The Friends of Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor

GROUP 45 OBJECTION NO 213: THE FRIENDS OF ROSEBURN 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, Edinburgh 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 Leith. 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 Corstorphine 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 Ravelston 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.

Load more