use of the Corridor for Tram Line One will render this protected public open space unattractive and will discourage walking and cycling. Our user surveys (Documents RC34/usersurvey01 and RC34/usersurvey02) confirm usage will be affected for the vast majority of respondents.

9. In terms of the inadequacy of the route sifting by the Promoter, I confirm and adopt as part of this statement my statements made as a witness to Group 34 on Alternative Alignment, and those made with regard to route sifting by Alison Bourne on behalf of Group 34. Whilst Mrs Bourne argues to promote an alignment to serve the Western General, the methodologies by which the Roseburn Corridor was selected by the Promoter were weighted to deliver the Roseburn Corridor as the preferred route. We challenge the route sifting methodology, the unexplained weighting of the route links, the lower significance given to environmental factors and the fact that the Promoter at no time assessed or took cognisance of the human amenity value and usage of the Roseburn Corridor. b) Alternative alignments to the Roseburn Corridor

10. We believe that an environmental loss-gain analysis should have been undertaken, and that the impact on the most sustainable forms of travel – walking and cycling – should have been assessed and factored in. I also adopt and incorporate into this statement my statement for Group 34 on Access and the need to use Accessibility and Integration (including Social Inclusion) into early route sifting. I support and adopt the statements by Peter Allan (Group 34/45) on the planning status of the Roseburn Corridor. In particular, alternative alignments which are on-road do not conflict with the extant Central Edinburgh Local Plan and the designation of the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor. In summary, the tri-partite importance of the Roseburn Corridor is: as a designated urban wildlife site and Corridor, which is to be protected from the impact of development; as a traffic-free and attractive link for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between Edinburgh’s communities; and as a linear park which provides a highly-valued recreational resource for Edinburgh residents and visitors. c) Alternative alignments – possible Amendments

Either: as per Promoter’s alignment, then: Ferry Rd Or: West Harbour Rd- Caroline Park Ave – Crewe Rd Nth To: Crewe Rd South (Western General) – Orchard Brae –

11. Consultation responses from a range of specialists, including the RSPB and Scottish Natural Heritage, proposed an on-road alignment as an alternative to using the Roseburn Corridor (see my other witness statements for Group 45). Fast journey time, key destinations, ride quality and frequency of service have been cited by the Promoter as reasons for using the Roseburn Corridor.

12. In selecting their preferred route option, the Promoter weighted a number of considerations, giving, for example, technical difficulty a higher weighting that the environment. We believe that the merits of the Roseburn Corridor as a heavily-used traffic- free pedestrian/cycling linear park cannot have been properly assessed, as the Promoter had no idea of the levels of usage and the high value users place on the amenity. No surveys of wildlife had been undertaken, so that no measure of the Corridor’s biodiversity could be given.

13. Accessibility and Integration, including Social Inclusion, were not used in initial siftings. A consultation response from The Scottish Civic Trust to the scoping report for the EIA clearly stated that: “It is an important issue for clarification as to whether it is best for a tram to operate on or off street. This relates to issues of integration and accessibility….Running on Haymarket Terrace would increase the public accessibility of the line as would the Telford Rd line”. The response goes on to say:“As part of the EIA, we would also advocate a multi- transport linkage assessment. This would determine the most suitable links to other transport nodes, and would need to be particularly strong on pedestrian routes to and from stops. In effect, the Trust would advise that a tram system that runs speedily off-street, but is poorly integrated and [not] useful to pedestrians (which are the main users) would be destined to be a huge failure” (Document RC34/alternative01). Was a multi-transport linkage assessment ever done? Was any methodical analysis of pedestrian access undertaken?

14. We wonder too how the Roseburn Corridor, with its nine bridges and tunnels, and extreme spatial constraints, can have been assessed as technically less difficult than shorter on-road alternatives requiring minimal works.

15. We understand – although we are not experts – that trams can manage hills well and that difficulties only arise when stops are sited on hills. We therefore understand that the incline at Orchard Brae is not a difficulty.

16. We are also confused as to why a former railway corridor can be used at Roseburn, but for the exact opposite reasons, cannot be used at Trinity/Starbank. The National Audit Office report is clear that former railway corridors suffer from poor links with other public transport, poor visibility and poor accessibility.

To: Queensferry Rd (travelling north) – Queensferry Terr – Dean Gallery Car Park – route down side of Dean Gallery leading to new bridge over – rejoining road at Palmerston Place (Haymarket) (shown to count as Haymarket in Promoter’s early route sifting options – West End etc

17. The alignment to Queensferry Terrace has the advantage of integration with bus services coming in from Fife, north Edinburgh, West Lothian etc along a significant stretch of the Queensferry Rd, is highly visible and may reduce congestion along the Queensferry Rd. At this stretch, the Queensferry Rd is wide and could enable segregated tram running.

18. Our proposed alignment takes in the key destinations of both the Dean Gallery, the Modern Art Gallery and links them with the city centre. Both the Queensferry Rd stretch and the Queensferry Terrace stretch also give access to large schools such as Stewart Melville’s, Mary Erskine’s, St George’s which have high school rolls and citywide-catchments.

19. Our proposed alignment runs through the Dean Gallery Car Park and down the side of the Gallery grounds before crossing the Water of Leith via a new tram bridge into Palmerston Place. This alignment was first proposed as a means of linking Granton and the City Centre in the Civic Survey and Plan for Edinburgh by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and Derek Plumstead in 1949.

20. In the Work Package One document, “Haymarket” was taken to mean the area of Haymarket, not Haymarket Station specifically. We note that the “in principle” stage of the Bill accepted Haymarket as a key destination, but we strongly believe that, because of the Promoter’s difficulties in aligning Haymarket Station more closely with Tram Line One, that Palmerston Place can be deemed to be the Haymarket area and is only a short distance from Haymarket Station. Indeed, early route siftings for Tram Line One did not feature Haymarket at all, and we believe it was “added on” late in the process to justify the Roseburn Corridor preferred route in terms of public transport links.

21. Bringing the loop of tram Line One closer in to the city centre has a journey time-saving benefit for both city-centre commuters and for those travelling out to the West. Under the current alignment, tram-users who wish to go out to the Gyle/airport etc have to double back on themselves, coming in from the west to Haymarket before going back out to the West again. We have sought clarity on the operation of Tram Line One at the possible junction with Tram Line Two at Roseburn. We understand that the Bill is to build and operate a loop – via Haymarket – but does that mean that, operationally, the tram has to go through Haymarket? If the operator were to run trams that did not go through Haymarket, ie turned off at Roseburn to head to the west on Tram Line Two, would it be operating within the terms of the Bill?

22. The tram would be very visible at all times, would meet people’s travelling needs which do not appear to have been assessed. The travelling needs of existing populations would be met more quickly, more directly, with much easier on-road access and much better links with the bus network (particularly on the Queensferry Rd if a tram stop was provided). 23. At Haymarket, we understand that the tram stop is currently at on-street level, and we believe that Palmerston Place offers a tram stop at the Haymarket interchange which would be just as convenient for heavy rail connections and bus connections and which would avoid the need to demolish the Caledonian Ale House. The Haymarket Terrace junction will require to be substantially reconfigured under current proposals, and our alignment would actually remove some of the congestion in the area by setting the tram stop slightly apart. It would also be more accessible for those in wheelchairs, or those who are frail and who might need to be driven to the tram stop.

Or: Palmerston Place – Grosvenor Cres – Rosebery Cres – Haymarket Or: Palmerston Place – Eglinton Cres – Coates Gdns – Haymarket Terr

24. The arguments for the above alignments have the advantage of closer proximity to Haymarket Station but this may be at the expense of visibility, more impact on residential properties and access/spaciousness.

Or: Crewe Rd South – Orchard Brae – Queensferry Rd (travelling south) – Dean Bridge – Drumsheugh Gdns – Chester St and onward. I have set out my arguments in support of this alignment as my Alternative Alignment witness statement for Group 34 and I fully adopt that statement here.

25. We ask that the Promoter applies the STAG criteria equally and fairly, without weighting, to the Promoter’s alignment and to our proposed alignment. We ask that costings be done, to compare our on-road alignments which do not involve restructuring/re-building nine bridges and tunnels, with the Promoters’ alignment.

26. Our proposal is supported by the Central Edinburgh Local Plan and by the Structure Plan. It meets STAG criteria more successfully than the Promoter’s alignment and, most importantly, it meets the travelling needs of the public without compromising an urban wildlife corridor and a cycle/walkway which epitomises national and local transport and planning policy in terms of NPPG17 and the prioritised, most sustainable forms of travel, walking and cycling.

GROUP 45

OBJECTION NO 213: THE FRIENDS OF ROSEBURN URBAN WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH

Issues: a) Absence of assessment of human amenity value of Roseburn Corridor (required of EIAs) b) Consequent lack of mitigation and consideration for loss of human amenity (including for disabled/vulnerable users) – construction and operation c) Absence of information on safety for pedestrian and cyclist users of the Corridor d) Amendment to Bill to include “footpath/footway and” wherever the Bill mentions the cycleway/cycletrack/cyclepath e) Amendment to Bill: to introduce speed limits of a maximum of 20mph on the Roseburn Corridor plus safety features f) Amendment to the Bill to specify width of footpath (at least 2m) and cyclepath (at least 2m) and to specify that both should be alongside tramway and not on road

Summary of Evidence (40 minutes of oral evidence) a) Absence of assessment of human amenity value of Roseburn Corridor (required of EIAs): We have lodged the results of the user surveys we undertook in December 2004 and May 2005 (Documents RC34,45/usersurvey01, usersurvey02, usersurvey03). We undertook these surveys to demonstrate that the Promoter had severely underestimated – and had failed to assess at all – the high usage of the Roseburn Corridor and its high human amenity value. The results amply demonstrate this, with over 1000 human movements tallied each day on two separate days in May 2005.

The Promoter placed no, or little, historic or cultural value on the bridges and tunnels along the Roseburn Corridor which are important heritage features of the Victorian railways, as well as important amenity features for views, outlook and aspect. The value of these bridges has been recognised by Historic Scotland who are minded to list four of them – the Coltbridge Viaduct, the St George’s Bridge, the Ravelston Dykes bridge and the Queensferry Rd bridge (Document RC34,45/history01). Information from the Promoter indicates that these bridges will require alteration and possibly, in some cases, demolition. We seek clarification on this.

As the human amenity value and the heritage value of the Roseburn Corridor has not been assessed, nor even recognised properly, the Promoter has failed to taken these factors into account in assessing route options and in putting forward mitigation.

b) Consequent lack of mitigation for loss of human amenity (including for disabled/vulnerable users):

I fully adopt the statements I have made on behalf of Group 34 on the subjects of speed/safety and access.

c) Absence of information on safety for pedestrian and cycle and other users of the Corridor:

I fully adopt the statements I have made on behalf of Group 34 on speed/safety and access. The particular character of the Roseburn Corridor – that it is intensely used – needs to be taken into account by the Promoter.

We seek clarification from the Promoter on the unclear status of tramway/walkway/cycleway – who controls speed and other safety features, including for disabled/visually-impaired, vulnerable Corridor users? We seek clarification as to whether HMRI will require segregation or whether speed restrictions would serve a more appropriate safety function if the open aspect of the Corridor is to be retained.

d) Amendment to Bill to alter alignment to avoid Roseburn Corridor e) Amendment to Bill to include and insert “footpath/footway and” wherever the Bill mentions the cycleway/cycletrack/cyclepath f) Amendment to Bill to introduce maximum speeds of 20mph on the Roseburn Corridor and to include highest safety specifications for pedestrians/Corridor users but retaining multi-modal Corridor, with open aspect g) Amendment to the Bill to specifiy optimum width of footpath (at least 2m) and cyclepath (at least 2m) ie 4m in total, plus .25m per side for bounded stretches and to specify that both should be alongside tramway and not on road. I adopt in full the evidence submitted by me on behalf of Group 34 on safety/speed and access.

GROUP 45

OBJECTION NO 213: THE FRIENDS OF ROSEBURN URBAN WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT

KRISTINA WOOLNOUGH

Issues: a) Inadequacy of flora and fauna surveys b) Consequent inadequacy of flora and fauna mitigation proposals (construction and operation) c) inappropriate bias and lack of evidence in presenting Roseburn Corridor information and devaluing of the Corridor d) Amendment to Bill to re-align Tram Line One and to enforce mitigation (for construction and operation)

Summary of Evidence (20 minutes oral evidence)

a) Inadequacy of flora and fauna/wildlife/vegetation surveys: b) Consequent inadequacy of flora and fauna mitigation proposals: c) Bias in presenting material relating to Corridor:

I hereby adopt in full my statements made on behalf of Group 34 on the subjects of Badgers, Birds, Bats, Vegetation, Insects and all of the amendments and proposals I made in those statements.

My intention is that the evidence I have submitted for Group 34 is applicable to the membership of the Friends of the Roseburn Wildlife Corridor group which covers a much wider geographical spread than Group 34.

I would like to supplement those statements to require the Promoter to survey fully for other small mammals (the presence of roe deer are mentioned by the Promoter’s own tree surveyor; also foxes etc) and to survey for amphibians and fish (these have been observed where water ponds by local people).

I also fully adopt the amendments and proposals I have submitted under the witness statements listed above as the amendments and proposals for Group 45. Summary of May 2005 User Survey on the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor

Following on from the user survey conducted by FRUWCA and Blackhall Community Association in December 2004, which yielded much interesting and useful data, a further seasonal update was conducted in May 2005 to measure the increased use of the corridor outwith the winter months. Users Surveys completed Thurs 12th May 2005 8am – 5.30 pm 1031 360 Sat 14th May 2005 8am – 5.30 pm 1137 333 Totals 2168 693

(N.B. The usage figures for a 24 hour period will be higher still, as it was not possible to record usage before 8 am and after 5.30 pm.)

Only 11% of those surveyed in May said they had also completed the December survey, so this survey represents a new body of opinion, but gives remarkably consistent results, with a clear message - the proposal to run the tram along the Roseburn Corridor is deeply unpopular with the general population.

• Frequency of use: The survey showed that the great majority (79%) are regular users, with 51% answering “most days” and 28% answering “1-2/week”.

• Purpose: There is almost a 50:50 split between people using the corridor to go to/from work (33%) or shopping (15%) and recreational users. Several were multiple purpose users (e.g. walking dog + shopping)

• Almost everyone (96%) said that trees/wildlife/tranquility are important aspects of the cyclepath/walkway to them, with an even higher percentage (98.5%) rating safety/absence of traffic and location/accessibility as important aspects.

• The age profile of users is very wide, with the majority falling into the 36-60 age bracket (53%), followed by 19-35s (27%) and 11% being 61+.

• More people now know about the tram proposals (67%), but the overwhelming majority, 74% of those questioned were not in favour of the tram running along the Roseburn Corridor, and 7% were unsure. Apart from the obvious impact of the tram on the Corridor, the proposed speed of the tram was an important issue for a large number of people.

• 70% said that the introduction of such a scheme would affect their usage of the walkway, with a further 4% unsure.

As found in the December survey, the origin and destination questions highlight the widespread benefit this amenity provides to users travelling within Edinburgh and beyond, with origins and destinations from as far afield as Musselburgh, Dalkeith, , Linlithgow, Broxburn, and Kirkcaldy featuring alongside Leith, , Pilton, Craigleith, /Dalry, , Sighthill, Newington, and among a very wide range of city areas represented.

RC34,45,usersurvey02 Blackhall Community Association And Friends of Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor

Cyclepath/Walkway Survey Results

Volunteers from the above organisations carried out a survey at the Maidencraig access point on the Roseburn corridor on Thursday 16th and Saturday 18th December in a bid to ascertain the numbers of people using that portion of the corridor, and their reasons for doing so. The information gathered only provides a snapshot in time, but is nonetheless a useful indicator of usage patterns and amenity benefit and offers information that is not otherwise available. There is no quantification in monetary terms or in amenity value of the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor in any of the accompanying documents to the Tram Line (One) Bill. There is no mitigation for the loss either. This survey seeks to address that in some small part.

Survey periods:

- Thursday 16th December, 8am – 1pm (5 hrs). Terminated early due to heavy rain, which made gathering the required information impossible.

- Saturday 18th December, 9am - 4.30pm (7.5 hrs). Terminated when darkness fell.

Survey methods: 1. Tally chart to count cycle and pedestrian movements. 2. Survey form which passers-by were asked to complete.

The questions were aimed at finding out the number of people who use the cyclepath/walkway, the frequency of use, purpose, the features they rated as important, their origin and destination that day, and how many other people in their family use the cyclepath/walkway in order to gauge how many other people would be affected by any changes. There was also a section for respondents to add their own comments, and many did so.

The results display the heavy usage of the existing cycle/walkway by a large number of people, and for a variety of reasons. Given that the days in question were dark, wet and windy, the volunteers were surprised and delighted by the large number of people who were willing to stop and complete surveys. Approx. 25 people (mainly cyclists) who could not afford the time to stop even took the trouble to return completed responses by post.

The usage figures should be regarded as base numbers, which can be extrapolated to give an idea of the level of usage the corridor enjoys along its full length and the greatly increased numbers likely to use it when the days are longer and the weather better.

It is interesting to note the wide variety of origins and destinations of users – this is truly a city-wide asset, which also pulls in users from as far afield as Musselburgh, Penicuik, Winchburgh, South Queensferry, Dunfermline and Dalgety Bay.

A table of results has been produced showing the responses to all the questions, and a separate comments section is also attached.

Main results:

- The great majority of those surveyed (86%) use the cyclepath/walkway either most days or at least 1-2/week. - Of the features which people were asked to rate, the amenity features came out highest, with absence of traffic (70%) way out in front. - That the great majority of users (69%), who would be greatly affected by the introduction of a tram system along this route, consider their knowledge of the tram proposals to be vague or non-existent. This bears out the BCA’s earlier evidence about notification/consultation. - That 61% of respondents feel their usage of the cycle/walkway would be affected by the introduction of a tram – see also comments. - That the number of people who would be affected by any change to the cyclepath/walkway is roughly double the number of those surveyed when other members of the family are taken into account. - That the comments section shows that the cycle/walkway is a unique feature, a little bit of the country in the city, much valued by all those who use it, and there is a great strength of feeling that this uniqueness should be preserved, not destroyed in any way.

Oral comments showed additional uses which do feature in the comments – 3 local nurseries use the corridor for exercise, nature studies and safe access to other areas of the community; an adult resource centre uses it for recreational purposes for wheelchair users; it is a popular brambling patch in autumn; countless local children learn to cycle/scooter here in a traffic-free environment.