GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B) LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Objector Rebuttal by Mark Clarke, to statement by Dick Dapre on the subject of safety and speed

Contents 1. Witness Summary 2. Outline of Evidence 3. Design Guidance 4. Assumed Operation Speed 5, Safety

1. WITNESS SUMMARY

1.1. I am Dick Dapré and I am a consultant Transport Planner. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering and an MSc in Transport from Imperial College London. I am an Associate of Steer Davies Gleave based in London. Steer Davies Gleave represents both the public and private sectors and our clients include major transport operators, central and local government, policy makers, legislators, funding agencies and property developers. The consultancy has experience in all passenger and freight modes of transport with extensive work in rail, bus and coach, air, underground, car, LRT, guided bus, cycle and pedestrian studies. I have worked for the firm for more than sixteen years. Previously I worked for Scott Wilson (Kirkpatrick) for ten years.

1.2. I have acted as adviser on operational and service planning issues for the work undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave on Edinburgh Tram Line 1.

2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

2.1. The evidence presented here relates to the operation of trams on the section of route between Crewe Toll and Balbirnie Place where the tramway alignment is paralleled by a shared footway and cycleway. It explains how the tramway will operate on this section and the guidance under which the design and operating assumptions have been prepared, and addresses the issues of speed and safety on this section of route.

2.2. Further evidence will be presented on related issues by my colleagues as follows:

• Scott McIntosh: electrical safety and electromagnetic radiation

• Andy Coates and Stephen Mitchell: environmental issues

• Jim Harries: operational experiences

• Gary Turner: layout and operation of the footway/cycleway itself

3. DESIGN GUIDANCE

3.1. Standards for the design and operation of tramways in the UK are contained in Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2 Section G (RSPG2G), published by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI). The engineering design and operational principles for Edinburgh Tram Line 1 have been established in accordance with this guidance, and discussions have been held with HMRI throughout the development of the project. The design in the Roseburn corridor has been discussed as part of this process and the parallel operation of the tramway and footway/cycleway has been approved in principle. A letter of no objection was issued by HMRI to the City of Edinburgh Council on 14 January 2004, stating “I confirm that HM Railway Inspectorate has no objection to the concept of the scheme for Edinburgh Tram Line 1 as described in the documents submitted with the letter”. This covers the proposal for parallel operation of the tram and footway/cycleway in the Roseburn corridor.

3.2. In respect of speed limits, the HMRI guidance states:

244 The maximum permitted speed of a tram on a carriageway shared with other road traffic may be the same as, or lower, but should not be higher than that for other traffic.

245 The maximum permitted speed of a tram on a segregated on-street section may be higher than that for other road traffic provided that the presence of the tramway is clearly indicated to other road users. The higher speed should be agreed with the Police, the Highway Authority and the Inspectorate. A traffic regulation order may be required.

3.3. Where trams run parallel to, but separated from, other traffic it is therefore permissible under certain circumstances for a speed limit higher than the general traffic speed limit to be applied. The main area of concern in such cases is that drivers of road vehicles may be encouraged to ‘race’ a tram, or may unwittingly exceed the road speed limit by driving at the same speed as a tram. However, providing the layout and signing make it obvious that the tramway is parallel to, and separate from, the carriageway, this concern can be addressed.

Pedestrians, cyclists, people in wheelchairs, runners and horsemen (the police use horses on the cycleway) are all forms of traffic on the cycleway that pre-date the trams. The trams are not segregated from these users as far as I am aware. These users deserve equal or in my view greater respect and certainly greater care. A high-speed tram can do nothing but inhibit, discourage and threaten these users and so, at the very least, speeds for this reason should be inhibited to 20mph as a maximum. A second point is that HMRI Guidance Clause 245 applies to a segregated “on-street” section the walkway is not a street, it does not have the dimensions i.e. the width of a street thus presenting none of the options to other users that a street- width would offer. It is a semi-rural walkway that will become a very narrow passage for two way foot and cycle traffic. The tramway will make it a dangerous thoroughfare where users could collide, be thrown in front of trams, into abutments or over the edge of embankments by the compression and the clear threat of speeding trams.. Point 3.3 applies to situations where a tram is segregated in a street location.

3.4. Where there is no carriageway parallel to the tramway, the concern regarding vehicle speeds does not apply, and there is no reason under the guidance to restrict tram speeds to the speeds of other roads in the area that are not adjacent to the tramway. There is a carriageway parallel to the tramway that is defined to support the other walkway users. Vehicle speeds i.e. bicycles are very relevant and unlike a street where the footpath is defined by a raised kerb, the proposal for a flat space creates even more opportunity for cycles in particular to wonder or be deflected into the path of the tram during overtaking or passing manoeuvres and also in avoiding woodland creatures that presently use the walkway particularly in hours of darkness and poor light when visibility is at its worst. Foggy conditions must be considered as particularly dangerous.

4. ASSUMED OPERATING SPEED

4.1. For operational analysis such as forecasting of run times for input to the STAG appraisal, a maximum speed of 70 km/h (approximately 43.5 mph) has been assumed for this section.

4.2. The maximum speed that can be physically achieved will be governed by the curvature of the alignment and the capability of the vehicles. The curvature in the Roseburn corridor is such that 80 km/h (50 mph) operation is technically possible, although at several locations it may be necessary to impose a lower limit because of curvature. This will depend on the final detailed design of the track alignment. Maximum speed should not purely be a function of technical capacity but the circumstances that the tram operates in.

4.3. Contrary to statements elsewhere, speeds in excess of this figure (e.g. 60 mph) are not proposed.

4.4. The vehicle for the Edinburgh Tram system has not yet been selected, but typically the maximum speed of low floor trams on the market is either 70 km/h or 80 km/h, with the former figure being more commonly quoted by suppliers.

4.5. Depending on the selected vehicle, therefore, the actual maximum permissible speed could be either 70 km/h or 80 km/h in the final scheme. Either would satisfy the requirements of HMRI guidance. For the foregoing reasons I think this statement is not correct.

4.6. The speed of trams is strictly controlled and, as on railways, driver training is thorough and drivers exceeding speed limits face disciplinary action. This contrasts with enforcement of road traffic speeds which is much less rigorous and where a certain degree of speeding is almost considered inevitable. I wonder how the police view this statement – speeding road-users face the sanction of the law. In terms of actual speeds, therefore, a tramway is not equivalent to a road with the same speed limit. The public are generally prohibited from trespassing on railway lines by law and areas are fenced off. Even so there are fatalities due to trespass on rail lines. The public are being herded into a tight open space directly adjacent to speeding trams, a circumstance not repeated on other carriageways where, for example, no pedestrians are allowed on motorways. Other inner-city by-passes and the like either have no access for pedestrians or pedestrians are kept clear of road areas by verges and substantial fencing. Some of these areas have cyclepaths but like the other vehicles on the higher speed roads the cycles are travelling one-way only. Vehicles on roads can also take avoiding action, trams can’t.

4.7. My colleague Mr Harries will present further evidence on this subject.

5. SAFETY

5.1. The design of the tramway in the Roseburn corridor satisfies the relevant design guidance, which has safety as a primary aim. The introduction to RSPG2G states:

“Application of this guidance should provide a sufficient level of safety for approval to be given by the Inspectorate, provided that it has been demonstrated that the use of the guidance is wholly applicable to the works, plant or equipment.” At this stage and the speeds referred to by TIE, I do not believe TIE have demonstrated that the guidance has been applied either strictly or with due consideration of all the circumstances.

5.2. The layout in the Roseburn corridor could be seen as analogous in some ways to a footway/cycleway alongside a road carriageway. However, there are major differences that result from the nature of tramways compared with roads, and a much higher level of safety can be expected with the proposed design, for a number of reasons: For the reasons above I disagree that a higher or even an equivalent level of safety is possible.

• There is a distinct difference between the footway/cycleway and the tramway in terms of surfacing, levels and appearance. Physical separation is still under discussion as part of the detailed design process, but barriers may provide further emphasis of the boundary.

• At all points where at-grade crossing of the tracks is necessary, specially designated facilities are provided, where visibility can be guaranteed, with suitable barriers and chicanes to ensure safety. What about in poor light or fog? With trams operating every 7½ minutes in each direction, this results in a completely different environment from a typical urban street, where vehicular flows are higher, property, footways and side roads on both sides result in dispersed pedestrian crossing movements, and visibility is restricted by parked vehicles and street furniture. Streets where pedestrians can cross the road have speed limits generally of 30mph or less. Vehicles and pedestrians can take avoiding action – trams can’t do that. Higher speed roads either fence off, provide over or under crossing points or purely prohibit pedestrians.

• Trams have a precise trajectory (the “swept path”) and on segregated alignments the design standards ensure that safe margins are provided between moving trams and users of the parallel facilities – i.e. the trams remain well within their designated area. The danger is that other users, by accident, enter the trams designated area. Young children may not comprehend the trams rights to its designated area until it is too late. Others veering, tripping, falling or being thrown into this designated area by collision or other accidental effect may not have the opportunity to correct or apologise for their transgression in the event of being in the path of a tram doing the suggested 70 or 80 kph.

• There is virtually no danger of a tram entering the area provided for pedestrians and cyclists – for this to happen it would have to derail, which is almost unknown on plain track of this type. It is “almost unknown” but not unknown. I would not like to be the first child to discover that the “almost unknown” has occurred. Occurrence will not be at low speeds – occurrence will be at high speeds. The residents at the bottom of the embankment for example around the Craigleith Drive overbridge would have little chance in the event of a speeding tram doing the “almost unknown” derailment.

5.3. It is common for footways and cycleways to be located adjacent to carriageways with speed limits of 50 mph or even higher, without any physical separation or protection for pedestrians and cyclists. I believe this statement to be incorrect and would be interested to know where this occurs in Edinburgh (without separation) and what the views of the Health and Safety Executive are of this statement and whether at these alleged locations, if the Authority has assessed the risk of vehicles leaving the carriageway. The layout proposed

for the tram in the Roseburn corridor provides far higher safety standards. As previously, I disagree.

5.4. Some examples of parallel operation are given in the next section.

6. PRECEDENTS

6.1. The most obvious example of a similar application of a parallel tramway and footway/cycleway is the section of Midland Metro between the Hawthorns and Black Lake in West Bromwich. Tram speeds on this section are up to 70 km/h and parts of the cycleway/footway are immediately adjacent to the track with no separation. What are the widths on the flat for other users to move aside or avoid on-coming cycles etc. Are the sections contained by embankments like the Roseburn Corridor?

6.2. I understand from Centro (the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive) that this section of route has operated safely since it opened in 1999, and no significant incidents have occurred.

6.3. Some features are shown in the illustrations below. I could not get any of these pictures to open.

FIGURE 1: DUDLEY STREET STOP - FOOTWAY/CYCLEWAY (LEFT) PASSING UNDER BRIDGE SEPARATED FROM TRAM TRACKS BY BOLLARDS

FIGURE 2: FOOTWAY/CYCLEWAY ALONGSIDE TRAM TRACKS WITH NO BARRIER

FIGURE 3: DESIGNATED CROSSING POINT

6.4. Croydon Tramlink also includes examples of parallel operation. In the one illustrated, low barriers provide separation between the tramway and pedestrians and cyclists.

FIGURE 4: CROYDON TRAMLINK, LLOYD PARK

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1. The section of route in question has been designed in accordance with the guidance published by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate and has been discussed with HMRI throughout the development process. The method of operation has been put before HMRI and approved in principle under the “Letter of No Objection” dated 14 January 2004.

7.2. The operation of trams at speeds of up to 80 km/h parallel to the footway/cycleway is not analogous to a road with a similar speed limit and can be expected to be considerably safer, and there is no reason to apply urban road speed limits.

7.3. There are precedents for this type of operation in the UK and to my knowledge no safety problems have arisen.

The foregoing points give little or no consideration to the actual space available in the Roseburn Corridor. The fact that the embankments further compress the other users and the fact that the route is a busy thoroughfare for these ather users particularly in the morning and early evening when the compression will pose a great risk, not least by users keeping or trying to keep away from the trams and their draft. The perspective has been one of what the trams will do but it is the unknowns and possibility for random events by other users, including animals, that is the real issue and need for speed restriction

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Andrew Oldfield’s witness statement by Tina Woolnough

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses

Route selection including WGH Specific route option on Pennywell Road

3. Route selection including WGH

3.1 Route selection optioneering and appraisals

Waterfront Edinburgh Limited (WEL) is a joint venture company between the City of Edinburgh Council and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian. WEL formed a Steering Group in 2000 comprising representatives of a large number of key local businesses, who supported an initiative to improve the public transport links connecting the Waterfront development area with Haymarket station and the City Edinburgh Rapid Transit Solution (the NERTS Study) in January 2001. That study concluded that the objectives of the steering group would be served best by a complete “Northern Loop” serving the City Centre, Haymarket, Granton, Newhaven and Leith, and that the preferred route for the western section of the loop should run along the Roseburn corridor from Ferry Road to Balbirnie Place, with stops at Crewe Toll, Craigleith and Ravelston.

STAG criteria of social inclusion, integration etc were not used in initial sifting, nor were planning criteria, such as NPPG17 which prioritises walking and cycling. Why were no community groups or NHS Lothian involved in the Steering Group? There was then and there is now no planning justification for the selection of the Roseburn Corridor. This was clearly a developer-led study and should carry no credence when considering the Tramline 1 Bill.

As part of the NERTS study and appraisal of route options was undertaken. The process employed in the identification of these route options is noted below.

• Route options identified by inspection of OS mapping information to establish the principal route corridors and associated connections;

• Walkover survey to establish if the route options were worthy of further consideration in the NERTS appraisal process; and

• Photographic survey to assist in the NERTS appraisal process and illustrate the benefits and disbenefits associated with each option.

The proposed route served the increasing transport needs of the major development area at Granton and the residential areas in Craigleith and Roseburn would also benefit, not only by the provision of improved transport facilities, but also by reducing the potential growth in through traffic in their area.

The criteria noted include no evidence of a purpose for the tram other than to service Granton Waterfront. Meeting existing public transport need (eg serving the Western General Hospital, or other key traffic generators) appears to have not been included. Normally, if developers require major infrastructural improvements to enable their developments, they are expected to pay for them. There seems to have been confusion between the role of the Promoter as a developer at the Waterfront, in partnership with Scottish Enterprise, and its role acting in the public interest for public benefit.

No evidence has been produced that there would be local benefit for Craigleith and Roseburn in terms of a reduction in through traffic, nor in terms of improved public transport options. Indeed, the Promoter’s own predictions for a reduction in existing traffic show a negligible reduction (less than 1%). The reduction is not location-specific. Because the development plan process is the crucial one in terms of linking transport and land use, it appears that the Promoter as planning authority – and developer - at the Waterfront has jumped the gun, with permissions being granted before transport infrastructure proposals are examined through the local plan process. Local people have therefore had no opportunity to participate in the testing of either Granton’s suitability for development or the testing of the Roseburn Corridor’s suitability for trams through any statutory planning process.

We rebut that there will be transport benefit for local people. We request evidence of traffic impacts on our community as a result of the Granton Waterfront developments. All the evidence from English tram projects is that regeneration does not lead to predicted patronage figures. If housing at the Waterfront is being given at least one car parking space per unit, what is the guarantee that residents at the new developments will take the tram? What if developments, because of poor market conditions, are delayed? We understood the Waterfront was to be “self- contained”, with retail, residential, office and industrial units, so that the need to travel was minimised.

1 The Line One proposal gives local people in the Blackhall/Craigleith/Blinkbonny/Ravelston areas a far more circuitous journey into the city centre. We have challenged the Promoter’s own projections for patronage figures for the Craigleith stop. The Promoter’s own figures for reduction in car use show a minimal reduction, which does not bear out the above statement. We would ask for evidence of local benefit – and for local amenity loss, and negative impact on cycling and walking, to be brought forward.

The route via the former Roseburn Railway Corridor also afforded the opportunity to continue the route via Haymarket with the opportunity to create a major transport interchange between heavy the rail suburban services, tram services on Line 2, the bus network and taxis. The tram lines and this new interchange would increase the opportunities for existing residents of North Edinburgh to access a wider jobs market in the new developments and at the Gyle, Edinburgh Park and the Airport. It would also expand significantly the potential catchment areas for businesses and developments in the Waterfront and North Edinburgh.

We rebut this. Haymarket was introduced late in the sifting process, to apparently justify the already-selected preferred option. This witness appears to contradict the evidence of Karen Raymond on this point. The Anderson Report did not put forward Haymarket as a key destination – its focus was on serving new development.

In fact, the Roseburn Corridor route does not serve Haymarket directly – it serves Roseburn and turns back into the city centre to serve Haymarket. Roseburn is some considerable distance from Haymarket. There would therefore be duplication of journey (and journey time) for those wishing to travel, for example, from Granton to the Gyle. We have sought clarification as to whether the Tram Line One Bill will require the tram to operate in a loop – ie will the interchange for Tram Lines One and Two be at Haymarket or not? However, there is uncertainty as to what the legal operational position will be. If Tram Lines One and Two have an interchange at Roseburn (to avoid passengers doubling back and increasing journey time), where will it be? Tram Line One would not then be operating in a loop to Haymarket. Such an arrangement would also devalue the alleged advantage of the Haymarket interchange.

There are other possible - and more direct - routes to serve Haymarket (as shown in our evidence). Had national guidelines, even in draft form, been applied at the outset, the Roseburn Corridor would have emerged as a poor choice because of the high negative environmental impact and the high current usage of the Corridor for the most sustainable forms of travel, walking and cycling.

With regard to expanding the jobs market for North Edinburgh, the alignment choice does not serve the Social Inclusion Partnership area properly and the new Waterfront communities were intended to be self- contained (see above). The North Edinburgh area faces the prospect of

2 several crucial bus services being axed to force passengers onto the tram, thus reducing the jobs market for residents. We would like to see the evidence to support this witness’s statement.

Stages of development of the scheme

On our appointment following completion of the NERTS study, several stages of the route option identification and analysis were undertaken to determine the best route for a high quality public transport link from the new developments in North Edinburgh to Haymarket and the City Centre.

Can this witness explain exactly when Haymarket became a feature of the alignment? The witness states below that the first task was to “review…and confirm the preferred route”. Does this mean that the witness was briefed to confirm the route – that is, it was pre-selected and this was not to be seriously challenged? Can the witness bring forward documentation to show what the brief was exactly, by way of a letter of appointment? And who appointed the witness’s company?

¾ Our first task was to review the findings of NERTS and confirm the preferred route. The results were reported in our Work Package 1 report in December 2002. This confirmed the route via the former rail corridor as the preferred route but recognised that it might be possible to deviate from the former railway via Telford Road to better serve the Western General Hospital.

¾ More detailed alignment options for the section at the Western General Hospital were examined and reported in May 2003 (the Review of Telford Road Options report). This recommended further consultation on the options.

¾ Consultations were carried out over the summer and an updated Telford Road options report was issued in September 2003 to include the results of the consultations for consideration by CEC.

The consultations were throughout angled in favour of the “preferred alignment”. The public was never given the option of wider input. Why not?

¾ Finally following consideration by CEC a number of further options for this section of the route were examined in response to additional options suggested by consultees. The “Craigleith Options” report was prepared in November 2003 and considered by Council in December.

¾ At this point CEC concluded that the former railway corridor should taken forward within the Bill.

3.2 Work Package 1; December 2002

3 The Work Package 1 work included the review of possible route options between Granton and the City Centre and a further evaluation of the options using a link sifting process and option assessment.

The witness appears to contradict his early statement – there is no mention of Haymarket for this stage here. The process is illustrated, below in figure 4.1. The identification and evaluation process followed broadly the principles of the draft STAG process, my colleague Mr Eyles. Mr Eyles will provide evidence on he criteria used and the application of the STAG methodology. The full analysis of the sifting process is presented in Appendix A of the Work Package 1 report. This presents a commentary and the results of the scoring for each link under

consideration.

3.2.1 Identification of Links

We challenge the basis upon which the Link Options were appraised. The criteria used were not based on any recognised methodology of route selection; they were weighted to provide bias in enabling the preferred Roseburn Corridor alignment to emerge as most desirable. The whole process of route sifting at this stage was characterised by “retro-fitting” to use the Corridor because it was there. We challenge and rebut all the points above and below – they are selective, just as the initial process was. Why were “STAG-type” criteria used, instead of the actual STAG criteria?

The process adopted for NERTS was revised.

3.2.2 Appraisal of Link Options

In all, about 25 possible links were examined for the western leg of the route. All such links (other than via - the former rail corridor) involved on-street tramway giving rise to additional traffic interfaces, which will be addressed by my colleague Mr Turnbull. Also typically, the more difficult or circuitous alignment geometry on-street generated increases in journey times and costs. In places, these street running links cover more challenging topography and require tie-in to existing adjacent property and buildings in such a way as to dictate onerous alignment geometry which is both operationally undesirable and potentially unfeasible. In terms of Environmental impacts the off-street link options (using the former railway corridor) general impacts of natural heritage. Whilst the on-street options generated impacts upon the built heritage.

Another witness for the Promoter, Mark Bain, confirms that neither a generic tram type was devised nor were/are detailed geometric design

4 available at this stage. How then could the sifting properly take place, even under the biased criteria that were used? How could technical difficulty be assessed (and given a higher weighting than environmental impact) when no detailed knowledge of the options was available? What is this witness’s definition “more challenging topography” and “onerous alignment geometry” and “potentially unfeasible”? We request that the witness provides technical evidence to support these claims and we rebut the claims on the basis that Mark Bain, witness for the Promoter, states that this information was not available – and is still not available, as no detailed design work has been done. Mr Bain also states that all options were technically feasible, and confirms that the specification for possible gradients was changed to 8%, theoretically creating further route options.

Using the Roseburn Corridor also counters national planning guideline NPPG17, but no planning criteria were applied at the route sifting stages to investigate this. Nor was the Roseburn Corridor ever surveyed to assess the high usage of the cycle-walkway. So how then could the impact on the natural heritage – and on human amenity and national planning guidelines – be found to be of less consequence than impacts on built heritage? Is not the impact of the tram on the World Heritage Site (built heritage) in general far greater than it ever would be on, for example, Orchard Brae and Queensferry Rd? Also, why is Starbank Rd – an on street alignment – being preferred over the off-street, former railway corridor alignment at Trinity? The Promoter does not have continuity of argument, but switches position to justify preferred alignments. Proper processes should have been used to sift route options at the outset. We rebut the route sifting process, as described above, as lacking in transparency, consistency and with no clear methodology.

3.2.3 Connectivity and Route Options

The process yielded two “Loop Options” one incorporating the former railway corridor as part of the scheme and the other via Crewe Road.

The option via Crewe Road follows a route (northwards) via Randolph Crescent, Orchard Brae, and along Crewe Road to Crewe Toll, passing the East entrance of the Western General Hospital. It was proposed that a stop would be located at the Hospital entrance.

The Crewe Road option follows a different route corridor (along Crewe Road) up to about 1 km to the east of the former Railway corridor. It was identified during the NERTS and Work Package 1 assessments. A detailed analysis of the option is presented in the Work Package1 report.

The analysis was undertaken for the entire Northern Loop, assuming first the preferred route was followed throughout and then reassessed following the Crewe Road option. In summary, the following key points emerged:

5

Economics:

Transport modelling indicated over 20% greater passenger use of the proposed Northern Loop following the Roseburn Railway Corridor alignment, compared with the Northern Loop incorporating the Crewe Road alignment.

We dispute this figure and this differential. This was because figures were based on residents – not on passengers accessing, for example, the Western General Hospital. Also, residential developments at the former Telford College campus were not factored in. This is contrary to NPPG17, which requires appraisal of transportation and land use, including traffic generators, to be taken into account.

The Promoter’s preferred alignment is notorious for its low density housing and high car ownership – these do not represent the most desirable patronage base. We have challenged the Craigleith patronage projections in our own surveys.

Accessibility:

The population living within 800m of the proposed Northern Loop incorporating the Roseburn Railway Corridor alignment is 30% larger than that living within 800m of the Northern Loop incorporating the Crewe Road alignment.

This did not take into account the new developments on the former Telford College campus, nor did it take into account hospital workers and users (contrary to NPPG17) – only residential figures were included. This represents an astonishing omission, given that a public transport system should be designed to meet the public’s travelling needs to key installations and traffic generators such as hospitals.

Integration:

The Northern Loop incorporating the Crewe Road – Queensferry Road – Queensferry Street alignment does not achieve the important potential interchange at Haymarket.

Yes, it can do, with a deviation in the West End of the City, as our alignment suggestions show. When the initial route sifting was done, Haymarket did not feature strongly. It emerged during the process of retro-fitting the alignment choice to the preferred Roseburn Corridor option. The Roseburn Corridor option serves Roseburn – see our point below. We rebut the evidence below, as per Alison Bourne’s submissions.

3.2.4 Sub-option

6 In addition to the main options evaluated during WP1 a further sub-option was identified deriving from the former rail corridor via Telford Road covering the western General Hospital (West Gate), further examination of this sub-option was recommended.

3.3 The Telford Road Report and Study (Revision B) For Consultation; May 2003

This study considered the alternative route, running on street along Groathill Avenue and Telford Road, identified during Work Package 1 (WP1) Study. This alternative was intended as a potential means of taking the alignment closer to the Western General Hospital.

The Telford Road alternative leaves the WP1 preferred route at the Craigleith stop and runs along South Groathill Avenue, Groathill Avenue and Telford Road. A stop is located on street at the rear of the Western General Hospital. The route leaves Telford Road just south of Crewe Toll where it swings west through the Fire Training Centre car park to rejoin the former railway at Ferry Road. From here, it continues along the former railway to the West Granton stop. Both options are illustrated on figure 1,below.

The option was described in the Telford Road Report and Study (Revision B), which was prepared and issued for the consideration by tie in May 2003.

The report firstly examined the sub-options available for running along Telford Road and concluded that the best alignment would be to run along the east side of Groathill Avenue and then centrally along the Telford Road in segregated lanes, leaving the kerb side lanes for buses and general traffic. The principal advantages of these alternative alignments within Telford Road were that they provided improved visibility, security and access, particularly to the Western General Hospital and to adjacent business.

The report then compared this Telford Road route to the route along Roseburn Railway Corridor by evaluating both options against STAG objectives.

Why were STAG objectives only applied now, at this late stage? Why are objectives applied selectively, when it suits the Promoter’s purpose of retro-fitting the Roseburn Corridor preferred alignment? Why aren’t planning criteria, such as NPPG17, applied? Throughout the consultation process, community participants were never made to feel that their views were being taken into account. We were banned from discussion alignment choices at community liaison groups; we were banned from working through the points in our objections as the basis upon which we could try and resolve differences.

The key issues relating to the Telford Road were identified as follows:

7 • Improved visibility, security and accessibility (especially to Western General Hospital) is provided on Telford Road.

• A section of shared running with traffic is required on Telford Road and it is a longer route than the railway corridor, resulting in longer journey times, more traffic conflict and a requirement for more junction modifications.

• The Telford Road option required land take and localised loss of parking and servicing.

• The Telford Road option was more expensive due to greater numbers of public utilities and longer route length.

These were the Promoter’s “key issues” – they were not the “key issues” of those involved in the consultation process. Serving the Western General and avoiding the Roseburn Corridor were the “key issues” for local people.

The report examined the sub-options available for running along Telford Road and established the best alignment within the carriageway. The report then compared this Telford Road route to the route along the former railway by evaluating both against STAG objectives and sub-objectives. The stop location on the railway corridor (just south of Ferry Road) was less accessible than the corresponding stop on Telford Road. However the railway corridor was found to be superior operationally – one minute less runtime and no interface from road traffic – and is also £9 million cheaper to construct. On the basis of the superior operational performance, reduced capital cost and lesser impact on general traffic it was concluded that the preferred route should remain along the former railway.

A strong technical argument therefore existed for the use of the former rail corridor. However, since access to the Western General Hospital had already been identified as an opportunity to improve accessibility it was also recommended that the Telford Road option should be taken forward for consultation in order to gauge the weight of this issue.

By “strong technical argument”, does the witness mean exclusively cost and one minute less run time? Are there other engineering “arguments”?

3.4 Public Consultation (14th May to 10th July 2003)

A formal public consultation was undertaken during June and July 2003; this sought the views of the public about the above options. My colleague Mr Cross will provide evidence on the consultation process and outputs. Further consultations continued to take place after the formal public consultation had closed. This led to the evaluation of further options at the request of local

8 residents. Mr Murray will provide evidence, on behalf of the promoter with respect to the outcome of the formal and informal consultations.

The public’s preferred option was ignored, cost and journey time impact from Granton being the prime reasons given. We challenge the basis of the reasoning – serving the public need should have been the prime motivation for the Promoter, in its capacity as a local authority.

3.5 Review of Telford Road Options – September 2003

In September 2003 the Telford Road Report and Study (Revision B) was updated to Revision C “Review of Telford Road Options” to incorporate the CEC findings and conclusions from the public consultation.

3.6 Craigleith Options Summary Report – November 2003 (19/11/03 and 29/11/03)

Through additional consultation , further options were identified, running via Crewe Road (Option C1 and C2) which would provide further improved access to the Western General Hospital and other local business. The options are illustrated on figure 3, below.

These additional options were assessed, for completeness and consistency, together with the previously identified route options along the ROseburn Corridor (option A) and on Telford Road (option B). The outputs from the assessment are presented in detail in the Craigleith Options Summary report. They are summarised, here in the following tables.

A STAG assessment of the merits of the RRC, Telford Road and Craigleith Drive options was carried out and a Report issued in November 2003.

CORRECTION: the witness presumably means Craigleith Rd.

Patronage figures were specifically requested by CEC for the Craigleith Drive alignment, these figures indicated an overall loss in patronage in 2011. A small gain in patronage in 2006 is offset by the costs associated with operating costs ad additional vehicles due to the longer route length.

Did these figures take into account proposed new residential developments on the former Telford College campus?

3.7 Alignment Plans (P5 Issue) – November 2003 (28/11/03)

The P5 issue of the Alignment Plans was distributed on 28 November 2003 showing the RRC alignment as the selected route to be included in the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 Bill Submission.

9

Can the witness confirm then that there was NO CHANGE to the preferred alignment (from Granton along the Roseburn Corridor) throughout the route selection process, from the Anderson Report onwards, despite public opinion to the contrary and despite countless representations made by local people to the Promoter and its agents?

3.8 The STAG 2 Appraisal – November 2003

A detailed evaluation of the case for the scheme was carried out during June to November 2003. This included an evaluation of two potential routes between Granton and the City Centre, one via the former Roseburn Railway Corridor and the other via Telford Road. The appraisal followed STAG, which appraises the scheme against both the local planning objectives as set out in the Local Transport Strategy and the Government five national objectives transport, which are:

• Environment

• Safety

• Economy

• Integration

• Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Why were the STAG criteria not used earlier in the process, when they were found to be best practice at this stage?

3.9 Reporting

The reports on the above Engineering studies were issued to tie for consideration by the promoter and ultimately, the documents listed below formed the submission upon which the City of Edinburgh Council made their resolution prior to deposit of the draft Bill in December 2003.

• The Work Package 1 Report

• Craigleith Options Summary Report

• The Telford Road Report (Revision C)

• The STAG 2 Appraisal Report

10

12 We rebut the above table, as it is clearly designed to result in the preferred alignment. At the heart of the issue is the Promoter’s contention is the idea that off-road tram operations are preferable, because they are less disruptive to road traffic and to tram journey times. We rebut this – as evidenced by the NAO report, trams need to be visible and accessible. The Roseburn Corridor is neither. The Promoter has no problem prioritising public transport on roads all over Edinburgh with greenway bus lanes, as a physical and visible incentive to encourage car drivers to switch to public transport, so why should treatment of the tram be any different? Surely the most important aspect of public transport is that it should take people to where they want to go – key destinations, such as hospitals?

Where are social inclusion, integration and impact on human amenity/walking and cycling? Where is the relationship between land use and transportation, in planning terms, evidenced?

4 Route on Pennywell Road Several route options to access the Pennywell area were investigated during the early stages of the study. These included:

1. Telford Road – Crewe Toll – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 2. Former Railway Corridor – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 3. Former Railway Corridor – Telford Road – Groathill Road North – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 4. Former Railway Corridor – Groathill Road South - Telford Road – Groathill Road North – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road; 5. Corstorphine Road – Murrayfield Road – Ravelston Dykes Road – Strachan Road – Telford Road – Groathill Road North – Ferry Road – Pennywell Road

Each of these options can re-connect with the proposed route via either West Granton Road or Marine Drive and the new Second Site development roads. Only the first two options were taken forward for further investigation as the third and fourth options exhibited technical difficulties associated with significant level differences, which would have required substantial earthworks and road realignment with potentially greater impacts on property and/or land acquisition.

The fifth option was discounted due to the problems associated with the significantly longer route, which include increased capital and operating costs, increased journey times, reduced through patronage and reduced revenue. The economic performance of this option would be further eroded by the anticipated low levels of on-line patronage due to passing through relatively sparsely populated areas of high car ownership.

In relation to the first two options which access Pennywell Road from the Crewe Toll area via Ferry Road, in broad terms, either of these options would add materially to the capital and operating costs of the scheme (due to an increased route length of around 1.5km), with a pro- rata capital cost of around £15-£20m and an annual increase in operating costs £0.5m p.a. The increased run times (around 3-4 minutes) would reduce the attractiveness of the system to through trips, notably between Granton and Haymarket/City Centre and hence reduce the ability to reduce the growth in private motor car trips.

The witness clearly concedes here that there will not be a reduction in car traffic – there may be a reduction in “the ability to reduce the growth in private motor car trips”. This contradicts the local traffic reduction benefits described by the witness earlier in his statement.

With evident additional costs, there would need to be material benefits to compensate. Inspection of the transport model shows that the Pilton area has slightly higher demand than West Pilton. The additional route length to West Pilton would probably have to include an additional stop. This stop would provide an additional opportunity to attract demand. However, on balance, no significant difference in patronage between these routes and the proposed route is evident.

In summary therefore, the West Pilton option via Pennywell Road would incur significant additional costs and reduce demand and benefits to through trips but would not, however, attract sufficient demand to compensate. This supports the elimination of this option during the option sifting process.

5 Conclusion

There have been numerous stages in the review of the route options for the section of the route between Haymarket and the City Centre. The technical assessment suggests that the former railway corridor is the preferred solution offering:

¾ Shorter and more reliable run times; ¾ Lower capital and operating costs; ¾ Comparable levels of passenger use.

We rebut that the Roseburn Corridor provides the above. It is a more circuitous journey to the city centre; capital costs are unknown because detailed design work and migitation has not been costed. We rebut the predicted patronage figures and that there would be comparable levels of passenger use.

Short run times (or passenger journey times) are a critical factor for the success of the scheme for a number of reasons:

¾ Short journey times are key to attracting passenger. One of the stated objectives of the scheme is to attract passengers who would otherwise travel by car. They are unlikely to do so unless they can travel more quickly by tram.

If attracting passengers is a stated objective, why isn’t serving the front door of the Western General Hospital a key objective? Residential patronage is only one part of the land-use/transportation equation – key traffic generators should have been factored in (including all the very large office developments at Crewe Toll, plus the Morrisons supermarket just beyond Crewe Toll on Ferry Rd).

¾ Longer journey times may require additional vehicles in order to maintain service frequency (this adds considerable capital and operating cost).

There are shorter, more direct route options available which would complement serving the Crewe Rd South entrance of the Western.

¾ Longer journey times are also likely to increase power consumption and operating costs (depending upon the nature of the alignment and the speed profile).

See above point. We request evidence regarding energy consumption and speed of travel, to understand this claim. We are proposing a shorter journey distance, which should lead to less power consumption and less capital costs and a faster journey time. Tram Line One would also go where people want to go.

My colleague Mr Eyles will provide more evidence on the significance of tram-times.

The West Gate of the Western General Hospital lies within approximately 350m of the nearest tram stop. ETL1 will form part of an integrated transport network with through ticketing from one model to another. Passengers wishing to access the WGH from ETL1 services can also change at Crewe Toll from where 20 buses ph run past the eastern entrance to the WGH. (which can potentially be augmented by dedicated feeder buses) while delivering greater service reliability.

The former Roseburn railway corridor had been reserved for a transport corridor since 1978. It’s use as walking and cycle way is recorded to have been established as an interim use (my colleague Karen Raymond will give evidence on the history of it’s reservation). The route is geometrically and spatially suitable for use as a tram road.

We rebut this. Walking and cycling is not an “interim” use. It meets the development plan and national planning guidelines as a cycle/walkway and is prioritised over public transport in NPPG17.

Whilst this segregated right of way offers some potential for operating at speeds that are higher than on the local highways [up to 70kmh as opposed to 50kmh] it is the freedom from congestion delays that allow this section of the route to offer attractive and reliable journey times. This high quality of service means that the section of route from Granton via the Roseburn Railway Corridor to the City Centre is expected to carry the highest passenger loading for the scheme, particularly during the a.m. peak. This time and quality advantage is crucial if we are to persuade the residents in the new waterfront developments to use public transport, rather than the private car. Failure to provide such an alternative will lead to even greater congestion on the Edinburgh road network as the new developments fill with residents.

This witness appears to contradict other witnesses where he describes “this segregated right of way”. It is not segregated from pedestrians or cyclists, which travel at slower speeds than normal road traffic. If unsegregated, congestion from slow-moving and unpredictable pedestrians and cyclists would be considerably worse than that of controlled on-road traffic flow. The witness describes above an essential flaw in land-use planning. He also makes key assumptions – that the new developments will be successful and “fill with residents”; that these unknown and non-existent residents will want to go where Tram Line One goes. These are all unknowns and assumptions, which the NAO Light Rail report recommended new projects should extremely wary of. We also note that this witness describes the key destination from Granton as being “the city centre”, not Haymarket.

The former Roseburn railway corridor provides a relatively direct route, segregated from other traffic, thus affording attractive journey times and service reliability. For this reason other schemes in the UK and Ireland also make similar use of former railway lines including:

We rebut this. The Roseburn Corridor is NOT a “relatively direct route” to the city centre.

Newcastle, where declining railway services were rejuvenated by their conversion to Metro and their extension into the City centre.

Manchester, where the Bury and Altrincham lines have experienced a doubling in patronage since they were converted into light rail lines and linked by a surface route across the City centre. The line to Eccles has further increased ridership and acted as a catalyst for major redevelopment projects in the former Salford docklands area.

Birmingham, where the former Birmingham – Wolverhampton railway line was converted into a tramway, with major landscape improvements and interchanges offering integrated services with local bus services.

Croydon, where the conversion of the Wimbledon line to tramway and its linking to the busy Croydon central area has resulted in 800% increase in ridership. The line to the south east of Croydon uses a mixture of former railway alignment and new construction to serve the formerly socially disadvantaged area of New Addington. This has improved access to the jobs market for local residents and lead to a significant reduction in unemployment. The most deprived ward along the route, Fieldway, has witnessed the greatest reductions in unemployment: down by over 35% relative to wards not served by Tram link.

Nottingham, uses a mixture of former railway alignments for much of Line 1, future extension will use railway alignments that have stood disused for close on 40 years.

Dublin Line B (Green Line) has brought back into use a former railway line closed in 1959. This runs through residential areas of southeast Dublin that suffer from traffic congestion problems. The tramway is already exceeding its ridership targets.

None of the above projects involved running trams at 50mph along designated Urban Wildlife Corridors, which are heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists – 1000 people movements a day – and which are restricted spaces in cuttings and on steep embankments. Some of the railway corridors described above were not disused – or had only recently been disused. The Roseburn Corridor has no direct comparison with other UK/Ireland schemes, in terms of the above points. This has been acknowledged by the Promoter, and by Transdev, the operator, at CLGs on a number of occasions.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Gary Turner’s statement by Tina Woolnough

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Error in submitted plans

(i) Data based on most current OS information (ii) Aerial survey work undertaken

3. Error in submitted plans

Data based on most current OS information

3.1 The Parliamentary Plans are based upon Ordnance Survey Mapping current at the time. At the time that the STAG drawings and parliamentary plans were drawn up, the OS data that was used was in the October 2003 version of Land-Line mapping from OS. This mapping does not reflect the extension to some properties.

Aerial survey work undertaken

3.2 In parallel with the preparation of these drawings we have undertaken a more detailed topographical survey within the tram Limits of Deviation which has, in part, been obtained from aerial photography. This aerial survey does include the correct outline of the buildings including extensions and this outline has been used in all preliminary design development work and assessments e.g. noise and vibration assessments.

Because of vegetation cover, did early route siftings recognise that there were several bridges/tunnels along the Roseburn Corridor? Was the heritage value of these bridges and tunnels recognised in route selection procedures? Would the close proximity of some extensions have affected alignment choice? At Groathill, early sketches showed the tram alignment actually going through a

kitchen extension. Is it possible that there are other such oversights?

4. Conclusion

4.1 The omission of property extensions in the submitted plans is inherent from the OS base data used. This factor does not materially affect the results of the work carried out as aerial survey work undertaken included the information required in developing the scheme. This information will continue to be used in the detailed design process.

Does the witness accept that the omission of property extensions has caused some considerable upset for local people and has led to concerns about competency and reliability of all drawings and assurances from the Promoter?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Karen Raymond’s Witness Statement By Tina Woolnough and Peter Allan

Issue 1 Environmental Inputs to Selection of the Route along the Roseburn Corridor

Andrew Oldfield from Mott MacDonald has described the process of route development undertaken since July 2002 when our team was appointed to develop the proposals for Line One. This followed four main stages insofar as it affects the Roseburn Corridor:

• the sifting of possible route links between West Maitland Street and Ferry Road; • appraisal of four overall loop options including the “Crewe Road” option; • investigation of options along Telford Road; • investigation of further options along Craigleith Road and Crewe Road.

In this part of my evidence I will review the environmental considerations that entered into selection of the proposed route along Roseburn Corridor rather than any alternative route. The overall approach to route selection was designed by other members of the team (Mr Oldfield and Mr Eyles) who will describe the criteria and methods used to appraise options at the different stages.

This witness’s involvement since 2001 must mean that she was one of the consultants involved in the Anderson scheme. What was her exact environmental input into such early route selection?

Route Link Sifting

On appointment our team’s first task was to review the selection of the preferred route identified in the 2001 NERTS Study carried out for Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd. This was done in two stages; the first was the appraisal of a large number of route links between points along the

route to identify more favourable links which could be “strung” together into full loop options, and the second was the appraisal of those loop options. This section describes ERM’s input to the “link sifting” stage.

In the western section of the loop some 25 links were considered against four criteria: technical implementability, economy, transport and environment. The links covered routes starting from the A8 at Queensferry Street in the east to those starting at the A8 at Murrayfield Road in the west, and ran north to various points on Ferry Road. They are illustrated in Figure 3.2 in the Work Package 1 Report (Report 203011/0004B December 2002). The environmental appraisal involved identifying the proximity of each link to people and to areas designated as of local, national or international environmental importance which could be directly or indirectly affected by construction and/or operation of the tram.

We call upon this witness to produce the environmental appraisal referred to. Did this witness agree to the weightings given to the different criteria?

The alternatives to the Roseburn Corridor can conveniently be considered in two parts, first those affecting the southern part, and second those from Queensferry Road north.

All the link options between the A8 and Queensferry Road were appraised as presenting similar levels of environmental concern although the details varied, with impacts on the new town being most significant along the links through the west end and impacts on the Roseburn Corridor Urban Wildlife Site influencing the assessment of these options. Although not identified specifically as an environmental factor at that stage the absence of an interchange with heavy rail at Haymarket on the options through the west end, would also be relevant to a wider consideration of environmental sustainability.

The Central Edinburgh local plan gives the environmental quality of the RC the highest category, alongside the Water of Leith, the Royal Botanic Gardens and Holyrood Park. Was this factored in to the environmental appraisal? Were planning and other designations taken into account? Was human amenity taken in account?

If the Haymarket interchange was not identified as an environmental factor at that stage, it can surely not be introduced now as a consideration. This confirms our view that Haymarket was added in as an integration justification to support the retro- fitting of the choice of the Roseburn Corridor. Using the Roseburn Corridor is not the only way to access Haymarket, and we are surprised that accessing Haymarket – whilst avoiding the Corridor

and serving the Western General Hospital – was not a key requirement of environmental route sifting.

One on-road route further to the west along Murrayfield Road, Ravelston Dykes, Strachan Road, Telford Road and Groathill Road North, was assessed as least preferred on environmental grounds because of its impact on both the natural and built heritage. Of these southerly alternatives, one, a route along Queensferry Street and Queensferry Road to Orchard Brae, was carried forward to the next stage, together with the Roseburn Corridor option. To the north of Queensferry Road the alternatives to the Roseburn Corridor included Orchard Brae and Crewe Road, Groathill Avenue and Telford Road, and Groathill Road South and North and Ferry Road. In environmental terms all three were assessed as presenting a lower risk of adverse environmental impact than the Roseburn Corridor route.

What exactly was the environmental impact of the Orchard Brae, Crewe Rd Sth, Queensferry Rd route? Specifically, what was the environmental impact of the different link options? How were they assessed (ie were they graded numerically?)?

A further alternative through Comely Bank was assessed as least preferred. The route along Orchard Brae and Crewe Road and the Roseburn Corridor option were carried forward to the next stage.

Does the witness accept that the impact of the tram on the World Heritage Site as a whole is, as described in the ES, severe and detrimental, and that built heritage impacts along the other routes described above is actually marginal in comparison?

Appraisal of Loop Options

On balance, taking all the various factors into account, a shortlist of four full route options was identified by the full team by eliminating the poorest performing links and choosing between the better performers (as explained in Mr Oldfield’s evidence). These were the route defined by the NERTS study, which included the Roseburn Corridor, two other loop options including the Corridor, and one based on the route on Queensferry Street, Queensferry Road, Orchard Brae and Crewe Road. They are illustrated in Figures 3.4-3.7 in the Work Package 1 report.

Can the witness confirm for us whether her environmental input was given equal consideration and weighting to that of her engineer and surveyor colleagues, bearing in mind the unequal weightings given to the sifting criteria? Was the environmental input as extensive as that of engineering? Several of the Promoter’s witnesses make reference to planning policy – can this witness explain whether the planning input into route sifting was made by herself or by other colleagues, and if the latter, which colleagues?

The four route options were subject to an environmental appraisal in accordance with the draft STAG (Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance) Part 1 guidance which had been published in July 2001. Under the Environment objective four sub-objectives were considered.

Sub-Objective Impacts Considered • Road and rail traffic noise. • Reduction/increases in road noise; increases in rail noise. • Air Pollutant emissions. • Changes in emissions of local and global pollutants. • Townscape and cultural • Visual impacts, heritage. townscape/landscape effects and impacts on historic sites. • Natural heritage and • Effects on protected and biodiversity. sensitive habitats and species.

The impacts of each option were assessed in Appraisal Summary Tables for each option (see tables 5.3-5.6 in the Work Package 1 report). Elements of the assessment relevant to the western section can be summarised as follows:

• For the Roseburn Corridor the appraisal reported that some unavoidable loss of habitat from the former railway corridor would occur with impact on the designated Urban Wildlife Site. It was noted that this could be mitigated in part by strengthening the existing landscaping and planting where space allowed and that mitigation would be required if protected species were identified along the corridor.

Can the witness confirm, as suggested above, that the existence – or not – of protected species along any of the route links was not known at this time and was not factored into the appraisal process? Can the witness clarify whether this omission was in direct contradiction to guidance offered by the Scottish Executive?

We rebut any notion that the damage admitted by the witness to the Corridor can meaningfully be “improved” by the introduction

of the tram. Had the Promoter carried out its biodiversity commitments, as described in the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2000-2004 as well as in a range of other management plans, the Corridor would be in its optimum state. However, neglect by the statutory body (the Promoter) has enabled this witness to make this “improvement” assertion. Mitigation by planting will not prevent the severe detrimental impact of the tram on human amenity and wildlife. Betterment of planting is a poor substitute for choosing an alternative route.

• The route was also noted as crossing the Water of Leith Urban Wildlife Site and the Coltbridge and Wester Coates Conservation Area. Based on engineering advice it was assumed that the present walkway and cyclepath could be retained along the corridor avoiding loss of this important amenity. The impact on the landscape of the corridor and on views from some properties, and the potential for noise impacts on properties were identified.

There can be no mitigation for the impact on the landscape and on views or amenity loss for users of the corridor. Does the witness agree that “amenity” is not the same as function? Whilst function may be retained – although “footpath” is not in the Bill and the Promoter reserves the right to move the cycle/walkway from the Corridor floor – amenity will invariably be lost as walking or cycling in an enclosed Corridor space with the tram will no longer encourage the use of these sustainable forms of travel and recreation.

• For the alternative route via Queensferry Street, Queensferry Road, Orchard Brae and Crewe Road the main differences were the significant impacts of the route on the New Town Conservation Area (the route runs through the Conservation Area from Shandwick place to the southern end of Orchard Brae) and the absence of impact along the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor. Impacts on properties from visual intrusion and noise were assessed as broadly similar. As at the link sifting stage, the absence of a link to Haymarket Station was also relevant to the appraisal although not identified as an environmental issue as such in the STAG methodology.

We rebut the assertion that the impact on Shandwick Place to Orchard Brae would be greater than the impact on the Roseburn Corridor. When measured against the impact on the World Heritage Site as a whole, the impact on built heritage along these particular sections is minimal. This evidence, as noted above, underplays and misunderstands the importance of the corridor. Anyway, we are promoting an alternative alignment (along Drumsheugh Gardens) which bypasses Shandwick Place and does access Haymarket. This was not assessed in Work Package 1. We

challenge the add-on of serving Haymarket Station as “relevant to the appraisal” – was it, or was it not, included? The witness seems to imply that they wish it had been included and would like to factor it in retrospectively.

On balance no preference between the four loop options was identified on environmental grounds.

We rebut the adequacy and competency of this. For example, Scottish Executive recommendations were for protected species to be identified before alignment choices were made. Without environmental surveys, how could proper evaluations be done? Also, where is the assessment of human amenity impact? Or the impact of tram line one on walking and cycling? Were these considered even though human user surveys had not been done?

In considering other factors, the Work Package 1 Report identified the NERTS proposal which included the Roseburn Corridor, as the preferred route on operational, cost and traffic impact grounds but recommended that alternatives which provided better access to the Western General Hospital should be investigated.

We note that environmental impact is not specifically mentioned here. Could the witness confirm and clarify whether ERM was in agreement of the weightings given in Work Package 1 to environmental considerations? Was ERM consulted about this? Was ERM given the opportunity to comment on the environmental benefits of serving the Western General Hospital? Please produce documentation.

The Telford Road Options Study

Following the Work Package 1 Report an alternative route running to the rear of the Western General was identified and assessed. The tram would run along the Roseburn Corridor as far as the Craigleith stop just north of Queensferry Road. It would then turn onto South Groathill Avenue, Groathill Avenue and then Telford Road, rejoining the former railway at Ferry Road via a route through the Fire Training Centre car park (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Plan showing Roseburn Corridor option [blue] and Telford Road Option [red]

No sub-options were identified for the Roseburn Corridor route, but two sub-options were identified for the Telford Road route. The tram would run either on the east side of Groathill Avenue and the centre of Telford Road (Sub-Option 1), or on the west side of Groathill Avenue and the kerbsides of Telford Road (Sub-Option 2). The sub-options were examined and Sub-Option 1 was selected on operational and cost grounds. The only environmental difference was a slightly greater requirement for landtake with Sub-Option 1.

At this stage a STAG Part 2 appraisal was carried out for the Roseburn and preferred Telford Road option, again in accordance with the draft guidance available at the time. The following sub-objectives were considered under the environmental heading.

Sub-Objective Issues Considered • Noise and Vibration. • Impact of tram operations on ambient noise levels during the day and at night. • Ease of mitigation of any significant noise impacts • Potential for wheel squeal

Sub-Objective Issues Considered • Geology, water quality, • Impacts on local air quality biodiversity and air quality. • Impacts on water quality from track drainage • Potential for use of sustainable drainage systems • Impacts on geological resources • Risk of encountering contaminated land • Impacts on designated and protected habitats and species and biodiversity • Townscape, visual and cultural • Impacts on cultural heritage – heritage. built heritage and archaeology • Visual impact on properties • Impacts on townscape

Additional considerations included in this assessment included the use of the Roseburn Corridor for walking and cycling and severance effects from the tram. The environmental comparison of the two options together with the notes on additional considerations, and the appraisal of landtake and demolition needs are presented in Table 1.

Is it therefore accepted that walking is a part of the Bill? We rebut the competency of this. Why was no human amenity value/benefit assessment made? This is a requirement of EIAs, and yet it does not appear to have been taken into account. What was the input of the Council’s Natural Heritage department in the route sifting process?

As at the previous stage, the Telford Road Report (Report 203011/0028B May 2003) concluded that there was a strong argument for the Roseburn Corridor options on technical and cost grounds. Any environmental difference between the options was not considered sufficient to outweigh this. Again, however, the strength of the argument regarding access to the Western General Hospital was recognised and the report recommended further consultation on this. This consultation was undertaken during June and July 2003, as described in Mr Oldfield’s and Mr Murray’s evidence.

This witness is conceding that there were environmental differences which benefitted one option. What are her views as to which option should have been selected?

The Craigleith Options Summary Report

Consultation was undertaken during the summer of 2003 and following review of the findings by the Council we were asked to examine one

further option. This new Crewe Road option left the Roseburn Corridor at Queensferry Road (slightly further south than the Telford Road option), and ran east along Craigleith Road, north along Crewe Road past the front of the Western General, and then back to the former railway corridor along Ferry Road (see Figure 2). Two sub-options leaving the Roseburn Corridor south and north of Queensferry Road were also examined. The southern sub-option (C1) was considered to be too difficult and costly and the northern sub-option (C2) was carried forward to the assessment.

Figure 2. Plan showing the Roseburn Corridor Option [blue], the Telford Road Option [red] and the Crewe Road-Craigleith Road option [black]

The assessment considered a number of factors relevant to the environment: landtake and demolition, impacts during construction, noise and vibration, impacts on biodiversity, geology and soils and townscape issues. The Roseburn Corridor option was compared with

the new Crewe Road option and the Telford Road option considered at the previous stage. The preferred options under each topic were reported in Section 2.3 of the Craigleith Options report, and Table 1 below, as follows:

• Landtake and demolition – Roseburn Corridor • Construction disturbance – Roseburn Corridor • Noise and vibration – Telford Road • Ecology – Telford Road or Crewe Road • Geology and Soils – Roseburn Corridor or Crewe Road • Townscape - Roseburn Corridor or Telford Road

Taking these and other STAG appraisal objectives into account, the Craigleith Options Report (Report 203011/58B November 2003) recommended that the former railway corridor should remain as the preferred route on grounds of lower capital and operating cost, comparable patronage to the Telford Road Option, faster and more reliable runtime and lower land take and demolition of property.

We seek clarification of ERM’s role in this process of assessing route options. Again, no wildlife surveys or human amenity surveys had been done for the Roseburn Corridor – how could the environmental importance of the Corridor have been adequately factored in? Were statutory designations, as per the Central Edinburgh Local Plan, factored in? What was the input of the Council’s Natural Heritage department in all of this?

Table 1 Environmental Appraisal of Roseburn Corridor and Telford Road Options

Objective Sub- Former Railway Corridor Option Telford Road Option Objective Environment Noise and Potential noise impacts from tram operations to Daytime ambient noise levels are relatively high Vibration properties adjacent to alignment, where present on Telford Road due to high road traffic flows. ambient noise levels are low. Noise impacts may Noise from tram operations unlikely to be be significant at night. A wide corridor of land is significant for roadside properties during daytime available between Telford Road and Ferry Road period (generally 0700 to 1900), though tram and it may be possible to incorporate noise operations are predicted to become the dominant barriers or similar measures into any peripheral noise source at night (generally 2300 to 0700) corridor landscaping/planting which would provide some noise mitigation for adjacent residential Possible wheel squeal issues at the small radius properties curve between Telford Road and the Fire Training Ground

Air Quality, No specific air quality issues are predicted during No specific air quality issues are predicted during Water Quality operation operation Geology and Biodiversity New drainage will be required or renovated former Existing road drainage systems can be used and railway drainage. No significant operational water no significant water quality impacts are predicted. quality issues are predicted. There is sufficient There is limited opportunity to employ any SUDS space in the railway corridor (between Telford measures because of space constraints Road and the Fire Training Ground) to consider use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems No significant impacts to geology are predicted. It (SUDS) measures such as swales or lagoons for is considered unlikely that any areas of attenuation of operational run-off contaminated land will be encountered along

11 Groathill Avenue/Telford Road. Contaminated No significant impacts to geology are predicted. ground may be present in the Fire Training Scheme construction may encounter areas of Ground car park/access area and will almost contaminated land associated with the former certainly be present at the site of a former petrol corridor use as a railway. Provided all regulatory station between the car park and Telford Road procedures are followed and best practice through which the option passes. This latter site is adopted during construction, no significant likely to require significant remediation works prior impacts are predicted to construction of tram scheme

Scheme development will result in the permanent No significant impacts are predicted on ecology, loss of small areas of habitat (scrub, woodland habitats or biodiversity since the option runs and grassland) at the edges of the railway almost entirely on-street corridor, which is a designated Urban Wildlife Site (UWS). Badger (a protected species) are known from the corridor, therefore mitigation measures may be required. Opportunities exist in the area of more open land between Telford Road and the Fire Training Ground for planting of replacement habitat

12 Cultural Cultural heritage is not predicted to be a Cultural heritage is not predicted to be a Heritage, significant constraint, provided alignment follows significant constraint. The option does not pass Townscape the course of the former railway. If the alignment through any areas designated for cultural heritage and Visual deviates from the railway then there may be some or townscape potential for archaeological resources to be encountered Visual impacts on properties on Groathill Ave

Visual impacts on rear of properties on Groathill Potential visual impacts on properties on Telford Ave and Groathill Road South. Road

Potential slight visual impacts on rear of Telford Potential slight townscape impact on Telford Road Drive. and Groathill Ave, and potential moderate townscape impact of cutting for link between Ferry Road and Telford Road Additional The existing footway/cycleway is relocated to the Existing footpath on east and west side of Issues western side of the tram alignment Groathill Road at the junction with Telford Road will require to be realigned Formalised crossing point for footway/cycleway north of the Crewe Toll stop Noise is less likely to be an issue as the tram is running on-street at the front of properties Some vegetation on the railway corridor would have to be removed, but there would be scope for Higher cost associated with trackwork and OHLE replacement mitigation planting within the corridor due to high percentage of street running

The corridor is lined on both the eastern and There will be more PUs to relocated western sides by residential properties which may experience significant changes in noise due to the Easier access to the tram system from the tram, although screening could reduce this figure adjacent residential area and the Western

13 General Hospital Various severance, access and amenity issues associated with the cycleway/walkway Convenient passenger transfer between trams and buses Fully segregated alignment removes scope for road vehicle – tram conflict Probable contaminated land at the former petrol station

Access road to Fire Training car park relocated to the south of the former petrol station

Tram runs with traffic along Groathill Road and segregated along Telford Road

Potential good access for Western General Hospital

On street (mixed) running with junctions may marginally increase risk of accidents Gutter running on Groathill Avenue adjacent to houses with garages – safety hazard with cars reversing out of driveways (may be unacceptable to HMRI) Implementabilit Landtake No landtake beyond demolition outlined below Landtake required for Western General Hospital y to accommodate stop

Landtake required from Disused Petrol Station between 219 and 255 Telford Road

14 Landtake required from Fire Training Centre car park Demolition Footbridge at recreation ground required to be Disused Petrol Station between 219 and 255 demolished Telford Road required to be demolished

We rebut some of the contents of this table re the Roseburn Corridor. Does the witness agree that air quality on the Corridor can conceivably be affected, as tree and vegetation loss reduces the production of oxygen, decreases the absorption of pollutants from traffic (eg carbondioxide from traffic on Queensferry Rd)? We note that the assessment was for operation – was a similar assessment done for construction? We note that no mention is made of the Victorian over and underbridges. Now that Historic Scotland is minded to list four underbridges, would this change the witness’s assessment and would the Roseburn Corridor now be less favourable?

15 Issue 2 Visual and amenity impacts of the tram and development of landscaping proposals

I will deal here with the general visual amenity of the corridor for its users and neighbours. Brian Evans will deal specifically with the impact of overhead line equipment (OLE).

The Environmental Statement (ES) for Line One identifies that the tram will have major impacts on the landscape of the Corridor and on views for residents of neighbouring properties. It sets out principles for mitigation of these impacts by ensuring sympathetic design and replacement of lost trees to re-enclose and screen the area. Where the corridor is narrow, the need for careful treatment including replacement and reinforced screen hedging and fencing was identified. The potential for redesigning left-over spaces along the corridor was also identified.

The early draft of the design manual also identified the requirement for sensitive design of OLE, stops, signals and the vehicles themselves, to fit as comfortably into the scene as possible.

Since that time the project team have continued to develop the proposals and a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) has been drafted specifically for the Roseburn Corridor (see Issue 4 on development of the LHMP). This includes substantial new planting to replace that which is lost to the tram and to enhance that which remains by management and additional planting. The LHMP is designed to provide early impact with the implementation of some management measures pre-construction, and also by establishing a mixed structure of vegetation including semi mature trees, younger mixed woodland planting, scrub, informal grass and mown verges. Species have been selected as native plants typical of the local area, as non- invasive, to provide effective screening, and to prevent difficulties with “leaves on the line”.

Where properties overlook the corridor particular attention has been given to ensuring screening by management of existing hedges to reinforce them and by new hedge and tree planting. Attention has also been given to ways of softening the visual appearance of noise barriers for example through the use of climbers to provide vegetative screening. This will help prevent any adverse impact on the amenity of gardens adjoining the corridor.

16 Overall along the corridor it is estimated that the total area of vegetation will reduce from the current figure of about 4.2 hectares to about 3.3 hectares, a loss of about 21%. The new vegetation will take time to mature, but the LHMP will ensure that an attractive green corridor remains along the length of the reinstated cycle and footpath. The only exceptions will be the bridge locations, where there is currently no vegetation beneath the underbridges or on the deck of overbridges. The width of the cycle and footpath available to users will remain at about 3 metres except in a small number of locations under or over bridges where its width will be slightly reduced.

It has been suggested that the ES for ETL1 did not adequately address the importance of the corridor for recreational amenity and use, but this is not the case. The ES describes the important role the Corridor plays as a well-used and popular recreational resource (page 8, 51, 70, 120), and ETL1 design has always focused on the need to retain the footpath/cycleway along the corridor. Given the proposal to reinstate the path along the full length of the Corridor it was not considered necessary to undertake detailed surveys of that usage, as these would usually only be needed if a suitable alternative route had to be identified. We have noted the results of a survey undertaken by a local group since submission of the ES, and have found these of assistance in considering proposals for the LHMP, especially in meeting the needs and expectations of the variety of different user groups who currently use the corridor – for relaxation, dog walking, getting to and from work, school, shops etc, education, teaching children to ride bikes, and disabled access.

We rebut this. At no time has the true extent of human amenity value and usage of the Corridor been assessed, appraised or even understood by the Promoter. This is evidenced by the Promoter’s refusal to discuss alternative alignments to the Corridor with objectors, and the Promoter’s refusal to countenance speed restrictions.

This means that the negative and discouraging impact of trams travelling at up to 50mph on walking and cycling has not been assessed. Retaining a space of 3m, which according to the Promoter’s own cycling design guidelines is too narrow, will severely impact on the most sustainable forms of travel, walking and cycling. The Roseburn Corridor will be transformed from being a pleasant, traffic- free environment, in which over 1000 people movements a day have been tallied, into a rapid transit corridor with trams every three and three-quarter minutes, with the resultant noise and disturbance of

17 trams and tram stops. This will have a severely detrimental impact on sustainable travel which has clearly never been taken into account by route sifting or by environmental weightings for route sifting. Despite the Promoter’s assurances, there can clearly be no mitigation for this impact on cycling and walking. Why were surveys of users not undertaken at the route sifting stages? Why were the requirements of the Central Edinburgh Local Plan, with regard to the Roseburn Corridor and its walking/cycling status, not taken into account? Does the witness accept that the amenity role of the Corridor – for “relaxation” as she describes it – will be lost?

Issue 3 Effects of Loss of Vegetation on Security and Privacy and Effects of Lighting

Gary Turner has described in his evidence the issues relating to security for neighbouring properties. Reinforced boundary hedgerows and fencing, and new planting within the corridor, will offer a considerable improvement upon the often gappy hedges and intermittent and damaged fencing currently present along the corridor. Together with the other factors he describes, these measures will contribute to improve security for residents along the corridor. A general improvement in the condition of the corridor and increased activity as a result of the tram should also discourage flytipping and other anti-social behaviour which impacts adversely on the amenity of the corridor at present.

We rebut this. Had the Promoter undertaken its commitments to preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the Corridor, the hedgerow would not be “gappy”, nor would other anti-social behaviours occur. Since the Friends of the Roseburn Corridor group was set up, it has undertaken several litter picks. By improving the amenity in this way, the Corridor has generally improved. Police advice has been that anti- social behaviour repeatedly occurs when amenities are not looked after; litter is dropped where there is already litter. If you improve the amenity, it is less likely to be abused. We rebut the notion that the introduction of trams will improve the amenity of the Corridor – that is patent nonsense.

The Corridor is already lit with street lamps and the intention is to replace these at a similar level. With modern lighting it will be possible to control any spill of light into the night sky, and into neighbouring properties. Tram stops will be lit but they will be designed to ensure that light does not adversely

18 impact on windows of neighbouring property by careful placing of lights, and use of directional lighting and screens where necessary. A similar approach should be possible if tram headlights cause any difficulties for neighbours.

This Objector Group have identified the potential for loss of light as an adverse consequence of the tram proposals. I do not believe there will be any location where this will occur.

Does the witness concede that the character of the Corridor – as a designated urban wildlife site – will fundamentally change, and that it will become more akin to a busy streetscape?

Issue 4 Development of the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan

The Roseburn LHMP has been developed to present the proposals for mitigating the landscape and ecological impacts of the Edinburgh Tram. The LHMP has been in development since the autumn of last year and the first full submission was published in June. This shows in some detail the proposals for new planting and for management of existing vegetation along the corridor from Balbirnie Place to Telford Road. It takes into account the results of a tree survey carried out along the corridor together with information obtained from a variety of other sources.

Development of the LHMP has also taken into account The North Edinburgh Railway Path Network Wildlife Management Plan prepared for Lothian Regional Council (LRC) in 1989, although this plan was never implemented by LRC. For example the removal of invasive species such as Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, the removal of regenerating sycamore, planting to fill gaps in hedgerows, new planting of trees, shrubs and herbs using native species, and protecting and screening badger setts.

This Objector Group has noted the problem of Japanese Knotweed along the Corridor. This has been highlighted in the LHMP. We have seen evidence of some management by the Council’s Parks and Leisure Department although we understand this is only undertaken in response to complaints. We do consider that this requires urgent attention irrespective of development of the tram, as Japanese Knotweed is classified as a highly invasive weed species under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and should be safely treated and removed. If this is not done prior to development of the tram the Contractors will be required to undertake

19 measures to control it and avoid its spread as a result of construction operations.

We rebut the assertion (again) that the trams will lead to better management of the habitat. The Promoter is the local authority which has failed to implement and maintain the habitat to date – why should it behave any differently now? The Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2000-2004 was never acted upon; the Urban Conservation Strategy for Edinburgh was never acted upon. The financial shortfalls of Tram Line One are well-documented – what guarantee is there that environmental mitigation will ever be implemented? This witness does not discuss finance or implementation or enforceability or responsibility for implementation, which are all part of our concern.

Copies of the LHMP have been deposited with the Bill in Parliament and the partner libraries, and have been provided to individuals and organisations who have expressed an interest including community councils, local groups and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Comments are invited from all parties and will be taken into account in its further development.

SNH has confirmed in their letter of 24 June that they are pleased with the way the LHMP is being developed. Apart from that we have addressed a few minor queries which were clarified by amending text in the 17th June issue of the LHMP but have received no further comments as yet.

The intention is to produce further drafts of the LHMP for consultation as the design is developed and to seek agreement to the final LHMP from SNH and the Council before it is implemented. Neighbours will be consulted in particular about their views on treatment of the boundary with the corridor.

We rebut and challenge the notion that “the Council” will be the watchdog for the LHMP. The “Council”, contrary to its own biodiversity plans and conservation strategy, and contrary to its own Central Edinburgh Local Plan, did not protect and preserve the Roseburn Corridor when tram line one route sifting was being undertaken. How can it now be an independent protector of biodiversity?

Documents Edinburgh Tram Line One Northern Loop New Transport Initiative; Work Package I Report, 203011/0004B 19 December 2002

20

Edinburgh Tram Line One Northern Loop New Transport Initiative; Review of Telford Road Options Initial Stage 2 Report – For Consultation, 203011/0028B May 2003

Edinburgh Tram Line One Northern Loop New Transport Initiative; Craigleith Options Summary, 203011/58B November 2003

Scottish Environmental Consultants (1989) The North Edinburgh Railway Path Network – Wildlife Management Plan. SEC.

21 GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Scott McIntosh’s statement by Tina Woolnough for groups

3. Construction

3.1 Construction Impacts & Disturbance

3.1.1 The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter’s contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP]. This document has been created by the promoters using current industry best practice. It is my understanding that a copy of the CoCP has been passed to the objector. The promoters contend that the CoCP will answer all the questions raised in section 1.6 of the objection

We rebut this contention. The impact on the Roseburn Corridor will not be “short term inconvenience” and there will be no “long term benefits” to the Corridor and its amenity users and wildlife.

3.1.2 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects, particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon (Tramlink), Manchester (Metrolink), Nottingham (Nottingham Express Transit) and planned for Liverpool (Merseytram). The CoCP for Merseytram was recently considered during the Public Inquiry into the Merseytram Draft Order deposited in 2004, under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. At the conclusion of the Inquiry the presiding Inspector reported that the Draft Order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State has subsequently followed the Inspector’s advice. The CoCP has been subject to consultation with all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, and the technical advisors to the scheme. The Construction Contract will require that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

The CoCP is to be enforced by the Promoter or the Promoter’s agents. Local people need the reassurance of independent monitoring body. Also, has Scottish Natural Heritage been consulted on working hours, extension of working hours, lighting, noise and disturbance etc with regard to badgers? SNH’s own badger protection construction guidelines call for restricted working hours (no machinery to operate within two hours of sunset, hand-digging near setts etc). We support the SNH guidelines and would expect SNH to control construction practices and permissions, not the Promoter. We would expect the Promoter, as a local authority setting a best practice example to other developers, to use the highest standards available to protect wildlife etc. We would ask that the Roseburn Corridor mitigation proposals are incorporated into the CoCP, so that any contractor is obliged to mitigate to the highest specification. We also seek clarity as to which body is responsible for the implementation of mitigation – will it be the contractor (included in the contract?) or the Promoter?

3.2 Mitigation during construction

3.2.1 Maintenance of accesses

• The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

• Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’ • Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

• All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)]

At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

• The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate

maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.2.2 Working Hours

Working hours are defined in section 3 of the CoCP;

‘Normal hours of working for construction of Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two shall be: Monday – Saturday 0700 – 1900 hours’ . Exceptional work outwith these hours may only be undertaken with the prior approval of tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. Furthermore ‘Where Sunday or evening/night working has the potential to disturb nearby land users and occupiers they shall be notified seven days in advance, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance and the proposed hours of working.’

We challenge the necessity for such long working hours because of the impact on wildlife on the Roseburn Wildlife Corridor. We advocate working hours of Mon-Fri 8am-6pm and Sat 9am-1pm with no working on Sundays or in evenings as per SNH’s two hours before sunset guideline. Seven days’ notice of construction etc is not enough.

3.2.3 Site housekeeping

Section 4 of the CoCP sets out particular standards for maintaining cleanliness and order within work sites and the minimisation of visual impact on the surrounding areas;

• All work sites will be surrounded by fences or hoardings which will painted in a colour and style to be approved by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 4.2 (d)]. • The Contractor shall clear and clean all working areas and accesses as work proceeds and when no longer required for the carrying out of the works.

No information on fencing and wildlife foraging or access on the Roseburn Corridor is available. Rubbish left lying even for short periods could have a dangerous impact on wildlife. The Roseburn Corridor needs a specific construction code of practice of its own, as its circumstances are entirely different from elsewhere along the alignment. We are unclear as to how the CoCP meshes with the Corridor’s mitigation proposals etc.

Noise Control

Strict standards of noise control are set out in section 6 of the CoCP; ‘The Contractor shall have a general duty to take all practicable

measures to minimise nuisance from noise. The noise limits specified … shall not be regarded as a licence to make noise up to the stated limit.’

An effective monitoring regime is established at s.6.1 (c) ; ‘In order to ensure that the best practicable means are used to meet the levels set out above, a programme of on-site monitoring by a suitably qualified practitioner shall be agreed between the Contractor, tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. This monitoring programme shall include the location and frequency of readings and will define to whom the results shall be made available. Monitoring will be undertaken at locations identified in the Environmental Statements as those where mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid significant noise disturbance.’ And strict requirements are laid down to ensure that these requirements are adhered to ; ‘In the event that measurements indicate noise has exceeded the limits … the Contractor shall stop the operation in a safe manner and take all practicable measures to prevent recurrence’.

Noise impacts on human amenity users of the Corridor and on wildlife have not been assessed or factored in. The Promoter, as local authority, is the enforcing body which seems inappropriate to local people.

3.2.4 Other emissions

Vibration and dust emission are covered by strict standards in CoCP sections 7 and 8. A requirement to assist frontagers by cleaning parts of their property affected by dust is included at s. 8.1 ( c ) ; ‘Where dust generating works (e.g. excavation, demolition) are undertaken close to buildings such that there is a potential for soiling of windows and ledges with dust the contractors shall clean those windows and ledges as necessary – and at least weekly - during periods of dust generating work and on completion of works.’

What will be the impact of vibration and dust emissions on wildlife? How will this be mitigated? Will hand-digging occur near badger setts? Cleaning windows will not mitigate for the penetration of construction dust into houses, onto vegetation, into water courses and into the Water of Leith. What actions will be taken for these?

3.2.5 Effects of these mitigation measures

It is the promoter’s contention that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum

We rebut this. “An absolute minimum” is a subjective phrase, which cannot be measured or assessed. Interference will be considerable.

4. Rate of construction

4.1 The rate of construction will depend upon a number of issues, including;

• any particular construction problems encountered within the corridor • constraints on construction imposed for environmental or wildlife considerations • weather conditions .

4.2 However what can be said is that the contractors will be required to keep the public fully informed of the progress of the work. Section 2 of the CoCP requires that;

‘The Contractor shall appoint a liaison officer to manage all public relations, information and press related matters, who shall liaise with tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, other statutory bodies, members of the public, press and the media on all matters relating to the works’.

4.3 This is ensured by the requirements set out in the rest of the section;

2.1 Information Centre and Website

The Contractor shall provide and maintain an Information Centre at a location to be agreed with tie and the City of Edinburgh Council. The Information Centre shall be accessible to stakeholders, frontagers, interested third parties and the general public, between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday (excluding local and national Public Holidays). Up to date information on the progress of the works and the current areas affected by construction shall be freely available at the Information Centre. The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a website which shall provide the same information.

We would request an emergency 24 hour helpline, in case of land-slips, vandalism etc, or other impacts requiring immediate attention.

2.2 Weekly newsletter

The Contractor shall publish a weekly newsletter every Wednesday, detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s works. This newsletter will be published;

• on the Website, • by Fax and email to; local and national newspapers and other news media, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police, the emergency services and to any other

persons or organisations that have requested receipt of the newsletter.

Sufficient free-distribution, take-away hard copies of the newsletter shall be placed in the Information Centre by 0800 every Thursday morning. No charge will be made for this service.

2.2.1 Complaints Hotline

The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a Freephone Hotline to deal with any complaints, comments or queries received in connection with the Edinburgh Tram Works. The Hotline will be answered by the Liaison Officer, a deputy or by another designated competent operator between the hours of 0700 and one hour after work terminates for the day, on every day when construction work is being undertaken. Outwith these hours an automated call recording service will be provided. The telephone number, fax number and website address of the hotline shall be publicised through the press and the Weekly newsletter and clearly displayed on hoardings around every worksite and at other suitable locations within and in the vicinity of every worksite.

Who will take responsibility for dealing with complaints? Who will act as the independent arbiter in cases of dispute? The Contacts Log describes procedure but not responsibility. How will the Contacts Log deal with data protection issues and confidentiality?

2.2.2 Contacts Log

All complaints, comments and queries received shall be registered in a suitable Log and appropriate action in response instigated within 24 hours by the Contractor. A record of remedial action shall be logged, in the event of a complaint a follow up letter or electronic communication shall be passed to the complainant within 48 hours of the initial complaint, outlining their complaint and the remedial action being undertaken by the Contractor. All comments, questions and complaints shall be logged in writing together with any response and a record of any actions taken, including a record of the time when that action is completed. An up to date copy of the Contacts Log shall be compiled daily, together with a report on the progress of any actions. The Contacts Log shall be inspected and signed daily by a nominated senior representative of the Contractor and shall be counter signed by the Contractor’s Project Director at least once per week. and the Weekly newsletter

A copy of each week’s Contacts Log shall be placed every Friday in the Information Centre, where it will remain until completion of all construction works. All deposited copies of the Contacts Log may be

freely inspected by any person during the normal opening hours of the Information Centre.

An additional copy of the Contacts Log shall be forwarded to tie once per week and the master register shall be available for tie to inspect at any other time during normal working hours.

3.4.4 Communications Regarding Noise

(a) The Contractor shall give seven days notice to local residents who may be adversely affected by noise from the proposed programme of work, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance, and the proposed hours of working.

(b) The Contractor shall provide the City of Edinburgh Council Department of Environmental and Consumer Services with a list of contacts who will be responsible for investigating and resolving noise issues during the construction phase of the project.

Seven days is not long enough.

5. Experience from other systems

5.1 The promoters accept that the introduction of a major public work such as the Edinburgh Tram will cause some disruption and would point out that Edinburgh has coped with a number of major disruptions over the last few years as major new buildings, such as the Conference Centre, the Scottish Parliament etc are added to our city. The promoters accept that some of the earlier tramway schemes – such as Sheffield - caused unacceptable disruption. The promoters of schemes have learned from these experiences and the 1997-2000 construction of Croydon Tramlink and the 2001 – 2004 construction of the first line of Nottingham Express Transit have benefited from the tighter controls on construction now incorporated in the Edinburgh Codes of Construction Practice.

We rebut the notion that tram line one is a “public” work, as other witnesses have made clear that the prime motivation for tram line one’s alignment was serving the Waterfront development. Serving private development is not a “public” work. It is doubtless the case that the Promoter would wish to encourage a positive outlook on the disruption that the tram will cause. Inevitably, as objectors, we are also convinced that the construction impact will be appalling and devastating to wildlife and human amenity in the short and the longterm.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Edinburgh CoCP builds upon the positive experience of the development of appropriate Codes on other tramway schemes. It seeks to identify all likely risks of nuisance and to control them before they occur. If, notwithstanding the best endeavours of the promoter, such nuisance does occur then the CoCP established a way by which aggrieved parties can seek alleviation of the nuisance. The promoters contend that it will minimise disturbance and result in a major public work of lasting benefit to the city.

It does not address the crucial issue of the Roseburn Corridor, nor does it adopt the mitigation proposals as part of the Code and therefore part of the Contractor’s contract. “Alleviation” of nuisance is not enough, if the nuisance has permanent negative impact.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Edinburgh Tram Line 1 Bill

Objector Rebuttal by Mark Clarke to Ian Kendall’s Statement Damage to Property during Construction of Tram Line 1

Introduction

My name is Mark Clarke; I have lived at Craigleith Drive since March 1994. I am a qualified Civil Engineer and a chartered builder. I have worked in the Construction Industry for 30 years.

Craigleith Drive is situated on the north-east side of the overbridge across Craigleith Drive and is therefore adjacent to the old railway embankment.

I have added my comments on Ian Kendall’s statement in red italics at the end of his Section 3.

3 Damage to Property in Construction

3.1 tie acknowledges that there is the possibility of damage to property in the course of the construction works for the project, as there is with any construction project of this nature. We do not believe that there are any construction processes involved that are unique to this project and that

create a significantly greater risk of damage than on other equivalent projects, e.g. in highway areas.

3.2 tie will arrange for pre-construction condition surveys to be carried out in locations that are appropriate, e.g. where there may be a legitimate concern about the proximity of construction works, or the use of accesses. These may cover the structural condition of buildings, or may be more general in nature, for instance in relation to the condition of landscaping.

3.3 The Code of Construction Practice, which will form part of the contract documentation for the construction contract, addresses the issue of damage.

3.4 The liabilities of the contractor that will be employed by tie to carry out the construction works will be clearly set out in the contract documentation.

3.5 The Code of Construction Practise indicates that the Contractor shall take every reasonable precaution to prevent his operations from unnecessary damage, and states that any damage that is identified as being caused by construction of the tram system shall be repaired within a reasonable time of identification at the expense of the Contractor to the reasonable satisfaction of the property owner and such that the property is returned to the standard of repair and stability existing before construction works commenced.

4 Conclusions

4.1 The concerns raised are acknowledged.

4.2 tie believes that the proposals set out in the Code of Construction Practise should be sufficient to address the concerns raised. Ongoing liaison with potentially-affected parties will continue to ensure avoidance of, or prompt resolution to, areas of concern.

This is an honest, if somewhat blasé, appraisal of the risk of damage to properties. However a number of points arise from it:

A. When is a property damaged? Dust, plant vibration, water escaping from the site of works are among the more subtle forms of damage that could or, if you accept Mr Kendall’s view, will occur. Who is to monitor this and other forms of damage. There should be an independent assessor appointed who can be called

upon by residents when they perceive damage is occurring or has occurred. B. Who conducts the pre-construction survey? This should be an approved independent assessor and not someone paid by TIE or any other party with an interest in the construction of the tram line. There is a real risk that if a TIE appointed assessor conducts the surveys then the outcomes will either exaggerate minor defects or comment upon them in such a manner that residents would have difficulty proving later real damage due to tramline construction or indeed the operation of the trams themselves. C. The independent assessor proposed at Point A above should also have responsibility for getting repair requirements assessed, valued and if it suits the occupier, carried out. Occupiers should not be left to take action, including potential legal action, in the event of damage being caused by the tram line constructors. Occupiers should not have to be exposed to expense and time consequences as a result of the works imposed upon them by TIE. The occupiers encountering damage to their properties should not have to pursue a contractor of TIE’s in order to recover their losses. D. These substantive works are taking place in many instances very close by occupied properties. In the case of the Roseburn Corridor, major works will be taking place in an otherwise settled and mature setting. It is unusual that major construction works of such a nature would occur so proximate to properties in this type of setting. I believe there would be few examples of “equivalent projects” referred to by Mr Kendall at 3.1 above. Highways works would generally involve resurfacing of roads and the like which is not as substantive as the works planned by TIE. This particularly applies to the Roseburn Corridor where occupiers will be adjacent to major earth and concreting works, rail line construction and bridge reconstruction. The occupiers at and around the bridge at Craigleith Drive will be particularly exposed as this will be a site of all of the above mentioned works, all of which take place above the level of the properties. This adds to the dangers and exposure in this area as cross winds will inevitably blow dust and debris into the properties, water run-off from the works will travel down the embankments into them and any slippage of plant and materials would fall directly upon them.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Objector Rebuttal by Mark Clarke to Tim Blower’s Statement

Health and Safety Issues Arising from the Site Investigation of Tram Line 1

Introduction

My name is Mark Clarke; I have lived at Craigleith Drive since March 1994. I am a qualified Civil Engineer and a chartered builder. I have worked in the Construction Industry for 30 years.

Craigleith Drive is situated on the north-east side of the overbridge across Craigleith Drive and is therefore adjacent to the old railway embankment.

The evidence provided by Tim Blower merely states the site investigation is at an early stage.

The need for a more detailed site investigation is required before any meaningful comment can be made.

Unknown ground conditions are a high risk to construction costs.

Lack of information at this stage is a major obstacle to the scheme and should be treated as such by the Parliament.

The potential consequences of possible major earthworks and drainage could seriously affect the future reasonable expectation for enjoyment of the properties of residents living adjacent to or near the site of the works. The lack of information at this stage precludes the residents the opportunity to raise otherwise legitimate objections to the future process.

The Parliament should order a procedure that is transparent to all thoses affected and set guidelines to establish a means for the views of affected parties to be given serious consideration when the information finally becomes available.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Health and Safety Issues Arising from Construction of Tram Line 1

Objector Rebuttal Statement by Mark Clarke to Scott McIntosh’s Statement on construction matters

Introduction

My name is Mark Clarke; I have lived at Craigleith Drive since March 1994. I am a qualified Civil Engineer and a chartered builder. I have worked in the Construction Industry for 30 years.

Craigleith Drive is situated on the north-east side of the overbridge across Craigleith Drive and is therefore adjacent to the old railway embankment.

I propose to raise issues I have with Scott McIntosh’s statement on construction matters by adding my comments in red italics against each point.

3 Construction

3.1 Construction Impacts & Disturbance

3.1.1 The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter’s contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP]. This document has been created by the promoters using current industry best practice. It is my understanding that a copy of the CoCP has been passed to the objector. The promoters contend that the CoCP will answer all the questions raised in section 1.6 of the objection. The long term benefits have not been proven and indeed the National audit Office report into tram systems raises questions about their benefits and in particular their cost/benefit return. Other options such as an improved bus system were not properly researched and compared when this scheme was being considered. Secondly the route of the trams is another issue that

1 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc raises questions with respect to construction and future operational safety in particular along the Roseburn Corridor. The long-term benefit of this route with less public access cannot have provided the best solution for the Edinburgh public.

3.1.2 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects, particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon (Tramlink), Manchester (Metrolink), Nottingham (Nottingham Express Transit) and planned for Liverpool (Merseytram). The CoCP for Merseytram was recently considered during the Public Inquiry into the Merseytram Draft Order deposited in 2004, under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. At the conclusion of the Inquiry the presiding Inspector reported that the Draft Order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State has subsequently followed the Inspector’s advice. The CoCP has been subject to consultation with all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, and the technical advisors to the scheme. I am not aware that those most directly affected by the construction of the trams i.e. local residents, were consulted in the development of the CoCP. The Construction Contract will require that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.2 Mitigation during construction

3.2.1 Maintenance of accesses

• The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’. It is not clear how this will operate along the Roseburn Corridor.

• Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’ I do not see how this will be possible along the Roseburn Corridor. • Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards. I do not see how this will be possible along the Roseburn Corridor. This situation would clearly have been explained by way of illustration if it was proposed to properly effect a diversion.

2 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc

• All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)] Noted

At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

• The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2]. Noted

3.2.2 Working Hours

Working hours are defined in section 3 of the CoCP;

‘Normal hours of working for construction of Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two shall be: Monday – Saturday 0700 – 1900 hours’ . Exceptional work outwith these hours may only be undertaken with the prior approval of tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. Furthermore ‘Where Sunday or evening/night working has the potential to disturb nearby land users and occupiers they shall be notified seven days in advance, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance and the proposed hours of working.’ The working hours referred to are not “normal hours” for the Construction Industry that operates Monday to Thursday 0800-1630hrs and on Friday 0800-1530hrs. The extraordinary hours referred to particularly on Saturday will be a major unnecessary imposition on the local residents and Roseburn Corridor users. It will also be an extra expense that contractor’s will add to their costs and therefore pass on to the public who ultimately fund this scheme.

3.2.3 Site housekeeping

Section 4 of the CoCP sets out particular standards for maintaining cleanliness and order within work sites and the minimisation of visual impact on the surrounding areas;

• All work sites will be surrounded by fences or hoardings which will painted in a colour and style to be approved by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 4.2 (d)]. • The Contractor shall clear and clean all working areas and accesses as work proceeds and when no longer required for the carrying out of the works. Noted

3 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc

4 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc

3.2.4 Noise Control

Strict standards of noise control are set out in section 6 of the CoCP; ‘The Contractor shall have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise nuisance from noise. The noise limits specified … shall not be regarded as a licence to make noise up to the stated limit.’ The baseline referenced by TIE is based on erroneous research and the noise limits specified are unacceptably high as has been demonstrated in my previous statement on Noise

An effective monitoring regime is established at s.6.1 (c) ; ‘In order to ensure that the best practicable means are used to meet the levels set out above, a programme of on-site monitoring by a suitably qualified practitioner shall be agreed between the Contractor, tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. This monitoring programme shall include the location and frequency of readings and will define to whom the results shall be made available. Monitoring will be undertaken at locations identified in the Environmental Statements as those where mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid significant noise disturbance.’ And strict requirements are laid down to ensure that these requirements are adhered to ; ‘In the event that measurements indicate noise has exceeded the limits … the Contractor shall stop the operation in a safe manner and take all practicable measures to prevent recurrence’

All the parties referred to above have an interest in the tram construction and therefore cannot lack biase. Parliament or another independent body should appoint the noise assessor. The programme for monitoring should be defined by this body alone. The results of the monitoring process should be placed on a website where the public can monitor readings taken in their area..

3.2.5 Other emissions

Vibration and dust emission are covered by strict standards in CoCP sections 7 and 8. A requirement to assist frontagers by cleaning parts of their property affected by dust is included at s. 8.1 ( c ) ; ‘Where dust generating works (e.g. excavation, demolition) are undertaken close to buildings such that there is a potential for soiling of windows and ledges with dust the contractors shall clean those windows and ledges as necessary – and at least weekly - during periods of dust generating work and on completion of works.’ Cleaning will only occur because the damage has been done. How are residents to be assured that proper standards of cleaning will be achieved and that their glazing and other parts of their property will not be further damaged by unskilled efforts at cleaning. Dust should be prevented at source. Vibration has been acknowledged as an issue that can only be mitigated by

5 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc measures but not stopped. I have not received a copy of the CoCP and cannot comment upon it.

3.2.6 Effects of these mitigation measures

It is the promoter’s contention that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum. Mitigation is not prevention. The restriction of construction hours to those normal hours of the construction industry would for example better mitigate the effects on the local residents and other users of the Roseburn Corridor. Clearly the best measure and one requiring much less actual work would be to restrict the route to existing roads.

4. Rate of construction

4.1 The rate of construction will depend upon a number of issues, including;

• any particular construction problems encountered within the corridor • constraints on construction imposed for environmental or wildlife considerations • weather conditions .

None of these issues will arise if the Roseburn Corridor is removed as a route. The unknowns in such a route far outweigh the unknowns on the already trafficked highways. The risks to programme and cost follow these unknowns.

4.2 However what can be said is that the contractors will be required to keep the public fully informed of the progress of the work. Section 2 of the CoCP requires that;

‘The Contractor shall appoint a liaison officer to manage all public relations, information and press related matters, who shall liaise with tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, other statutory bodies, members of the public, press and the media on all matters relating to the works’.

This should be an independent party appointed by the Parliament or other independent organisation. Any liaison by a party who has an interest in the Project cannot be said to have the public interest at heart but the general interests of his paymaster.

4.3 This is ensured by the requirements set out in the rest of the section;

2.1 Information Centre and Website

The Contractor shall provide and maintain an Information Centre at a location to be agreed with tie and the City of Edinburgh Council. The

6 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc Information Centre shall be accessible to stakeholders, frontagers, interested third parties and the general public, between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday (excluding local and national Public Holidays). Up to date information on the progress of the works and the current areas affected by construction shall be freely available at the Information Centre. The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a website which shall provide the same information. Noted – will this website inform on construction incidents and actions to be taken to avoid them in the subsequent stages of construction?

2.2 Weekly newsletter

The Contractor shall publish a weekly newsletter every Wednesday, detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s works. This newsletter will be published;

• on the Website, • by Fax and email to; local and national newspapers and other news media, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police, the emergency services and to any other persons or organisations that have requested receipt of the newsletter.

Sufficient free-distribution, take-away hard copies of the newsletter shall be placed in the Information Centre by 0800 every Thursday morning. No charge will be made for this service. Noted

2.2.1 Complaints Hotline

The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a Freephone Hotline to deal with any complaints, comments or queries received in connection with the Edinburgh Tram Works. The Hotline will be answered by the Liaison Officer, a deputy or by another designated competent operator between the hours of 0700 and one hour after work terminates for the day, on every day when construction work is being undertaken. Outwith these hours an automated call recording service will be provided. The telephone number, fax number and website address of the hotline shall be publicised through the press and the Weekly newsletter and clearly displayed on hoardings around every worksite and at other suitable locations within and in the vicinity of every worksite. This may be helpful but without independent support, the contractor will be free to take his own view of how complaints should be treated, it lacks independence and therefore any level of trust that the public will be treated fairly.

7 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc 2.2.2 Contacts Log

All complaints, comments and queries received shall be registered in a suitable Log and appropriate action in response instigated within 24 hours by the Contractor. A record of remedial action shall be logged, in the event of a complaint a follow up letter or electronic communication shall be passed to the complainant within 48 hours of the initial complaint, outlining their complaint and the remedial action being undertaken by the Contractor. All comments, questions and complaints shall be logged in writing together with any response and a record of any actions taken, including a record of the time when that action is completed. An up to date copy of the Contacts Log shall be compiled daily, together with a report on the progress of any actions. The Contacts Log shall be inspected and signed daily by a nominated senior representative of the Contractor and shall be counter signed by the Contractor’s Project Director at least once per week. and the Weekly newsletter. Control still rests with those who have an interest in minimising or avoiding the complaint. Surely there should be sanctions with respect to the extent and/or reasons for complaint with suitable compensation for those subjected to disturbance or more serious impact without them having to pursue the matter in law. An approach to this would be to appoint an independent assessor who could value each and every complaint.

A copy of each week’s Contacts Log shall be placed every Friday in the Information Centre, where it will remain until completion of all construction works. All deposited copies of the Contacts Log may be freely inspected by any person during the normal opening hours of the Information Centre.

An additional copy of the Contacts Log shall be forwarded to tie once per week and the master register shall be available for tie to inspect at any other time during normal working hours. See comments above, a nice log will do nothing to prevent ongoing disturbance and problems for the public, it will merely list the issues. There should be much more focus on prevention and sanctions in the event of occurrence.

3.4.4 Communications Regarding Noise

(a) The Contractor shall give seven days notice to local residents who may be adversely affected by noise from the proposed programme of work, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance, and the proposed hours of working.

(b) The Contractor shall provide the City of Edinburgh Council Department of Environmental and Consumer Services with a list of contacts who will be responsible for investigating and resolving noise issues during the construction phase of the

8 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc project. Again responsibility for action or lack of it rests with the Contractor who will clearly have an interest in the outcome. Independence is lacking throughout these proposals.

5. Experience from other systems

5.1 The promoters accept that the introduction of a major public work such as the Edinburgh Tram will cause some disruption and would point out that Edinburgh has coped with a number of major disruptions over the last few years as major new buildings, such as the Conference Centre, the Scottish Parliament etc are added to our city. The promoters accept that some of the earlier tramway schemes – such as Sheffield - caused unacceptable disruption. The promoters of schemes have learned from these experiences and the 1997-2000 construction of Croydon Tramlink and the 2001 – 2004 construction of the first line of Nottingham Express Transit have benefited from the tighter controls on construction now incorporated in the Edinburgh Codes of Construction Practice. The promoters make reference to the introduction of the Scottish Parliament that is an example of everything that can go wrong with public works. Lateness, major cost over-runs, protracted disruption to the locale are all reasons for not embarking on the scheme. The experience at Sheffield being another illustration. None of this could give the public any confidence in the promoter’s ability to effect the scheme in a timely and disruption free manner.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Edinburgh CoCP builds upon the positive experience of the development of appropriate Codes on other tramway schemes. It seeks to identify all likely risks of nuisance and to control them before they occur. If, notwithstanding the best endeavours of the promoter, such nuisance does occur then the CoCP established a way by which aggrieved parties can seek alleviation of the nuisance. The promoters contend that it will minimise disturbance and result in a major public work of lasting benefit to the city.

The foregoing comments are something of a wishlist with little or no evidence of an ability to deliver a genuinely safe scheme to the public or any examples or proof of how this will be achieved.

The issues raised in my original statement on Health and Safety during construction broadly remain and have not been addressed by Mr McIntosh’s statement.

These are listed under for ease of reference:

1. Heavy Plant and or haulage vehicles slipping from the working platform above the house and colliding with it causing damage to the property, persons in the garden or within the house itself.

9 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc 2. A sudden collapse of the embankment or part thereof sliding and causing injury as Point 1 above. 3. A boulder or some smaller piece of plant, equipment or material sliding from the site of the works or adjacent haul roads and causing injury as Point 1 above. 4. Trees being uprooted or branches being disturbed and broken by the construction causing damage to property or persons therein. 5. Debris blowing from the site of the construction works and falling into the property causing damage or physical injury 6. Cranage, other mechanical plant or their loads being blown or drifting out of control and colliding with property or persons therein. 7. Dust or grit being blown into the property from the site of the works or haul roads causing contamination or damage to house, outbuildings garden paths or drainage. 8. Water escaping from the site of the works or haul roads saturating the ground, foundations or land-drains of the property. This could arise from breaking drains, changing water flows, pumping operations, removal of embankment vegetation, sealing previously porous surface areas etc. This water would potentially be contaminated with waste products arising from the construction process. 9. Damage and/or loss of stability of fences, walls, vegetation of any kind, structures or services on or near the boundary between properties and the construction operations. 10. Scaffolding or components thereof collapsing or falling from the site of the works or adjacent haul roads causing injury as Point 1 above. 11. Noise from plant on or adjacent to the works causing disturbance, stress or physical damage to residents or walkway users. 12. Fire, smoke damage or exhaust contamination arising from construction plant, processes or resulting from accidental or malicious ignition adjacent to the properties surrounding the Craigleith Overbridge. This same threat exists to other residents and properties adjacent to or near construction operations. 13. Injury by exposure to live electric currents or power surges caused by construction operations. 14. Loss of power or other services arising from construction operations. 15. Chemical damage or contamination to property or persons exposed to uncontrolled or misdirected release of the same in the course of construction operations. 16. Breakages or other damage or injury arising from vibration or sudden movement or shockwave arising from construction operations. 17. Trips, slips or falls of persons or materials as a result of construction operations or residues arising therefrom. 18. Interference with electronic signals causing or contributing to stress, anxiety or physical harm as a result of adjacent construction operations. 19. Escapes of gas, oil or other contaminants causing physical harm to residents or others nearby or their goods and property.

10 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc 20. Unacceptable glare, lighting, radio signals or other communications arising from construction operations disturbing the peace and reasonable comfort of residents or their pets particularly when this occurs outwith normal business and/or school hours. 21. The disturbance of vermin and small creatures that would normally live in and around the embankment and Craigleith Overbridge will be a danger to my neighbours and me, as well as others who live along the Roseburn Corridor. These creatures will migrate to the nearest sheltered areas which will be our homes, garages and garden sheds etc. There are many dangers that arise as a result, bites and scratches from, or even contact with, creatures that carry diseases such as Weil’s Disease in mice and rats, rabies in bats. At present an undisturbed habitat leaves humans and animals safe from each other but changes due to construction will force both groups together with potentially serious consequences.

The foregoing issues relate to real risks to the residents of the Roseburn Corridor during the construction period.

11 G:\!Work Pending\Tram 1 ph1 Evidence\New Folder (7)\Grp 34 - OBJ Rebuttal by MC H&S Con LATE.doc GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Health and Safety Issues Arising from Tram Line 1 Operation

Objector Response by Mark Clarke to Comments by Scott McIntosh

Introduction

My name is Mark Clarke; I have lived at Craigleith Drive since March 1994. I am a qualified Civil Engineer and a chartered builder. I have worked in the Construction Industry for 30 years.

Craigleith Drive is situated on the north-east side of the overbridge across Craigleith Drive and is therefore adjacent to the old railway embankment.

There are numerous risks that arise for residents who live around the Roseburn Corridor related to tram operation and that have not been addressed by Scott McIntosh’s statement. I addressed these points in my previous statement regarding health and safety issues during tram operation on and around the Roseburn Corridor with particular reference to my location adjacent to the overbridge at Craigleith Drive. I include a digest of the key points below:

• The danger of derailment is the most concerning for my neighbours and my own household. The embankment and the Craigleith Overbridge sit above and very close to our houses and if the tram came off its tracks at this location, for any reason such as defective work, wear and tear, vandalism etc., the consequences for my neighbours and myself could be catastrophic. The trams travelling at 70 kph would be unlikely to remain at the high level and if they travel down the embankment they would destroy our houses and anyone inside.

• The speed of the trams at this location would present great danger to anyone walking or cycling along the preserved walkway. Anyone tripping, slipping on ice or falling off their bicycles could land on the tracks and if trams were nearby then the consequences could be very grave. The danger would only be greater at night when it may be that people, including those under the influence, using the walkway could find its complete transformation from it being a safe area away from traffic to it being a very dangerous high speed transport location.

• Collisions by cyclists are another serious danger that arises as a result of the introduction of the trams. Pedestrians and cyclists would find themselves compressed into a much narrower thoroughfare than they have experienced in the intervening decades since the trains stopped. At present, there are a lot cyclists travelling in both directions mixed with pedestrians and family pets. The Walkway can readily cope with this traffic as there is room for passing and pedestrians and pets can step off the main path to give further room to passing cyclists and runners etc. The Walkway has been a great asset providing recreation and access to the City, safe from traffic. The trams will totally change that situation. Pedestrian and cycle traffic will be compressed and a two directional flow of pedestrians, cyclists, runners and pets seems impossible. This will inevitably result in people being driven away from the Walkway. Children will no longer be safe on the Walkway.

• Collision or the danger of collision with trams will be a very significant risk for pedestrians and cyclists. The compression effect caused by the introduction of the trams mentioned above will add to the risks and threats of any pedestrian and/or cyclist collision as they could be pushed or fall into the path of speeding trams. Adults and/or children and/or their pets, used to frequenting the walkway, could slip, trip, fall or merely wander in ignorance into the path of the high-speed trams and not have time or opportunity to get out of their path.

• The high-speed trams will create a draft as they pass other Walkway users. This would include woodland creatures still in this location. The passing draft will alarm everyone and possibly destabilise cyclists. This will cause accidents of all kinds. Trams passing each other will cause further disturbance of air, in dry spells, throwing dust and grit into the faces of walkway users and in wet weather, throwing wind and water into their faces creating even more danger especially from passing cyclists. The speed of the Trams passing at a cumulative 140kph being one of the issues here.

• Cyclists, from being a feature of the Walkway, will become one of the main risks and threats in the new arrangement of the Roseburn Corridor. It is unlikely cyclists travelling parallel to the direction of trams would want a tram passing close-by at high-speed, so they would want to manoeuvre away from the tram track when faced with oncoming cyclists, runners etc. Equally the oncoming cyclists, runners other pedestrians and pets will want to keep away from the oncoming high-speed tram. This will cause further compression and confusion for Walkway users and lead to more collisions.

I believe the introduction of the Tram will drive people away from this great Edinburgh asset, they will move onto roads and this in turn will have its consequences that will not necessarily be measured against the trams but will in reality be a direct result of them.

• Children using the Walkway must be recognised as a risk to their own and others health and safety. Children are less aware of danger, less stable on bicycles and less robust in the event of any collision and will therefore be in even greater danger themselves and a danger to other Walkway users. The high-speed of the passing trams will be of greater risk to them as young children will need close supervision, and there are situations where this will not always be possible. Equally older children are more daring and could take greater chances with the proximity of the high-speed trams. A mistake by anyone in this situation would be fatal, road safety campaigns like “twenty’s plenty” and the present TV campaign showing a child being killed by a car travelling at 40mph but surviving at 30mph both illustrate the danger of a 70kph tram that has got no facility to take avoiding action.

• Winter is not only a season, as far as the trams on the Roseburn Corridor are concerned; it is also a serious risk. The compression effect combined with poor underfoot conditions will lead to more slips, trips and falls in a dangerous situation beside the tram track, poor light will add to this problem. The poor light will also reduce the sight- distance of tram drivers and the other Walkway users. This can only add to the number of accidents. Poor light, fog and poor weather, especially sudden changes catching everyone out will cause more accidents particularly as the trams travel at 70kph at this section.

With respect to the points made by Scott McIntosh, I include the following comments made against his numbered points:

3.3 The risk of burns and shocks referred to here are an additional risk that the residents and other users of the Roseburn Corridor are only exposed to in the event of the trams being located there. The relatively quiet location with areas not specifically visible to observation unlike the roadway siting could result in children, not aware of the real risks trying to interfere with the overhead lines or other electrical elements or apparatus. Locating the trams on the roads throughout their circuit would make them more easily observed and therefore safer as well as being more convenient for public access.

3.10 It should be noted that the abstract from ‘Summary Assessment of the Safety, Health, Environmental and System Risks of Alternative Fuel’ by FTA – Equipment and Infrastructure Section quoted in Mr McIntosh’s statement includes the following;

“…One of the safety advantages of electricity compared to the other AMFs [alternative fuels] is that all facility personnel are generally familiar with the hazards associated with electrical power. Therefore, personnel …..can be expected to be aware of the dangers and follow the proper safety procedures.”

While the facility personnel may be aware of the dangers the same assumption cannot be made about the general public and in particular children who may come into contact with the system that is not proposed to be fenced off in the way that the railway system is, thus prohibiting public access, although even then there are numerous cases involving trespass particularly by children where a fatality has resulted. This would be a much smaller risk with an on-street system.

The point made by Mr McIntosh under his referenece “3.3.8.3 Health Issues” that “There are no specific health hazards associated with the transmission and use of electricity at a fleet facility. “is not borne out by his quotation from the report for the American industrial hygiene Association which states

“The conclusion of most scientific reviews of the EMF research has been that the evidence of potential adverse health effects is marginal and inconsistent, and that there is no scientifically accepted biological mechanism by which these fields could cause health effects.”

Evidence that is marginal and inconsistent may well be so but it is not specifically discounted or refuted because presumably there is insufficient evidence that proves the contrary position. A similar situation applies to biological effects the quoted remarks being even less conclusive..

3.11 Mr McIntosh’s questionnaire with regard to the safety of overhead lines had not been responded to and therefore is not relevant at this time. He notes that “it can be said that, to date, not a single incident has been reported of a failure of the overhead line system leading to the injury of a passenger, passer-by or local resident.” He makes no reference that indicates the extent of his research into this area that would suggest that it had been in any way comprehensive or otherwise. Lacking this specificity I believe the remark cannot be relied upon at this time. In any event a risk not appearing to a given point in time does not of itself eliminate the risk, this result may be down to a large slice of good fortune. If the risk has not been eliminated, a responsible organisation would seek to prevent it arising or to reduce the opportunity for it to do so. One of the most effective ways of doing this would be to site the tram line where it would be under a much higher level of general observation, a situation that will not be achieved by its siting along the Roseburn Corridor.

Points 3.12 to 3.17 refer to the risk of the embedded rails. The risk has been acknowledged and the points are all about mitigation. Mitigation does not eliminate risk, it reduces it and therefore the users of the Roseburn Corridor will be exposed to greater risk as a result of the introduction of rails along the walkway.

3.18 The point confirms how robust the overhead line supports are in comparison with streetlamps. this means that cyclists and others who may collide with them as a result of the compression of the Walkway area due to trams, combined with the presence and speed of the trams themselves are even more likely to be injured. This would be another reason for keeping the trams away from the Roseburn Corridor or for restricting their speed if they were permitted to use it. A roadway setting with resultant slower speeds and much less compression of other users would be much safer.

Conclusions

Mr McIntosh’s statement does not address the real health and safety issues that relate to;

• the construction period • the operation of the trams i.e. their presence and bulk • the threat posed by tram derailment to those on the Walkway and residents like myself who live directly beneath the Walkway • the proposed speed of the trams along the Roseburn Corridor • the compression of other walkway users by the trams • the potential for vandalism • the dangers of the electrical lines and apparatus

All of the foregoing are added to by the conditions along the Roseburn Corridor with embankments, cuttings and less general observation particularly during hours of darkness.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Objector Mark Clarke response to Mr Mitchell’s Statement

Noise Issues Arising from Construction and Operation of Tram Line 1

Introduction

My name is Mark Clarke; I have lived at Craigleith Drive since March 1994. I am a qualified Civil Engineer and a chartered builder. I have worked in the Construction Industry for 30 years.

Craigleith Drive is situated on the north-east side of the overbridge across Craigleith Drive and is therefore adjacent to the old railway embankment on the Roseburn Corridor.

The comments made in my original witness statement on Noise during construction and operation remain and in many cases conflict with points made in Mr Mitchell’s statement and I would propose that the Health and safety Executive provide their views on noise during construction and operation to test the validity of both sets of argument.

I propose to add my further comment on Mr Mitchell’s statement by adding my comments in red italics after his various clauses.

ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

2.1 In my assessments of noise and vibration I have quantified expected levels, I have compared them against recognised standards and I have recommended mitigation measures where necessary to meet those standards where possible. Where adequate mitigation is not likely to be available I have reported residual effects. To discuss the expected effects of noise and vibration I must refer to the noise and vibration numerically. This chapter outlines the key terminology and metrics that are required. The standards used are not necessarily the most appropriate to the analysis of noise on the tram systems. There are both conflicts between them and issues regarding the absolute standards applied as referenced in my earlier statement. Noise readings taken by TIE have been used selectively and similarly published noise criteria has been taken from different sources in order to maximize the outcome to support TIE’s approach e.g. World Health Organisation Data used when measuring Tram noise emission but ignored in the case of Construction noise emission.

2.2 In November 2004, at the request of the West End Community Liaison Group (CLG) I produced a note entitled “What is Noise”. This is included as Appendix 1 to this evidence. It explains the two main metric I have used to assess noise, LAeq, period and LAmax, with particular reference to the assessment of tram noise along the Roseburn Corridor. Some objectors have queried the use of the LAeq, period metric because it gives a noise levels representing the level ‘averaged’ over a long period. My assessment has used LAeq, period because it is the recommended metric for assessing railway noise, as I explain in Appendix 1. In my tram noise assessment I have considered LAeq levels over three periods as follows:

o 0700-2300 hours (day);

o 2300-0700 hours (night); and

o 1 hour during the night.

The definition of degrees of loudness therein conflict with details on the HSE website and various items of their literature on noise.

HSE Guidance Note “Noise – Frequently Asked Questions”

On Page 2 under the section headed “Why should an employer spend money on noise reduction – especially to save only a few decibels?” Paragraph 2 states;

“Because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, a reduction in noise of 3dB(A), which seems small, is in fact the equivalent of halving the intensity of the noise.”

HSE Information Sheet “Noise in Engineering”

On Page 1 under the paragraph titled “What are decibels?” Paragraph 1 states;

“Noise is measured in units called ‘decibels’ – normally written ‘dB’. It is often not appreciated that an extra 3 decibels doubles the noise level.”

I have equally argued that the definitions of day and night are not appropriate as they clearly do not apply to or represent the whole of the affected population e.g. babies, children, people on shift-work etc. the decision on periods is arbitrary and created to best fit TIE’s needs and not those of the affected public .

2.3 I have also considered the peak in the noise levels as the tram passes using the LAmax metric. The maximum noise levels are compared to a set of ambient noise levels that are neither a representative sample of the noise occurring over the period of operation nor of the actual average ambient noise that exists across the annual cycle. The single period measured, I contend, was likely to be noisier and therefore skewing the average ambient noise. Readings should have been taken across the annual cycle to give a representative baseline noise level. A survey should be a representative sample, a single set of results at one time period cannot be defined as representative of anything other than the time they were taken.

2.4 I explain how these three noise metrics are used to assess tram noise impacts in Chapter 5.

2.5 To explain my assessment of vibration effects I have used the following two metrics.

2.6 Vibration Dose Value (VDV) is a measure of the accumulated level of ground vibration over a stated time period and, through the application of British Standard BS6472 ()1 , is the standard metric for predicting the likelihood of adverse comments from affected building occupants. I describe the application of this standard in Chapter 5. It is not only the potential for adverse comment but the threat to embankment stability that is a concern with stability. In the past adverse weather combined with vibration of passing trains caused movement in the banks prior to planting of trees and shrubbery that improved the condition of the slopes.

(1) BS6472: 1992 Guide to evaluation and measurements of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz) 2.7 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is a measure of peak vibration often used to assess the potential for damage to building structures.

3 BACKGROUND

Sensitive Receptors and Baseline Conditions

3.1 The majority of the ETL1 route runs along existing streets with approximately 3km of the route running along the Roseburn Rail Corridor. There are neighbouring properties along the majority of its route. In the Leith and city centre areas many of these properties are commercial with some residential areas too. In other areas the route passes through mainly residential areas which are more sensitive to noise effects, particularly at night.

3.2 The effect of tram noise will depend to some extent on the existing noise levels; tram noise will be more noticeable in currently quiet areas and less obtrusive in already noisy areas. The ES reports baseline noise surveys at 26 representative receptors long the route. The existing noise environment along the route can be considered as two distinct types; sections in the city along streets, and the off-street Roseburn Corridor section. Along the street running sections ambient noise levels are generally high with noise levels mostly in the range of 60 to 70 dB LAeq, period during the day and 55 to 65 LAeq, period in the night-time hours when the tram will operate. See my comments against Points 2.2 and 2.3 above and those contained in my original witness statement.

3.3 Along the Roseburn Corridor the corresponding noise levels are mostly in the range of 45 to 50 dB LAeq, period during the day and 35 to 40 LAeq, period at night, except near to road crossings where levels are higher. The potential for noise impacts is therefore substantially greater along the Roseburn Corridor than elsewhere. See my comments against Points 2.2 and 2.3 above and those contained in my original witness statement. 3.4

Tram Noise Policy and Legislation

3.5 There are no statutory limits on noise from railways or from tramways in Scotland. Planning Advice Note 56 Planning and Noise primarily gives guidance on planning new housing development, but in paragraph 17, under the heading Noisy Development, it gives the following guidance: As a minimum Article 8 of the Human Rights Act would apply in this situation either solely or in parallel with other statutes covering noise and nuisance.

Planning Authorities should generally aim to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable noise disturbance. They should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. Areas vary in character and level of noise that area acceptable in one location may not be acceptable in another.

3.6 Tie has recognised that in planning, designing and operating ETL1 and 2 there will be opportunities to incorporate noise and vibration mitigation measures to help avoid unnecessary disturbance. Tie’s committed approach to noise control is presented in two documents; the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) covering the construction phase, and the Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy covering the operational phase. The commitments to noise and vibration control made in these are summarised below.

The Edinburgh Tram Code of Construction Practice

3.7 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 recognises that noise disturbance cannot be used as a reason to prevent necessary construction projects by advocating the use of ‘Best Practicable Means’ for reducing construction noise. The promoter has adopted this approach as a means of minimising noise and vibration disturbance during the necessary construction works. Accordingly, a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) has been prepared as a means of enforcing the use of best practicable means through contractual requirements. The CoCP takes the commitments made in the ES and summarises them into a form that will be contractually binding on the contractor who constructs the tramway. The main elements of the CoCP that will control noise and vibration effects are summarised as follows: Best Practicable Means would be to route the trams away from the peaceful semi-rural Roseburn Corridor. The commitments made in the Environmental Statement start from the wrong assumptions as pointed out in my original witness statement.

3.8 The CoCP limits normal hours of working to 0700-1900 hours. This is an important form of site noise management. Construction work at night is required to be kept to a minimum and requires the consent of the Council. There is no reason other than the convenience of the operator that the hours of construction significantly extend the normal construction hours defined in the Construction Working Rule Agreement. The “normal” working hours defined therein are 0800-1630hrs Monday to Friday and 0800-1530hrs on a Friday. The extended hours will cause significant disturbance to most normal residents who include retired people and children all of whom are likely to be at home after 1630 to 1700hrs and on Saturdays when TIE suggest their “normal hours” would apply..

3.9 It lists a series of noise control measures aimed as minimising noise emission at source and making use of noise screening. The noise control measures and screening lack specificity.

3.10 The CoCP includes a series of noise limits and requirements to monitor noise. The noise limits and monitoring have not been set or determined by an independent party.

The basis employed by TIE is to start measuring noise disturbance at 75dB in daytime. A noise level reaching 55dB between 0700 and 2300 hours is recognised by the World Health Organisation as the point at which noise impacts on the public.

3.11 The CoCP also includes vibration limits to protect residents from disturbance due to ground vibration and to protect buildings from structural damage, and requires monitoring of vibration where needed. Information on vibration is limited and does not address how disturbance to garden sheds, plants and trees within adjacent properties and the properties themselves will be assessed other than the general assertion that vibration will not reach limits where disturbance or damage will occur. It makes no reference to embankment stability.

3.12 The CoCP requires the Contractor to have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise disturbance from noise and to comply with the recommendations of BS5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites. See comments on Point 3.10 above. As such, the CoCP does not give a permit to make noise levels up to the stated limits, but rather to minimise noise as far as practicable. The overriding requirement is to adopt the ‘Best Practicable Means’ to control noise and vibration levels. The term ‘Best Practicable Means’ is defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act where‘…practicable’ means reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications’. The test of Best Practicable Means has been tested in a substantial body of case law relating to statutory nuisance from construction works. It is for this reason that it provides a clear and appropriate test against which to ensure that adequate noise and vibration measures are adopted during the construction phase. The cases have not been listed and so there is no means of establishing what they have to say about noise nuisance. Best practicable means is a generic term that can provide a defence against complaint as it lacks specificity. There is no reason why actual means in different situations are not included in the documents governing the proposal.

The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy

3.13 During the preparation of the ES it became clear that there was potential for noise impacts, mainly along the Roseburn Corridor, and discussions took place to consider what mitigation measures should be developed given the absence of any statutory requirement to control tram noise. It was also recognised that although noise impacts may not be predicted in other areas, where there are noise control measures that can make the whole system quieter, the promoter should take them. Tie committed to an approach where noise mitigation would be developed wherever significant noise impacts were predicted and the measures were reasonably practicable and not unacceptable to affected parties. This approach was adopted in the ES and led to the set of mitigation measures reported therein. Again the baseline and terms of reference have been disputed in detail in my earlier statement. The values used in the Environmental Statement tables do not represent the true noise profile. There is no explanation of what happens when two trams pass each other in terms of noise. No reference to noise from warning/signalling devices. LAmax is not used as the reference point i.e. when trams are passing.

3.14 Since lodging of the Bill, with the accompanying ES, various objectors to the scheme have questioned tie’s commitment to noise mitigation and sought clarification as to the measures to be adopted. In response to this tie has produced The Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two Noise and Vibration Policy (the N&V Policy) which was first published in March 2005, and is included as Appendix 2 to this Witness Statement. The policy seeks to strike a balance between the need to limit noise levels in some areas and the objective of providing a safe and efficient tram service. City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services department assisted in the development of the N&V Policy and endorse it. The policy and approach have been developed by parties with an interest in the tram line construction and operation. It is stated at a kater part of the document that a Peer Review took place but there is no clarity on the terms of reference given to the Reviewers. 3.15 The N&V Policy commits to a hierarchy of noise mitigation measures starting with the tram vehicles design, through the track design, to noise screening structures, and as a last resort noise insulation. These mitigation measures are to be applied above certain threshold levels. These threshold levels are the same as those used on the ES to assess significant noise impacts, and are discussed below in Section 5.1. The peer review of the ES, by Casella Stanger, accepted these thresholds as appropriate for assessing tram noise. The methodology for establishing the threshold levels have been disputed in my original witness statement.

3.16 Other tram promoters in the UK have produced Noise and Vibration Policies in recent years; Centro in Birmingham and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham have policies produced in the last two years for the proposed extensions to their tram systems. The ETL1 N&V Policy adopts equivalent standard to these policies, consistent with best practice. Again the policies referred to have been produced by parties who have an interest in tram operation.

3.17 Consequently, I believe the N&V Policy adopts appropriate thresholds above which to consider noise mitigation, within the practicable constraints of an operating tramway.

3.18 It is important to appreciate that these are non-statutory noise threshold levels, and there may be cases where they cannot be achieved, for practical reasons, for example due to the presence of road traffic on street running section of the tramway. (It should be noted that reference is made to road traffic adding to the cumulative noise effect – what about passing trams) As it happens there tends not to be noise impacts on street running sections of the tramway because of the relatively small additional noise the tram adds to road traffic noise, as I shall explain in Chapter 5.

The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise Insulation Scheme

3.19 The Line 1 and 2 Bills make provision for a noise insulation scheme. Following detailed consultation with the City of Edinburgh Environmental and consumer Services Department, it has been agreed to adopt the same noise insulation scheme as the statutory requirements for England and Wales. ()2 These regulations are referred to in Planning Advice Note 56. They have been used on light rail schemes in England and are considered appropriate. The trigger levels for noise insulation in residential properties can be summarised as follows:

• LAeq, 0600 to midnight 68 dB at 1m from the façade; • LAeq, midnight to 0600 hours 63 dB at 1m from the façade; and • Noise levels must be at least 1dB above prevailing noise levels.

These levels must be measured against the peace and quiet enjoyed by residents (35 to 45dB(A) are the present LAeq levels even accepting TIE’s readings) at present where a nominal increase in ambient noise will disturb local residents and they have no control over a situation the operators are imposing upon them. When they purchased their properties they could not have predicted the change that the tram introduction would make to the peaceful enjoyment of their properties.

3.20 Noise insulation usually requires the installation of secondary glazing (ie an additional sheet of glass supported independently behind the existing glazing). This can present practical difficulties in houses with shallow window sills, but because it has little affect on the external of the building is not hindered by listed building or conservation considerations. In some cases additional ventilation is also required, and this can take the form of a small mechanical ventilator in the building façade. These measures would be intrusive upon the residents and may affect the appearance and comfort of their homes.

3.21 Whilst noise insulation is effective at avoiding noise intrusion into properties, it has several disadvantages over noise control at source; it does nothing for external areas, it can prevent opening windows, and it may cause inconvenience to the building occupant. For these reasons it is considered a low priority mitigation measure in the mitigation hierarchy of the N&V Policy. In fact, as I shall explain later, the levels of noise expected from tram operations are unlikely to exceed the trigger levels for noise insulation, so it is not considered a major element of the overall noise mitigation strategy for the tram.

3.22 In response to concerns expressed over the possibility of wheel squeal on tight bends, it is proposed that the Noise Insulation Scheme will be extended to include special provisions in case this particularly characteristic form of noise should occur as trams traverse bends. Wheel squeal is a complex phenomenon, and whilst it is expected that a series of good design and operating practices can avoid its occurrence, it is discussed further in my evidence in relation to those objectors who have raised it as specific concerns

(2) The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No 428). in their area.

4 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING CONSTRUCTION

Assessment Methodology

4.1 Section 13.3 of the ES reports predictions of noise at 50 representative noise- sensitive receptors, resulting from the 4 main phases of work required to construct the tramway. These predictions are necessarily based on appropriate assumptions. They are based on lists of generic groups of plant that are expected to be in operation during the noisiest phases of construction work. In each case they represent the worst case predicted noise level when the group of plant is at its closest approach to each receiver. The predicted noise levels are assessed against the LAeq, daytime 75 dB standard widely adopted for assessing construction noise impacts. The assessment methodology was judged as appropriate by the committee’s peer reviewers, Casella Stanger. 75dB is a major change to the ambient noise profile at present and would cause significant disturbance.

This reference is taken from the DoE Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 that gives advice as to maximum levels of construction site noise at residential locations during daytime hours.

The Daytime time frame assumed by TIE is 0700 – 1900 hrs. I firstly challenge that this interpretation is a reasonable one and I would ask the Parliamentary Committee to stand in the shoes of residents when making their assessment as this, for the moment includes weekends. I think a more appropriate definition would be (0900-1700hrs) i.e. normal office hours, a day’s work and so I ask the Committee to use their authority to redefine the period in this way...

Secondly and more importantly the leaflet is quoted as under;

“…the noise level outside the nearest occupied room should not exceed:

• 75dB(A) in urban areas near to main roads in heavy industrial areas; or • 70dB(A) in rural, suburban and urban areas away from main road traffic and industrial noise.

TIE then go on to state that “An assessment criterion of 75 dB has therefore been adopted for the purpose of the assessment.

TIE refer to the Roseburn Corridor as a quiet location so how can they then select 75dB(A) as their base criteria?

Construction Noise Effects

4.2 Whilst the noise control measures in the CoCP will reduce construction noise levels, some noise disturbance is inevitable for any construction project of this type. Enabling works will produce some of the highest localised noise levels affecting the nearest receptors along much of the route, but it will be of relatively short duration compared to the overall construction programme. Stop construction will also affect nearby receptors. Each Stop will typically take two to three months to construct, but noise will affect receptors for only part of this period, mainly when the foundations are being constructed. Tracklaying and other activities will generally not produce noise levels above the LAeq, daytime 75 dB criterion, and whilst this may be noticeable, I do not expect it to have significant impacts on users of neighbouring buildings. There is no statement on what provisions will be taken to reduce this noise back to the existing ambient levels and where this is not possible what compensation residents suffering disturbance will receive. This would be very relevant at any point where the work extends beyond a short period of two or three days and extend into a more protracted period. TIE also note that noise levels may exceed the upper limit by 10dB(A) taking noise above the EU Physical Agents (Noise) directive to be implemented in February 2006.

4.3 Some night work may be required at a small number of locations, for example, at busy road junctions. Ambient noise levels tend to be high in these locations lessening the effect of night-time construction work, but even after mitigation, some residual noise impacts are expected, albeit over brief periods.

4.4 It can be concluded that whilst there may be some disturbance from construction noise, these would result only in short term annoyance over limited areas and, given appropriate control through the CoCP procedures and Council involvement, I do not consider these unacceptable in the context of the overall tramway project. The writer will not be exposed to this noise disturbance.

Construction Vibration Effects

4.5 Vibration annoyance and damage from construction work is most typically associated with driven piling (such as drop hammer piling or sheet piling where piles are struck to drive them into the ground). This type of piling is not expected and other construction work will give rise to lower levels. At the closest receptors ground vibration may be perceptible from time to time when the works are in the immediate vicinity. However, for general construction works annoyance standards should not be exceeded, and vibration levels are not expected to be high enough to risk damage to buildings. There is limited information either way to allow this conclusion to be drawn.

5 EFFECTS OF THE SCHEME DURING OPERATION

Assessment Methodology

5.1 In the ES tram noise has been predicted at 41 representative noise-sensitive receptors along the route based on noise source level data from other comparable systems. Train speeds will be up to about 48kph on street running sections and up to 70 kph on the sections of segregated track along the Roseburn Railway Corridor. The frequency of the train service is also important in predicting overall noise levels, and the following service pattern is assumed:

• Monday to Friday – 0500-0700 4 trams per hour 0700-1900 8 trams per hour 1900-0030 4 trams per hour

• Saturday - 0600-0900 4trams per hour 0900-0000 8 trams per hour

• Sunday – 0600--0030 4 trams per hour

5.2 This means in a peak daytime hour (apart from Sundays) there will be one tram pass-by every 3 ¾ minutes, and at other times there will be a tram pass- by every 7 ½ minutes.

5.3 The predictions of tram noise levels were carried out using established methods, but some objectors have questioned whether these predictions can be accurate since full details of the tram system are not yet known. I have measured noise levels from tram systems throughout the UK and across Europe, and I have been advised of those design parameters for the Edinburgh Tram that influence noise emission; vehicle length, number of wheels, floor level, track guage etc. For modern tram vehicles that fall within these parameters, I have found that the divergence in noise emission levels is small, so I am confident I have used a realistic noise emission level in my predictions. Other stages in the noise prediction process involving predicting propagation losses, summing noise from tram vehicles etc, have all followed the standard Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN) methodology as published by the Department of Transport in 1995. I have had the opportunity to validate such predictions on numerous occasions. I am therefore confident that I have predicted tram noise levels to an accuracy suitable for assessing potential noise impacts from the Edinburgh Tram.

5.4 A noise assessment methodology was adopted that considered both absolute thresholds of tram noise impact and also the extent to which tram noise would increase existing ambient levels. The threshold values, below which no impact is expected, were taken from Planning Advice Note 56, by adopting the noise levels at the top end of Noise Exposure Category A, as follows:

• For daytime noise, LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 55 dB. • For night-time noise LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 45 dB.

These represent the noise levels given in the Planning Advice Note below which noise need not be considered a determining factor in granting planning permission for new housing adjacent to existing noise sources. This guidance is for the planning of new houses next to existing noise sources, rather than the reverse, which is the case here. However, the basis of these levels is a large body of research that has found that at levels below these, few people are annoyed by noise. The National Noise Incidence Study 2000 found that 55±3% of the population of England and Wales live in dwellings exposed to day-time noise levels above 55 dB LAeq,day and 68±3% of the population of England and Wales live in dwellings exposed to night-time noise levels above 45 dB LAeq,night. This approach may be acceptable for granting planning permission for new houses, but we are in the reverse situation, planning permission was granted for houses without the presence of trams. The occupants are now being confronted by a significant change to the noise profile around their property that they are prevented from exercising choice whether to live there or not. Slower tram speeds, changes to tram frequency, later starts and earlier finishes to running times are just a few measures that would improve the potential environmental impact and change.

5.5 It is for these reasons that I consider these threshold levels to be stringent assessment criterion to adopt and criteria that should not be applied in isolation without consideration of pre-existing ambient noise levels.

5.6 In the ES changes in noise were considered over one hour periods, ie LAeq 1 hour, during the peak daytime hour and the night-time hours when trams will run. The test that was applied to assess the significance of the predicted noise change was the commonly used 3dB threshold of perception for change in environmental noise, so that changes in LAeq, 1 hour of less than 3dB were judged to be ‘slight’ and insignificant. Greater noise changes, when at least 3dB above the noise impact thresholds, were reported in the ES as giving greater levels of potential impact (3-5 dB moderate, 5-10 dB substantial, and 10 dB or more severe). Impacts predicted to be greater that slight were considered significant and mitigation was considered. As previously noted these frames of reference are contradicted by HSE documentation.

5.7 Maximum (LAmax) levels of tram noise were also assessed against the 82 dB noise criterion for potential sleep disturbance contained in PAN56 in order to consider if individual tram noise events are likely to cause significant sleep disturbance. The 82dB(A) referred to breaches the EU Physical Agents (Noise) directive to be implemented in February 2006.

5.8 The ETL1 committee appointed Casella Stanger to carry out a peer review of the noise and vibration assessment reported in the ES. This review report (September 2004) supported the methodology used to assess tram noise, and included the following comments in its conclusions:

o ‘Appropriate standards have been used as a basis for the assessment and the correct conclusions have been drawn.’

o ‘There are no recommendations for improving the chapter except to ensure that the supplementary work suggested is actually carried out. Most of the supplementary work suggested cannot be carried out until further development of the detailed design of the scheme.’

Was the question posed to Casella Stanger as to whether other more exacting standards could have been employed in the interests of residents in and around the Roseburn Corridor. A limited extract taken out of context from the report is not a good basis to form any judgements.

5.9 Since publication of the ES engineering design work has advanced and in response to objections from residents with houses backing on to the Roseburn Railway Corridor further detailed noise modelling has been carried out in this area. This has allowed mitigation measures to be progressed in more detail in this area, as discussed in Part 2 of this Witness Statement.

5.10 In the ES estimates of levels of ground vibration were made based on measurements taken adjacent to comparable systems that included detailed measurements of vibration levels from Phase 1 of the Manchester Metro in 1996. The estimated levels were compared to the Vibration Dose Values (VDVs) given in BS6472 below which the probability of adverse comment is low. The standard includes the following guidance on adverse comments from vibration.

Table 2 BS6472 Table 7: Vibration Dose Values (m/s-1.75) above which various degrees of adverse comment may be expected in residential buildings Place Low Adverse Adverse probability of comment comment adverse possible probable comment Residential 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6 buildings 16 hour day Residential 0.13 0.26 0.51 buildings 8 hour night

5.11 The design standard adopted in Section 5 of the Noise and Vibration Policy is set at the levels where there is a ‘low probability of adverse’ comment. These levels are half those at which ‘adverse comments are possible’, and are a quarter of those at which ‘adverse comments are probable’. The standard has been widely used to assess the impacts of tram and railway vibration. It has been widely adopted as the design standard for other tram and light rail systems in the UK.

Noise Effects During Operation

5.12 Outside the Roseburn Corridor noise impacts no greater than slight are predicted, except at one location, West Pilton March on West Granton Approach Road where a 5 dB exceedance of the assessment criteria is predicted. A noise barrier will probably be appropriate here to mitigate this impact in accordance with the N&V Policy. So, outside the Roseburn Corridor I do not expect there to be any significant noise impacts from the operation of trams. This is largely a result of the relatively high ambient noise levels along the route, as discussed in Section 3.1.

5.13 The ES predicted noise impacts at about 200 properties along the Roseburn Corridor and suggested that approximately 2.5km of noise barrier would be required to mitigate these affects. It also noted the need to develop the barrier design so that it can be accommodated into the complex corridor setting as the detailed design of the scheme progresses. It also noted that residents’ views would be important in determining the appropriateness of barriers in particular locations. Much work has been done since the ES to develop noise mitigation along the Roseburn corridor and views have been expressed by many of the affected community. Where necessary noise barriers will be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively an innovative low level ‘noise plenum’ system may be possible to provide the necessary level of mitigation without the need for such high screening structures. I describe the further work that has been carried out to develop the mitigation measures here in more detail in response to the relevant objectors in Part 2 of this Witness Statement. A better and safer means of noise mitigation would be to reroute the trams or at least reduce their running speeds.

5.14 Some objectors have expressed concern that there will be high level of noise from tram stops. Unlike railway stations the tram stops will not make use of a public address system to inform passengers to tram schedules. This will be done by visual display units, and audible announcements will be made inside the tram vehicles except in emergencies or periods of service disruption when external announcements will be necessary. The N&V Policy requires the levels of external announcements to be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services Department in any case where neighbours have concerns over noise disturbance. There is no mention of audible signals from the trams themselves.

Vibration Effects During Operation

5.15 The tram tracks will be embedded in a resilient sleeve. Vibration levels due to tram operations are expected to be perceptible at various sensitive receptors, but not at levels that exceed the BS6472 VDV standard for a low probability of adverse comment.

5.16 Where the tracks run very close to noise sensitive buildings, and other conditions prevail (such as high tram speed and unfavourable ground conditions) a trackform offering greater vibration isolation, such as Isolated Track Slab may be required to achieve the VDV levels that the promoter has committed to in the Noise and Vibration Policy. Isolated Track Slab designs mount the concrete slab that supports that track in a resilient layer that further reduces vibration transfer into the ground. Isolated Track Slab used on other comparable tram systems has achieved these limits. With these measures in place, vibration impacts are not expected. Will these measures be implemented in the Roseburn Corridor?

5.17 It is not uncommon in my experience for owners to properties close to proposed tram routes to fear that vibration from the trams could damage their homes. This is a misconception as demonstrated by considering the fact that there are very many street running tram systems around the world that run in close proximity to buildings without damaging them. A technical assessment of this issue is provided in Section 13.7 of the ES which provides measured vibration data showing Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) levels of up to 1.5mm/s as close as 3m from the tracks, whereas a safe threshold for damage to structures is 15mm/s. So, even as close as 3m tram vibration is a factor of 10 below the safe level. Further measured data in the ES shows that at approximately 15m from the tram tracks the vibration levels are a factor of 100 below this safe threshold. Embankment stability, particularly with reference to past experience remains a concern. Other vibration information can only be challenged by reference to the actual outcome.

Monitoring and Maintenance

5.18 Section 6 of the N&V Policy requires the tram system to be maintained, and in particular the wheel and rail surfaces, so as to minimise noise and vibration at sensitive receptors. Maintenance of the wheel and rail surfaces is an important means of avoiding tram noise increasing over the years of operation. Much of the maintenance work on the track will be undertaken at night when the tramway is not in use, and some objectors have expressed concern that this will be noisy and could disturb them. Most maintenance activities are not particularly noisy, but rail grinding may cause some disturbance. Rail grinding is likely to be required at a frequency measured in years rather than weeks or months and will deliver long term noise and vibration benefits. Rail grinding in the vicinity of a particular receptor will take only a few hours and would generally be completed over a single night shift. Section 6 of the N&V Policy also requires the operator to give due notice to City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department and to local residents of rail grinding. Stopping the service for maintenance periods in normal hours would mitigate this problem.

5.19 In accordance with section 6 of the N&V Policy noise and vibration levels will be monitored throughout the operation of the scheme, to a schedule to be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department. The results of this monitoring will be used to inform maintenance programmes so as to avoid unnecessary increases in noise or vibration levels.

5.20 Overall, I consider the N&V Policy provides a good level of protection against noise and vibration impacts. The policy goes well beyond statutory requirements, and in my opinion will ensure that an appropriate level of mitigation is applied and unacceptable impacts are avoided.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Effects During Construction

6.1 The promoter will put in place a series of procedures that will ensure that the proposed tramway is built using the ‘best practicable means’ as defined by the Control of Pollution Act to reduce noise and vibration to a practicable minimum. These include; a Code of Construction Practice placing contractual requirements to control noise on the contractor; noise limits; and noise and vibration monitoring to identify potential shortfalls in noise control performance.

6.2 Even with the use of the best practicable means to reduce noise, some noise disturbance cannot be ruled out during unavoidably noisy activities. In the overall context of the tramway scheme, and with the mitigation measure I have described in this evidence, I do not consider these residual impacts to be unacceptable. Unacceptability is a judgement more appropriate to those exposed to the problem.

Effects During Operation

6.3 The Edinburgh tram system will operate short, light vehicles at modest speeds, and as such it is fundamentally less noisy than traditional railway systems. There are no statutory limits on tramway noise in Scotland. Nonetheless tie has developed a N&V Policy to ensure that noise and vibration levels are controlled wherever necessary and practicable.

6.4 Levels of tram noise have been predicted and compared to both noise impact threshold criteria and existing ambient noise levels. The only area of potential widespread noise impact is within the Roseburn Railway Corridor where ambient noise levels are currently much lower than elsewhere along the route. Here various mitigation measures will be developed in the detailed design stage in accordance with the N&V Policy. Detailed modelling work has already been completed to demonstrate that these measures will be affective. If necessary noise barriers will be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels, or alternatively a low level ‘noise plenum’ system will provide the necessary level of mitigation without the need for such high screening structures. Along the corridor, tram noise will be audible as a new type of noise, not heard there for over 30 years. Although some increases in ambient noise levels are predicted, because currently some areas adjacent to the corridor are quiet, mitigated noise levels will not give rise to unacceptable noise impacts. This point conflicts with earlier comments in that previously the writer stated that 2.5km of noise barrier was planned for the Roseburn Corridor. Here he states “If necessary noise barriers will be constructed..”

6.5 Ground vibration from trams is likely to be perceptible at various receptors but not at levels that would be expected to give rise to adverse comments. No significant impacts from vibration are predicted to occur.

PART 2 - SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY GROUP 34 OBJECTORS

7 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS

Approach To Objections

7.1 Over 150 objectors raise noise and/or vibration concerns, with the majority living in along the Roseburn Corridor. I have attended several of the Community Liaison Group meetings to try to explain how I have assessed noise and vibration impacts from the tram, what measures the promoter will be taking to address these, and what the result will be.

7.2 In Part 1 of this Witness Statement I have tried to respond to the common concerns raised in the objection letters of this and other Objector Groups. In this chapter I respond to any other specific points of objection that are raised in the individual objection letters and the Objector Group 34 Witness Summary.

Noise Mitigation Measures for Roseburn Corridor Area B

7.3 Roseburn Corridor Area B runs from the Craigleith Stop just north of Queensferry Road southwards to the Ravelston Dykes Stop south of Ravelston Dykes. The Group represents 59 objectors in this area.

7.4 There are houses bordering much of the corridor in this area. Whilst some are at a similar ground level to the corridor many will benefit from the noise screening produced by three deep cuttings at the tram route runs under Queens ferry Road, Craighleith Drive and Ravelston Dykes. There is not a deep cutting at Craigleith Drive, there is an embankment.

7.5 The extent of noise mitigation measures in this area has been developed through detailed noise modelling as reported in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a developing document that has been published in stages since April 2005. Prior to that, in October 2004, noise mitigation measures were illustrated for sample sections of the corridor in ERM‘s report Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures in the Roseburn Corridor.

7.6 The N&V Policy sets target levels for noise mitigation. The policy commits the promoter to adopting the best practicable means to achieve these noise targets through a hierarchy of measures from selection of a quiet tram, through track design and screening to noise insulation as a last resort. Along the Roseburn Corridor, unlike street-running sections of the route where options are more limited, the track design can be modified and screening provided to provide noise mitigation. This is the focus of noise mitigation throughout the corridor, and it is not envisaged that noise insulation will be required.

7.7 Along the Roseburn Corridor ambient noise levels are generally below the threshold levels described above, so the baseline noise levels do not need to be known in detail in order to specify the required mitigation in these areas.

7.8 Much work has been done since the first issue of the LHMP on April 1 to develop this mitigation as an integral part of the design. Modelling work on requirements for noise mitigation has been refined and progress has been made in developing a low level screening structure, referred to as the ‘acoustic plenum’. This differs from the more conventional form of noise barriers, in that it allows the noise propagation path from the tram wheel/rail interface to the receptor to be interrupted close to the track and at a low level, so it is less visually obtrusive. The current concept has dimensions similar to a tram stop platform, although narrower, ie very close to the trams but below tram floor level. It comprises a hollow box that absorbs the noise that reverberates under the bodies of the passing tram vehicles. A form of acoustic plenum has been used to great success in Hong Kong. I expect a similar system would provide adequate mitigation along the Roseburn Corridor.

7.9 There are a series of design challenges to overcome before the form of the acoustic plenum can be finalised, and it is possible that any of these could jeopardise its feasibility. Safety considerations pose the greatest challenge, and space across the tram solum is at a premium in some areas. However, preliminary discussions have been held with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, and it appears likely that the acoustic plenum is a feasible option for noise mitigation.

7.10 If it should transpire that the noise plenum is not the best solution in certain areas, then conventional noise barriers will be pursued. These would generally have the appearance of solid wooden fences varying in height from approximately 1 to 2.5m. 2.5m is considered a practicable maximum. Where high barriers are required in sensitive areas semi-transparent materials may be used for the upper portion of the barrier to reduce the possible enclosing effect on the corridor. Final design of the track, its geometry and relationship to the noise barriers will progress in the future. Further baseline noise surveys and refined modelling will be needed to check compliance with the Noise and Vibration Policy as the design progresses. These factors could affect noise barrier requirements in some areas, so their dimensions can only be indicative at this stage. Provisional locations of noise barriers in this area are as follows:

• On the west side of the tramway – a noise barrier approximately 60m long and 1.5m high from 10m north of 1 Craigleith Bank to 10m south of 3 Craigleith Bank.

• On the east side of the tramway – a noise barrier approximately 70m long and 1m high, from the boundary of 15/16 Blinkbonny Grove to opposite 21 Blinkbonny Grove.

• On the west side of the tramway – a noise barrier approximately 220m long and 1.5m high from 15m north of 50a Craigleith View to 20m south of 32 Craigleith View.

• On the east side of the tramway – a noise barrier approximately 170m long and 1-1.5m high from 12 Blinkbonny Avenue to 30 Blinkbonny Road.

7.11 The locations are illustrated in Figures C3-6, C4-2, C4-4, C4-6 and C5-2 of the LHMP.

7.12 With either these noise barriers or an acoustic plenum in these locations the target noise levels in the N&V Policy can be achieved. So, I do not expect residual noise impacts in this area. This makes the assumption that the noise levels stated are reasonable when they are far in excess of present noise levels along the Roseburn Corridor.

Noise Increases will be Noticeable Even with Mitigation

7.13 Some objectors have noted that the N&V Policy does not commit to ‘no increase in noise’ and in currently quiet areas the N&V Policy will allow noise levels to be increased substantially even though the required threshold levels will be achieved through mitigation.

7.14 In currently quiet areas ambient noise level will be increased when the tram begins operation. In the short term after opening this noise increase will be noticeable to many residents, and given the concern expressed by such residents at this stage, it may be that some find the noise objectionable. However, a wide range of social surveys have shown that at noise level equal to or below the threshold noise levels committed to in the N&V Policy the proportion of a population that is annoyed by the noise is low. Therefore, I would expect that in the longer term only a low proportion of residents would report tram noise as annoying, if asked. It is for this reason that the planning system (PAN56) does not consider noise a determining factor if a new dwelling is proposed at a location where noise levels are at the N&V Policy threshold levels. This is the wrong basis to start from. Residents could be potentially faced with unsellable properties either because in real terms the noise level is unacceptable which makes their life intolerable. Secondly the noise level is perceived to be a problem meaning their property could either not be sold or would only become of interest at a level far below the local market value.

Removal of Vegetation Affecting Noise

7.15 Several objectors along the Roseburn Corridor suggest that vegetation will be removed that would otherwise reduce tram noise. Vegetation as found in this area does not reduce noise levels significantly, regardless of the season and whether or not trees and hedges are in leaf. Even in dense forest long distances are required to produce noticeable noise attenuation. The vegetation in this case is not of that order.

7.16 There can be a subjective effect, whereby there is a psychological benefit of not seeing the noise source. The LHMP describes in detail how vegetation will be replaced in those areas where it is necessary to remove it. So, where it applies, this benefit will not be lost.

Effectiveness of Noise Barriers

7.17 Some objectors express concern that to have any worthwhile effect, noise barriers would have to be of considerable height and this could impact on neighbouring property and it value. The noise barriers described in the LHMP are between 1.5m and 2.5m high. The noise barriers will be located within 1m of the trams and in this location they are affective at these heights, as proven on many similar applications. Noise barriers have been included in the LHMP specifically so that there potential visual impact can be addressed, and extensive planting will be used soften their appearance and minimise visual impact.

Proposed Amendments to the Bill

7.18 The Group 34 Witness Summary includes proposed amendments to the Bill that relate to noise and vibration.

7.19 The objectors in this Group propose that the noise and vibration targets that the promoter has committed to in the N&V Policy should be mandatory. The promoter’s position is to adopt noise and vibration mitigation measures at source to achieve these noise and vibration target levels through the use of Best Practicable Means, as defined in the Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Best Practicable Means is well defined and tested under noise nuisance law, as I have discussed in Chapter 3 of this Witness Statement. The promoter cannot accept mandatory limits in case, for some reason there is no practicable way that the targets can be met in a given case which would render operation of the tram illegal. Where does this leave the victims of the noise disturbance. This is a question of cost and choice, not something that is impossible to achieve. Appropriate action could be taken but the Operator remains in control of where he will set his limit of action. This should be determined by an independent tribunal who could assess the appropriate level of action in the interests of all parties not just the operator.

7.20 The planning system recognises that transportation creates noise. In Chapter 3 I have explained how planning advice on noise notes that local planning authorities ‘should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. The objectors’ proposal is contrary to this planning policy. Policy must consider the effects of their actions on all affected parties.

7.21 The objectors in this group propose that there should be a monitoring mechanism (independent of the operator) to undertake periodic monitoring. Section 6 of the N&V Policy requires that:

• ‘For each section of the route a noise and vibration monitoring scheme will be established and results will be regularly reported. The noise and vibration monitoring scheme will be agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council’s Environmental and Consumer Services Department.’ TIE is a wholly owned vehicle of Edinburgh Council.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Andy Coates’s Witness Statement by Tina Woolnough

Issues covered by this Statement

1. Impacts on wildlife and habitats and measures to mitigate these 2. Development of the Badger Mitigation Plan

ISSUE 1 IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITATS AND MEASURES TO MITIGATE THESE

1.4 The Roseburn Corridor is designated in the Urban Nature Conservation Strategy [ASC1] as an Urban Wildlife Site, a linear feature which allows the passage of wildlife between other, often larger areas of habitats. Many transport corridors act as wildlife corridors, a feature recognised in the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan [ASC2] which records wildlife corridors as including “the network of transport corridors and paths including disused railways, main roads, live railways and their adjacent land”.

1.5 In practice the wildlife corridor is wider than the boundaries of the former railway line and the designated Urban Wildlife Site, and the numerous gardens of adjacent properties and surrounding open space are important in the functioning of the wildlife corridor along Roseburn.

The Promoter has offered no information or mitigation for how this wider Corridor and the links to the Roseburn Corridor are to be maintained for the effective functioning of the Corridor during construction and operation. The extent of the usage has not been surveyed. Nor have the impacts of enforced badger/human interaction (in gardens and on nearby roads) been assessed.

1.6 The embankments and cutting slopes of the corridor have developed habitats which are typical of those which develop on former railway corridors including young woodland and scrub, with coarse neutral grassland and tall ruderal 1 species in more open areas including close to the existing pathway/cycletrack. These habitats support a range of predominantly common fauna species. Two protected species were recorded along the corridor, badger and pipistrelle bats. No roost sites for pipistrelle bats were recorded.

(1) Fast growing weedy species that colonise empty ground.

Buildings such as houses are known to be the most favoured roost sites for pipistrelle bats, and it is likely that bats foraging along the corridor will be roosting in adjacent buildings rather than in trees. This was confirmed by a survey undertaken during the Environmental Impact Assessment, which indicated that there was no roosting within the corridor itself. Further details of the habitats and species which occur along the Roseburn Corridor are contained in the ES.

No proper surveys, at appropriate times of year, were undertaken for roosts. The bat survey and its remit/contract with ERM make clear the restricted and limited nature of the survey. This survey is inadequate for assessing the extent and presence of roosts and bats, and no cognizance is made of the value of the Corridor for foraging and feeding.

1.7 Further surveys have been undertaken since the submission of the ES to assist with the development of the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) and the Badger Mitigation Plan (BMP). These include surveys to map the habitat types along the corridor in more detail, surveys to map the location and condition of trees along the corridor that may be affected by the works, surveys to identify breeding bird species using the corridor, surveys of badger sett locations and territorial boundaries of the social groups of badgers along the corridor using bait marking. The surveys have been undertaken using recognised survey methods which are in accordance with current good practice.

We challenge and rebut this in the strongest terms. I have lodged evidence which disproves the above statement – the Promoter, as a local authority, should be setting an appropriate precedent for other developers by using the highest survey standards. Wildlife surveys should have been undertaken at the earliest stages of route sifting, in accordance with the recommendations of the Scottish Executive (see my witness statements).

1.8 A key feature of the ETL1 design is that it will maintain the function of the Roseburn Corridor as a wildlife corridor. The Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan identifies the North Edinburgh Cyclepath as a valuable resource and proposes measures to maintain its diversity. It specifically suggests that disturbance to bank vegetation and wildlife during construction of Tramline One should be kept to the minimum and that appropriate reinstatement and planting be undertaken for people and wildlife. In accordance with the policy set out in the Plan, the design has sought to minimise the disturbance to vegetation and the wildlife it supports.

The extant Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan was revised to incorporate the tram proposals as if they were a fait accompli. The Action Plan therefore fails to adhere to the terms of the Central Edinburgh Local Plan which states that the Urban Wildife Site must be protected from development. The current Action Plan replaced a previous Action Plan, which was far more robust in its defence of the Corridor, indicating how the Promoter has abused its role as planning authority and supposed guardian of Edinburgh’s biodiversity in the context of its role as a developer. There

is no evidence that the Natural Heritage section of the Council’s City Development department was given any say, or was consulted in any way, about the alignment choices for Tram Line One, including the choice of the Roseburn Corridor. The route selection appears to have been a fait accompli, with the transport section of City Development being given precedence over Natural Heritage. This gives an important and unfortunate message again in terms of the City of Edinburgh Council’s prioritisation of development over biodiversity and environmental sustainability. This conflict of interest – and bias that the Council has shown in its own favour as a developer – is why we strongly feel an independent and robust arbiter is required for environmental monitoring and mitigation.

1.9 The Promoter’s ongoing commitment to this process is set out in the LHMP. Approximately 80% of the habitat along the corridor of the former railway line will be retained and, the adjacent gardens and open space which also support its function will not be directly affected by the proposals.

We dispute this figure, not least because along several stretches of the Corridor, the LHMP shows that almost all the vegetation will be removed. There are no guarantees that vegetation will be retained (indeed, there are endless exemption clauses – “where possible”). When no engineering detail is apparently available, we fail to see how the LHMP can be seen to be anything other than wishful thinking. Also, tree surveys were the basis of the LHMP, not ground cover or scrub. The actual tree surveys make it clear that the surveyor does not have full engineering information, and cannot guarantee that trees will withstand either erosion or the impact of engineering works. In other words, until the engineering detail is available, the LHMP can only be seen as illustrative, not actual. The tree surveyor recommends the installation of protective fencing along the length of the Corridor; this will impact on ground cover and foraging grounds, as well as access for wildlife. We need to see a “whole picture” landscape design which includes all the badger mitigations, the tree protection proposals etc, to see if the proposals actually work. It seems to me that the mitigations may actual be in direct contradiction with one another – and with engineering works. The Corridor will be reduced in area by 25-50% due to the replacement of amenity space by trams. At some points on the route the remaining vegetation on either side will be minimal – ie the “green” aspect of the Corridor will have gaps, with consequent impact of wildlife ground cover, safety and foraging.

Effectively the existing Corridor will be divided in two lengthways, with much narrower “corridors” remaining on either side of the tramway. At the tram stop locations, these wildlife thoroughfares will be further interrupted. The badgers which currently forage along the Corridor will be restricted to one side or the other and will want to continually cross the tram alignment.

1.10 It is important to note that the Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan refers to active transport corridors, including disused and live railways, as being part of the current network of wildlife corridors in the local area. This concurs with my own experience of heavy and light rail transport corridors and personal experience of living adjacent to an operating railway line. There is, therefore, every reason to predict that, the Roseburn Corridor will continue to act as a wildlife corridor with ETL1 in operation.

This is incorrect. The Roseburn Corridor has not been used by heavy rail for nearly half a century. However, it has been, and continues to be, heavily used by humans and wildlife. The success of this joint usage is proved by the badger colonisation and the increased human usage which our surveys have demonstrated. Human amenity users and wildlife have formed patterns of usage which have not been evaluated by the Promoter. The paucity of wildlife surveys has resulted in no proper appraisal of the impact. These surveys should have been done to feed into the route selection process.

1.11 As the design of ETL1 progresses to the detailed stage, further refinements to the mitigation design will be developed, and detailed method statements drawn up which will cover the installation / implementation of these measures.

It will be too late then to re-route the tram if the impacts are found to be worse than anticipated.

ISSUE 2 IMPACTS TO BADGERS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BADGER MITIGATION PLAN

1.12 Badger populations along the Roseburn Corridor appear to be thriving, with the numbers of setts having increased over the last decade. Survey work undertaken for ETL1 has identified two social groups of badgers using setts along the Roseburn Corridor. A third social group occupies a main sett east of the Roseburn Corridor but their range extends into the Roseburn Corridor. Overlaps in the ranges of Social Groups 1 and 3 were recorded by the surveys, and were considered to be as a result of males seeking females. This concurs with the findings of previous studies, which have found extensive movements of sub-urban badgers between social groups. It is not unusual for urban badgers to occupy less well defined territories than their rural counterparts. The groups along the Roseburn Corridor continue to open new outlying setts with the recent surveys in March 2005 identifying five new outlying setts within the range of Social Group 1 and one within the range of Social Group 2.

The success of the badger population over the last forty years in the Roseburn Corridor is clear. There is a view that the new setts might have been a reaction to disturbance – badger responses to disturbance are unpredictable. The witness does not address the possibility that the badger groups might have hostile interactions with one another as a result of tram construction/operation; nor the possibility that badgers may flee the Corridor, onto neighbouring roads and into the territories of other badger groups (Ravelston Woods/Corstorphine Hill). Would the witness, if given the option, agree that an alternative alignment would be much more effective in protecting the badger populations?

1.13 Much of the identified movement occurs along the upper slopes of the cuttings or the base of embankments at the edge of the Roseburn Corridor. Similarly the majority of the new outlying setts have been created in these areas.

1.14 None of the main setts identified will be directly affected by the works. Up to three outlying setts may to be lost as a result of the proposals. The findings of

the reverse bait marking study have shown that the social group of badgers which use these outlying setts have a number of other setts available within their territory. The closure of these outlying setts is, therefore, not considered likely to have a detrimental effect on this social group. No setts will be lost from the territories of the other two social groups recorded.

As engineering detail of the Roseburn Corridor is not yet available (drawings are given the disclaimer of being “indicative” or “illustrative”), how can the witness be sure that ground works will not cause subsidence and disturbance to badgers? This is particularly true of the very large sett near Queensferry Rd and of the sett near Ravelston Dykes. The Promoter reserves the right to demolish and rebuild bridges/tunnels, which would cause extreme disturbance to badgers. I was not aware that sett closures were proposed. There is no guarantee that the witness’s aspirations will materialise.

1.15 The main impact of the ETL1 proposals on badgers during the construction works will be from disturbance to two of the social groups. The combination of abundant sett availability elsewhere within their ranges, the phasing of the construction works and erection of temporary fencing during construction will ensure that such disturbance is kept to a minimum. In addition an artificial sett will be created to provide a refuge for badgers whose main sett lies closest to the construction works. This sett will continue to be available in the long term in addition to their main sett which will be retained. A location for an artificial sett along the corridor has been identified and agreed with SNH and ELBG.

How will access to foraging grounds be maintained during construction? What will be the mitigation for potentially negative human/badger interaction caused by construction? Eg the badgers may start to build setts in residential gardens; householders may make more effort to block access to their gardens for foraging if the badgers become a nuisance. The Edinburgh and the Lothians Badger Group has expressed the opinion that the construction work will scare the badgers away from the Corridor, this leading to more crossing of roads etc and an increased likelihood of fatalities and the extinction of these badger clans.

1.16 The ETL1 proposals will have minimal effect on the foraging territory of the social groups along the corridor, much of which appears to lie outwith the confines of the corridor. This concurs with the findings of other studies of sub- urban badgers which have shown that gardens and open spaces with mown grass provide preferred foraging areas. The overall losses of habitat from within the territories of each of the two social groups of badgers are 0.4ha and 0.5ha respectively, or 25% and 28% of their foraging areas within the corridor. These losses will however, comprise only 0.8% and 1% respectively of the likely total foraging areas of each group, which evidence from elsewhere suggests that this would typically be about 50 hectares.

The negative consequences of lost or obstructed foraging grounds are likely to be significant (see my rebuttal above). No mitigation proposals have been brought forward for this. A laissez faire attitude, suggesting that badgers will merely roam more into gardens, belies the severe impact on badgers that this represents. If

badger breeding continues to be successful along the Corridor, more not less foraging is required. If the figures for lost foraging grounds are based on the LHMP, we dispute those figures. They will again be averages, which does not take into account the particular needs of badger groups in particular zones. The trams will form a barrier through the middle of the badger’s foraging area and will disrupt the route which links the different sections of the foraging areas together.

1.17 It is widely recognised that significant effects on badgers are only likely to occur when the loss from a group’s foraging habitat exceeds 25% [ASC3]. Clearly the loss of badger foraging habitat along the Roseburn Corridor from ETL1 will be very much lower than this and significant effects are therefore unlikely.

Citing figures from generalised circumstances does not take into account the special protected nature of the Roseburn Corridor. In some locations on the Corridor, vegetation will be almost entirely removed. The impact on the badgers of this loss of ground cover and the loss of ease of access in a safe environment along the Corridor has not been assessed.

1.18 Construction works in the vicinity of main setts will be programmed outside the breeding season (which is classed as 30th November to 1st July for licensing) to minimise the risk of disturbance, and works will be programmed progressively along the route to minimise exclusion from foraging areas at any one time.

1.19 The Badger Mitigation Plan (BMP) is intended to ultimately provide the same level of detail of mitigation measures that SNH would expect to receive with an application for a licence under the Protection of Badgers Act. It will:

• describe badger resources and activity within the Corridor; • detail measures to be taken during construction to protect badgers from disturbance which may include: o exclusion from setts likely to suffer significant disturbance, o provision of an alternative artificial sett at a suitable location, o restrictions on working times to protect badgers during their breeding season, o restrictions on working hours to minimise disturbance during hours when badgers are active, o advance provision of badger routes via tunnels and possibly bridges, o fencing and other measures to protect badgers from dangers associated with the construction works including escape routes in the event badgers become trapped within the works, o early planting to improve foraging resources in parts of the corridor not affected by the works, o speed restrictions on construction vehicles moving near setts, o design and supervision, and where necessary the undertaking of, these works by a professional with suitable qualifications for work with badgers;

• detail measures to be taken over the long term to protect badgers during operation of the tram which may include: o continued provision of the artificial sett; o provision of longitudinal and lateral crossing points using tunnels and possibly bridges where necessary to allow badgers continued access across and along the length of the corridor; o fencing to minimise the risk of badger casualties on the tramroad and to discourage badgers from increased use of public roads to access foraging; o planting to screen areas and improve foraging resources along the corridor; o design and supervision of these works by a professional with suitable qualifications for work with badgers; o a plan for maintenance of the measures; o monitoring of the badger communities along the Corridor after opening of the tram, and reporting of the results to SNH.

The Promoter’s track record on protecting the badgers/wildlife along the Corridor – as evidenced by the Promoter’s choice of the Roseburn Corridor for the tram alignment – does not bode well for the Promoter acting in the interests of the badgers in a monitoring role. We would ask that an independent monitoring body be appointed, to safeguard the interests of badgers. SNH’s developer guidelines are more rigorous than what is being offered by the Promoter. We would rebut the adequacy of construction mitigation proposals, and would argue that no heavy machinery should be used within 30m of badger setts and that hand- digging should be required instead. Would this witness confirm that this would be the most desirable mitigation? Also, how will tree protection fences, construction fences and badger fences co-exist?

1.20 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will apply, and the Promoter will be required to obtain licences before undertaking works in the vicinity of setts. This will provide a mechanism for enforcement of the BMP. SNH has confirmed that they are content with the approach to mitigating the effects on badgers along the Roseburn Corridor.

The witness does not address the issue of whether the badgers would be better off if the tram alignment were changed away from the Roseburn Corridor. The tone of the badger mitigation proposals is that the badgers will be fine. We challenge this. Scottish Natural Heritage developer guidelines do not allow for mechanical construction to occur within 30m of a sett. It is quite clear that this will occur all along the Corridor, creating serious disturbance for the badgers, and other wildlife, the consequences of which can only be guessed at. Would SNH have preferred an on-road alternative alignment?

List of Documents

ASC1 – City of Edinburgh Council (1992) Urban Nature Conservation Strategy. CEC

ASC2 – The Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership (2004) The Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (2004 – 2009). EBP.

ASC3 Appeal Decision APP/E6840/A/00/1052150 Proposed Residential Development at the Ruffets, Chepstow, Gwent.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

OBJECTOR REBUTTAL BY PETER ALLAN

Introduction 1.1 I am Aileen Grant, Principal Planner in Planning and Strategy within the City Development Department of Edinburgh City Council. I am a qualified planner, with a Diploma in Town & Regional Planning and am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have been in my current post since July 2002. Prior to this I was Principal in charge of the Central Edinburgh Development Quality Team (1998-2002) and Initiatives Manager for Edinburgh North (1996-1998). I have more than 30 years’ experience of working in planning, the majority of these gained within Edinburgh City.

1.2 I took on the role of co-ordinating a planning response to the emerging Tram proposals for Tram Lines 1 and 2 early in 2003. This role requires me to liaise closely with various colleagues in Planning and Strategy, identifying planning issues to be considered and addressed, putting relevant matters before the Planning Committee. I have extensive knowledge of development control issues gained from 12 years’ direct experience of processing planning applications and leading development control teams. I also have experience of leading multi-disciplinary teams, bringing engineering and landscape considerations together with planning and regeneration issues, as well as experience of drafting various local plans, and supplementary planning guidance. I attended the Tram Study Visits for representatives of the Planning Committee in October 2003 when we viewed Tram systems in Strasbourg, Montpellier and Lyon and discussed with officials in these cities the planning, design and transport issues relating to the introduction of a new tramline into a historic city centre. I also subsequently attended a trip to Nottingham after the Tram Line had opened there in May 2004 and have discussed planning and design issues experienced by that city with a key planning officer there on several occasions.

As AO has revealed, by 2003, when AG ‘took on the role’, the die was cast and the RC had already been selected.

1.3 The role of Planning Authority in considering Tram proposals was distinct from that of Council as promoter of the Project. The view of the Planning Committee as the local planning authority was considered to be of importance in establishing the Council’s position on a range of matters. A series of reports was placed before the Planning Committee. On 7th August 2003 a report presented the emerging tram proposals and gave the first opportunity for Planning Committee to respond to these providing a formal planning response to the consultation on these proposals. A second report to the October Planning Committee reported back on the outcome of the consultation exercise and tie’s responses, and a third report to Planning Committee on 27th November 2003 presented tie’s proposals for Lines 1 and 2 as were to be put forward to Scottish Parliament, seeking to address earlier points raised by Planning Committee and eliciting a final comment by Planning Committee to Council prior to formal submission of the proposals to the Scottish Parliament.

If 7 August 2003 was the first time the planning committee had ever considered the Tram, this further underlines the ‘retro-fitting’ of Tramline 1.

The Council has approached the matter of the tram as a development control issue, rather than one where routes are determined through the local plan process.

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The scope of my evidence covers the following aspects. • Input and decision-making of the Planning Committee on this issue

2.2 My role is to represent the interests of Council as Planning Authority. That role is in responding to proposals presented by tie and considering the planning implications. I have not been directly involved in negotiations with objectors; neither am I am dealing with the reasons behind tie’s choice of routing in particular locations.

“Responding” to the Tram proposals, when the Council is itself the Promoter, is Kafkaesque. The role that AG purports for herself should be as a forward planner, demonstrating how the planning process has led the way so that when the proposals do come before the planning committee they can be considered in the light of publicly endorsed proposals.

3. Planning Background

3.1 The statutory Development Plan for the Roseburn/Telford Area comprises the approved Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan 2015 (2004) the adoped North West Edinburgh Local plan (1992) (as supplementaed by the draft West Edinburgh Local Plan), and the adopted Central Edinburgh Local Plan (1996). The Structure Plan identifies the North Edinburgh Tram Loop as one of the “Key Transport Investment Proposals to be safeguarded pending decisions by stakeholders on Implementation” (Table 5.1). A footnote to this Table states that both the route and ancillary facilities require safeguarding. Paragraph 5.10 states that “The construction of a tram system is crucial to the success of the development strategy.” and Policy TRAN1 states that “local plans should safeguard land for the transport proposals identified in Table 5.1…”

The West Edinburgh Local Plan is of no relevance whatsoever. Not only did it never pass consultative draft stage (and has therefore never been open to public scrutiny), it sought to conform to another structure plan which did not propose a north Edinburgh tram loop.

3.2 The Roseburn Corridor is identified in the North West Edinburgh Local Plan as a transport safeguard. Policy T2 states “Disused railway land from Queensferry Road to Davidson’s Mains, Granton and Newhaven, defined ‘walkway/cycleways’ on the Proposals Map, will be safeguarded for possible future highways or light rail proposals. The Proposals Map shows the Roseburn Corridor as one of these routes. Paragraph 5.7 of the local plan provides some additional background regarding this policy. “The disused railway lines in this local plan area, north of the Queensferry Road, which have been acquired by Lothian Regional Council to hold in reserve for possible highway purposes are identified on the Proposals Map as ‘walkway/cycleway’, reflecting their current use…Their safeguarding gives the Regional Council the possibility of building new access road towards Granton and Leith should the growth of traffic flows, especially commercial traffic, require it. This is especially important in view of the efforts being made to attract industry to Granton and the private proposals to infill Wardie Bay for a variety of purposes. Proposals for the development of the Edinburgh Metro may affect the local plan area in the longer term, although it is unlikely that they will fall within the timescale of the present Local Plan. The District Council accepts that their safeguarding is prudent; meanwhile they can be used as walkways and cycleways.” This Local Plan also identified a number of areas of nature conservation interest to be protected from “potentially damaging development” (Policy E11) but the Roseburn Corridor was not one of these. However, the text in paragraph 6.21 talked about the disused railway lines forming “parts of a city-wide network of green corridors which link sites of particular interest and allow wildlife the freedom of movement within the urban area.” In other words, this Local Plan recognises the value of these corridors to nature conservation, but does not include a policy to protect them as such. Rather the policy is for the development of these corridors for transport purposes – either as a road or, in the longer term as public transport facilty.

The evidence in this paragraph is partial. It fails for example to refer to the structure plan with which the local plan was required to conform. Without such complete information, the evidence is slanted and incomplete, resulting in an incomplete assessment of policy.

3.3 The Draft West Edinburgh Local Plan was published in 2001. Although it will not be progressed beyond the current draft stage, it will be taken forward through preparation of a new Edinburgh City Local Plan and it still has a role as a material consideration in determining planning applications. It shows the Roseburn/Telford corridor as both north- south LRT safeguard (TRA4) and an urban wildlife corridor. Policy T6 “Public Transport Proposals” states “Land required for the implementation of the following public transport proposals will be reserved for these purposes and development likely to prejudice their implementation will not be allowed. The Council will seek contributions towards their implementation from developers likely to benefit from these proposals.” The supporting text in paragraph 8.22 makes reference to the provision of a high quality public transport link to access the Granton Waterfront areas “to enable this to achieve its full economic and employment potential.” Policy GE11 of the Plan relates to Nature Conservation – Urban Wildlife Sites. This states “Development within or affecting Urban Wildlife Sites or RIGS sites will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the development to enhance or safeguard the nature conservation value of the site.” Hence the question of the design and implementation of mitigation measures is particularly important.

As indicated above, this Consultative Draft plan (note, not a ‘draft’ plan as suggested) has no basis in planning and no status. No weight can be attached to it despite the admission that the Council continues to use it for development control purposes.

3.4 To the south, the corridor runs through Central Edinburgh Local Plan area, and Policy T4 from that plan makes it clear that the route will be “protected for the possible construction of a light rapid transit (LRT) system.” Paragraph 9.29 contains the relevant supporting text, describing a network of LRT routes, with the former railway line between Roseburn and Ferry Road linking two other routes. This Plan also shows the corridor covered with a nature conservation policy – Policy GE7 which states that these sites “will be protected from potentially damaging development”. Policy GE8 – Nature Conservation – Development Impact - is also relevant as it states that “Where development proposals are acceptable they should include features that will mitigate their effects upon wildlife and its habitat, including the creation of new habitats where appropriate.”

As discussed in the objectors’ Witness Statements, these extracts must be seen in context. The Central Edinburgh Local Plan is not of the same vintage is the North-West Edinburgh Local Plan. In any event, words such as ‘protected’ and ‘safeguarded’ clearly do not justify the selection of the route, particularly as that was not an action endorsed by the previous structure plans. Nor can local plans which sought to conform to these earlier structure plans be deemed now to be in conformity with the current structure plan. The fact is that this planning authority has manifestly failed to keep its local plans up-to-date. The new White Paper on the proposed planning bill “The Planning System” refers to this failure where the average age of local plans is 10 years when they should be reviewed every 5 years. This authority will fail to deliver its proposed new Edinburgh City Local Plan in the timetable set by the current Structure Plan, ie, Christmas of 2005.

This is not a satisfactory basis for route selection for Tramline 1. As the White Paper points out on page 26, “Those involved in plan preparation should, as far as possible, anticipate the new procedures and tools required to implement the reformed system, and prepare the ground for implementation.” The reformed system is one where the public have greater involvement and where there is a better opportunity for statutory involvement with reporter’s recommendations more likely to be binding on Councils. As the Capital City, as Promoter and as joint Developer, the onus is surely on the Council to rise above attempts to justify route selection by reference to old out of date plans (which the objectors in any event deny make that selection). Instead, the Council should promote and welcome an open and independent forum for public scrutiny of the route selection for the North Edinburgh Tram Loop.

3.5 These various safeguards were flagged up in Property Enquiry Certificates as a “Road Proposal” for all properties within 50 m of the corridor. An example of this is provided.

This rather makes the objectors’ case that the so-called safeguards within the out-of-date local plans does not justify or endorse the selection of the Roseburn Corridor in the Bill as the Council and its agents have done.

Safeguarding is not allocation. Only the local plan process can allocate and this has not been done.

4. Planning Committee consideration of this issue

4.1 This issue first came to the attention of the Planning Committee in August 2003. At that time Committee noted the following with regard to the Western General Hospital Option

“While benefits would still result from a segregated tram route along the route of the current cycleway, it is clear that a route connecting with the Western General Hospital would help to reduce car travel associated with a major traffic generator within the city. It is a key feature of both planning and transport policy that major facilities and developments are close to high density public transport services. However, the route detailed in the plans runs along the western (Telford Road) edge of the hospital site (i.e. not the main focus of activity), and also along Groathill Avenue, which although primarily residential in character, carries a high volume of traffic to the Craigleith Retail Park. Neither route serves the retail park. Planning objectives and policy would support serving one of these key traffic generators, and if connection with the hospital is not possible, despite the importance of achieving this, then consideration should be given to creating a connection with the retail park.”

4.2 This report also noted “The North West Edinburgh Local Plan identifies the former railway lines as routes defined as walkways/cycleways to be safeguarded for possible highways or light rail proposals (Policy T2). These include the route running parallel to and north of Ferry Road, and the route running from Queensferry Road north to Granton Harbour. This latter route has already been partially developed as a new road - in the stretch between Ferry Road and West Granton Road. This incorporates a land reservation for a tram route.

The factual accuracy of the report in relation to reservations is challenged in the objectors’ Witness Statements.

4.3 The Planning Committee reviewed the outcome of the consultation exercise in October and noted the following

“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.

4.4 “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.”

The statement that the railway corridor option is in line with the safeguarded route in the adopted local plan is challenged. In any event, the fact that tie proceeded on a route sifting and selection process demonstrates that the use of the Roseburn Corridor was not a fait accompli, that at best for the Promoter it was a safeguard and therefore it was yet to be determined whether it should be allocated or not.

4.5 Committee agreed with the recommendation to advise tie that further consultation should be undertaken in the Telford/Drylaw area to discuss with local people how the design of the tram route along the railway corridor could take account of local concerns. This position was reiterated in November when Committee noted the following.

• “Telford/Drylaw area local concerns - Response from the public within the zone of influence of the route options favoured the former railway solum along the Roseburn corridor. When taking into account all parties, the majority were in favour of Telford Road, particularly because of the proximity to the Western General Hospital and the responses of cycle groups, who are concerned that there may be an adverse effect on the cycleway if the former railway solum was used for the tram route. Notwithstanding, there was strong support for the former railway solum as a means of segregating trams from traffic and lessening congestion in the Telford Road area. tie has recommended to the Council that the former railway solum should be adopted as the preferred route option. The Planning Committee requested further consultation to discuss with local people how the design of the tram route along the railway corridor could take account of local concerns. This has taken place (11 November), and has resulted in a requirement for further information/analysis to be produced on both options, plus an additional option via Craigleith Road and Crewe Road South. The Council report on 13 November noted “It is the view of Council officials that the weight of evidence for and against both options is finely balanced. A report concerning this will be presented to Planning Committee on the 27 November after further analysis and consideration by tie and Council officials.” This report will form part of the input to the report to Council on 11 December. • Comment : No planning objection was raised in respect of the route running along the former railway line. This is safeguarded for such a purpose in the North West Edinburgh Local Plan. In the absence of a further report from tie, no additional comment can be made. This issue will be considered by Council and the Head of Planning will provide input to that process.”

We rebut this – firstly because safeguarding does not mean implementing and secondly because the statement “no planning objection was raised…” is misleading and inaccurate. Local people have never been offered the opportunity through the Local Plan Process to object to the “route running along the former railway line”. Tram Line One’s route selection has been brought forward entirely outwith the local plan process.

4.6 When Council considered the matter on 12th December 2003, the Head of Planning input was provided through an Appendix attached to the Council report. “Appendix C : Outstanding Planning Matters for Head of Planning Approval” includes the following text under “Other General Points”. “Planning and Strategy raised a number of other points in relation to the Plans and the Environmental Statements. These concern the Roseburn Corridor, Haymarket, West End to Princes Street. Tie has made a number of adjustments in the light of these comments, reducing the impacts of the proposed works and improving the proposed mitigation measures.” On this basis, these matters were considered to be sufficiently resolved for a sign-off at that stage in the process. The matter of detailed design is one to be considered more fully at the subsequent prior approval stage. Although it is tempting to try and wrap these details up at this stage, this would be inappropriate. The terms of the Environmental Statements and the Draft Design Manual should confirm the strategic design approach. The details will be developed in accordance with these provisions.

Whilst we have no wish to “wrap up these details”, we do not think that the relationship between land use and transport is a “detail”. The Tram Line One route choice should have been led by the development plan process, which embodies land use and transport considerations. The route selection has been governed by expediency and has bypassed normal democratic procedures in the move from “safeguard” to “allocation”. The methodology of the development plan process – structure plan “safeguards”, local plan “allocates” – is clear on this. The Promoter has mixed elephants and bananas – new Structure Plan with old local plan – to attempt to justify retrospectively in planning terms the preferred alignment choice.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1The Roseburn Corridor is shown in the Council’s statutory Development Plans as a route safeguarded for transport purposes. The policy guidance in the adopted North West Edinburgh Local Plan, and the adopted Central Edinburgh Local Plan indicates that the former railway corridor is safeguarded for future transportation purposes. On this basis the proposed route is in accordance with the development plan.

5.2 This status underlay the Planning Committee’s decision not to object to the proposal for Tram Line 1 to run along the corridor. The Planning Authority had to respond to tie’s proposals and given the policy safeguards, there was no planning objection to the principle of the tram along this corridor.

5.3 There are also issues relating to wildlife conservation, but only the adopted Central Edinburgh Local Plan contains a policy which seeks to protect nature conservation value in this corridor. The question of detailed design of the corridor remains to be addressed at Prior Approval stage. Implementation of the Tram proposals will include the implementation of mitigation measures such as replanting and minimisation of impact on wildlife, flora and fauna.

For the sake of completeness, the objectors rebut this, and the planning interpretation of this witness. We particularly rebut the statement that the proposal to use the Roseburn Corridor ‘accords with the development plan.’ It does not, for the reasons given above. The Promoter, as planning authority, has jumped the gun, has singularly failed to bring in up-to-date new local plans which are the only statutory means by which the use of the Roseburn Corridor for tram line one can be allocated. The Promoter is attempting to retro-fit the alignment choice to the planning process. This is unacceptable and is evidence that the Promoter, when acting as developer, cannot act with due impartiality in the public interest as a local authority should.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Barry Cross Witness Statement By Tina Woolnough

1. In view of many of the planning comments that follow in this witness’s statement, we seek clarification of the Mr Cross’s planning training and experience. We also seek clarification as to whether Mr Cross is speaking on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council, because of his former employment, or on behalf of tie. As members of the public, we have found the roles in tie and the Council to be confusingly unclear. Over time, we have established that tie is charged with delivering transport projects, regardless of whether they are in the public interest, or represent good value for money for the public pound and regardless of factors such as serving staff, patients and visitors to the Western General Hospital. This is evidenced by procedures relating to route selection, where the Council consistently asked tie to review serving the Western General Hospital, and tie consistently found that an alignment to the front entrance of the Western was undesirable for patronage, journey time and cost reasons.

2.1 This is not true. There is a mixture of local plans and relevant structure plans of different ages, none of which safeguard the RC for a tram. Local plans are the proper statutory mechanism for testing specific proposals which allow local people a familiar democratic involvement at a local level.

2.2 Whatever this witness’s recollection might be, this statement is generalised compared with the then approved structure plans and their proposals for the Metro. No such proposal was tested for implementation through the local plan process, and the public therefore had no opportunity for democratic involvement in any theoretical Council discussions. The “development” of a theoretical proposal by a local or regional authority cannot in any way be seen as a de facto statutory approval for projects – otherwise every scheme discussed at local authority level would acquire a status or disproportionate significance.

2.3 We do not see the relevance of this witness’s history of speculative projects. They represent untested theoretical ideas with no bearing on reality.

3.1 We rebut this – the development was in the wrong place in terms of NPPG17. To retro-justify the tram alignment because of poor Council transport and planning procedures is unacceptable. Sustainability is about joined-up thinking, not about giving inappropriate planning permissions where there is no transport infrastructure. Prior to the ELSP, the property development referred to in the former structure plan were modest. Given the statement made that the total demand for movement cannot be accommodated within the present transport infrastructure, would the witness now supply information on the total for the Waterfront (now proposed as 28,000 units plus offices, shops, etc.) and the proportion estimated to be taken up by the tram and explain how the balance is to be provided for? The Promoter has explained at public meetings that two car parking spaces have been required for all housing development, with one space for affordable housing. In view of the fact that development at Granton is proceding, although not selling very well, house-holders will already have established travel habits, including car use. Does the witness have evidence that the loop alignment, with all its proposed stops, represents journey destinations for as-yet unknown residents in the Waterfront?

3.2 We rebut this. The Council should not have permitted, under NPPG17, land use that resulted in traffic impacts without solutions already in place through the planning system. The current Structure Plan identifies the need for light rail, or equivalent, but does not identify an alignment. The alignment should be tested and identified through the local plan process, as existing local plans which cover the Roseburn Corridor refer to the previous Structure Plan which did not include either extensive development at the Waterfront or the light rail proposal. The local authority has jumped the gun with planning permissions at the Waterfront, before completing the development plan process. The actual alignment choice of Tram Line One should not be pivotal on developments at the Waterfront, but should take into account other public needs. This Private Bill process is the public’s only opportunity to have its say and to identify needs such as protecting the walking/cycling and wildlife amenity of the Roseburn Corridor and serving the Western General Hospital. Had these needs and views been tested in a local plan inquiry, the process of this Private Bill could have been considerably curtailed.

3.3 We would request clarification as to how the list of participants for the Waterfront consortium was agreed. There are no community representatives and no representatives of the Social Inclusion Partnership area. The inclusion of Mary Erskine’s and St George’s private schools at this stage suggests the route was already pre- determined.

3.6 It would be helpful to know which specialist sub-consultants were included at this time, in order to ascertain how the early route sifting was approached (ie Was an engineer-based approach dominant? Were public transport operators such as Lothian Buses involved to give a public transport need perspective? Were environmental consultants involved and what was the degree and status of their involvement?)

3.6 We suggest that this was already the preferred option, on the basis of the consortium members which all had vested interests and none of whom represented the interests of the environment and the Roseburn Corridor.

3.7 Our view is that STAG was not applied, or was applied selectively and not specifically. When we recently contacted the Scottish Executive about the early route sifting, we were advised that the methodology of this was a matter for the local authority and that the Scottish Executive was unlikely to have input into route sifting criteria.

3.9 We seek clarification on this. We understand tie’s remit is to develop transport projects – without qualification. There is no requirement upon tie to act in the public interest or to do more than act on the client’s (CEC) instructions.

3.10 We rebut this. The STAG guidance was not used uniformly; STAG criteria were not all used (no integration or social inclusion, for example); criteria were weighted to result in the preferred route being confirmed.

3.12 We rebut this. The Council was mindful of the Western General, but tie was not, until instructed by the Council to investigate again, but the outcome remained the same, despite incorrect information regarding the Crewe Rd Sth/Craigleith Rd option. 4. 2 point 1 We rebut this as subjective and irrelevant. Bus routes serve people’s needs, which requires them to penetrate into residential areas. There is no evidence that the North Edinburgh bus network is full of “twists and turns”. Buses to the Western General from the social inclusion area of North Edinburgh are due to be axed as a result of tram line one. The Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor is not a “railway corridor option” or a “disused railway alignment” – it is a much-used urban green linear park and a highly valued traffic-free cycle path. The Corridor route is not “direct” at all to the city centre as it has to double-back into Haymarket – where does Mr Cross think it is “direct” to?

4.2 point 2 This is incorrect. The preferred route has curves to turn back to the city centre. A more direct alignment to the city centre would save time and meet the needs of the public more effectively.

4.2 point 3 Mr Cross keeps referring to the Corridor’s “former use” as a railway. Trains have not run along the Corridor for nearly 50 years. It now has a very successful set of current uses to which Mr Cross does not refer. A usage 50 years ago can hardly be deemed as justification for a tram proposal – this would set a very unfortunate precedent for all manner of things.

4.2 point 4 We rebut this. Mr Cross contradicts himself, saying on the one hand that the tram “would not be subject to congestion” and on the other hand recognising the pedestrians and cyclists will be present. Surely they represent a form of congestion, which is in fact far more restrictive to tram speed than, for example, an on-road segregated alignment with signalling priority?

4.2 point 5 Mr Cross is again contradicting himself. Pedestrians and cyclists, dog-walkers, children, badgers etc could cause considerable delays. Is Mr Cross assuming that HMRI will require tram segregation, in order for the tram to achieve high speeds, contrary to what local people wish and contrary to what the Promoter’s other witnesses say?

4.2 point 6 We rebut this. Trams will impact on pedestrian and cycling amenity, which will discourage the current interaction between communities which occurs on the Corridor. His statement also depends on whether the tram is segregated from the walkway with high fencing etc to prevent access onto the tracks. “Almost no increase” sounds like an increase to me.

4.4 This is incorrect and we totally rebut this. Where is Mr Cross’s evidence that the Corridor has been safeguarded for light rail? For example, the Central Edinburgh Local Plan safeguards the corridor for its present use, not for public transport. It underlines its strategic role as a wildlife and recreation resource, not simply an object there for an engineer’s convenience.

4.5 This is incorrect. Where is Mr Cross’s evidence to support this subjective view? The Corridor is well-used at night by commuting cyclists and by dog-walkers. Where is Mr Cross’s evidence of “perceived risk”?

4.6 We rebut this. There is no evidence for this. Indeed, projects such as the West Edinburgh Guided Busway can be a magnet for anti- social and dangerous/inappropriate behaviour (eg graffiti, skate- boarding). The footpath/cycleway would be properly lit if the Promoter, the City of Edinburgh Council, maintained the lighting properly.

There is no evidence to support this subjective view that trams would deter anti-social behaviour.

4.6 It could serve Haymarket if an alternative alignment were used at the West End (eg along Drumsheugh Gardens and Palmerston Place). Also, the Roseburn Corridor alignment serves Roseburn, not Haymarket – it is an indirect and unnecessarily long route to Haymarket. We are still seeking clarification from the Promoter regarding the legal operating position of a Tram Line One/Tram Line Two interchange. Will the interchange be at Haymarket (and therefore involve a doubling- back/longer journey time for passengers going, for example, from Granton to the Gyle)? Will it be at Roseburn? In which case, many Tram Line One passengers will not be using Haymarket as an interchange. How many passengers are predicted to use Haymarket as an interchange?

We strongly rebut the patronage population figures. Modelling did not appear to include possible patronage for/from the Western General and did not include the new residential development at the former Telford College site. Land use and transport appraisals (NPPG17) should have taken into account major traffic generators (such as the Western General Hospital, Fettes Police Station, Broughton High School, Fettes College, Westwoods Leisure Centre, Ainslie Park Leisure Centre, Crewe Toll businesses, Morrisons supermarket). These were not taken into account in route selection.

5.1 Western General internal routes - This is incorrect. There are comprehensive routes within the hospital buildings and pedestrian routes are laid out through the grounds at the front of the hospital (particularly to and from the different buildings to the carparks, which are at the Crewe Rd South exits to the hospital). The teaching and research buildings located on the Western General campus are also accessed from Crewe Rd South.

5.2 We dispute these walking distance/time figures, as no time allowance has been made for crossing Telford Rd which is an extremely busy, four-lane carriageway. There is also an in-built assumption that hospital attendees would be able to walk these distances.

5.3 We dispute this summary, which fails to include trips made by the Public by all transport modes, and which fails to assess the difficulty that the public has in accessing the hospital, and which fails to assess the use of the car in accessing the hospital and the impact of traffic congestion and parking chaos caused by the hospital.

6.1 We dispute the selectivity of Mr Cross’s analyses. We favour a more direct alignment, serving the front access of the Western on Crewe Rd Sth, travelling up Orchard Brae, on Queensferry Rd, along Drumsheugh Gdns and Palmerston Place. The more direct route to Haymarket (avoiding the protected Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor), would, we believe, create a faster journey time, which would allow for the longer journey time required to serve the Western General leg of the route. Why did the Promoter not go back and review other options for serving the Western’s front entrance, when this was clearly a priority for the public, as identified through the consultation process?

6.2 Patronage figures should not have been calculated solely using residential figures. If patronage derived from the key traffic generators in the area (listed above) had been included, clearly patronage on this alignment would have far exceeded all the other options. 6.3 We rebut this, as described above. A shorter journey distance (see above) will compensate for lost journey time.

6.4 We rebut this, as above.

6.5 We rebut this (see above), as the environmental importance of the Roseburn Corridor, its use as a pedestrian/cycleway etc were not inputted to the early route sifting. The Promoter continues to ignore the importance – and high, frequent, and dense usage – of the cycle- walkway and its amenity value to humans.

6.7 We dispute this. As no detailed engineering plans of the Roseburn Corridor have yet been made available, the costs of altering – or rebuilding, if required – the nine bridges and tunnels on the Roseburn Corridor cannot be fully assessed. We are aware that some utilities – in particular, Scottish Water - have not been prepared to give cost estimates of moving utilities and we have therefore no evidence of the cost of this. We also note that an on-road alignment is preferred at Starbank, as opposed to a disused railway corridor, and we question the apparent opportunistic changes of argument.

6.8 This is presumably based on assumptions about slower journey times etc. We would suggest that a more direct route to Haymarket and the city centre would mitigate for this.

6.10 What is a “significant minority”? What is wrong with taking on board the views of the majority? 75% of all respondees mentioned serving the Western General – some of those took the view that the Railway Corridor Option would be more likely to lead to a feeder bus service being provided. However, the public was not, and has never, been given the option of Crewe Rd South. Nor have either of the Craigleith options been examined in the context of a local plan review, in which all members of the public have a fair and equal right to participate. The consultation was a mockery, and the majority view was ignored.

6.11 Where is Mr Cross’s evidence that the Drylaw community is supportive of the current alignment? The Chair and Secretary of Telford & Drylaw Community Council have occasionally expressed support for the alignment, but the minutes of the Community Council meetings at which the tram was discussed show attendance of only five people, and the minutes do not record that a view was taken on the alignment options.

7 This does not serve key parts of the North Edinburgh Social Inclusion Partnership area which face bus cuts and longer distances to tram stops.

8 We dispute the selection of the Railway Corridor because of the flawed route selection procedure, the lack of research into walking/cycling on the Corridor, the inappropriate methods of consulting the public (not through the local plan process).

8.5 Where is the evidence to support this? Where is the evidence to indicate what the destinations are for passengers from Granton? Is it not possible that Granton passengers might wish to go to the Western?

8.8 The Promoter is planning to axe bus services from Granton/Pilton to the Western, so comparing tram stop with bus stops is irrelevant.

8.9 This is the first time this has been mooted. Who will lay on this service? Who will pay for it? What happens if a bus company sets up in competition to transport people from Granton to the city centre via the Western? Wouldn’t this be a much quicker journey into the city centre than the tram?

8.10 How will passenger journeys be improved by getting off one bus and onto another feeder bus into the hospital? If Mr Cross recognises a long-standing difficulty, couldn’t he in his former role at the Council have worked with Lothian Buses, which the Council owns, to resolve? Couldn’t a feeder bus have been organised without the tram, if it is possible after the introduction of the tram?

8.11 This tram stop is less visible and is in the heart of a housing estate, some considerable – and confusing - distance from the hospital. Telford Rd is a very busy and wide road, which is not easy to cross because of the volume and speed of traffic. It is used by heavy goods vehicles and is a main artery out of and into Edinburgh.

9.0 We rebut the contents of this witness’s summary, for the reasons given above. We also accept and support the rebuttal of Alison Bourne, with regard to serving the Crewe Rd Sth access of the Western General, the poor consultation process and the inadequacy of route assessments.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Prof Brian M Evans’s statement by Tina Woolnough

1. Resume

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses

(i) Effect on the World Heritage Site

(ii) Visual Impact of OLE

3. Setting the Context – production of the Design Manual

3.1 The proposals for the tram system have been subjected to very careful scrutiny through the STAG and EIA processes with every effort made to minimise potential intrusion of the tram system.

This is factually incorrect. STAG was not applied until after the early route sifting process which weighted route selection against environmental concerns, by giving a higher weighting to technical difficulties. Early route sifting did not involve effort to “minimise potential intrusion” because this was not a factor in route selection.

3.2 Edinburgh is a very special place in respect of its architectural and cultural heritage – World Heritage Site, conservation areas, listed buildings etc.

3.3 In order to ensure that effects are minimised and indeed that the system makes a positive contribution to these special qualities, it is necessary to design the system before it is engineered, constructed and then operated.

We agree but believe this impact should have been properly assessed as part of the route selection process. Factors such as the Roseburn Corridor and the appalling intrusion of the tram onto this wildlife site should have been brought in early on. It is not just visual impact on the World Heritage Site which is of concern. The lack of recognition of the heritage value of the Victorian railway bridges and tunnels indicates that the “potential intrusion” of the tram on the Corridor was not assessed.

3.4 Hence tie had the foresight to commission the production of a Design Manual which • First- sets out the issues of design, townscape and environment which must be addressed through sensitive design; • Second - identifies design principles which can address these issues and which the planning authority can use to evaluate the emerging design; • Third - sets out guidelines which can be used to apply the design principles in the development of the system and which can be used in partnership with third parties to ensure wider integration (e.g. in wider public realm/development projects beyond the scope of the tram system); and • Fourth - sets out requirements which mandate the contractor & operator to detailed requirements for the design of the system and of the immediate area for which it is responsible.

As above, impacts on built heritage and on Edinburgh’s cityscapes should have been assessed prior to the detailed design stage. The status of the Design Manual is unclear – is the Promoter also the enforcing body? Is the Manual enforceable? Where is the recognition that the introduction of streetscape clutter – the trams and the tramway – will have a severe visual impact on the Roseburn Wildlife Corridor? How can design mitigate for this?

3.5 The Draft Design Manual, 11 March 2004, has been refined and updated by the planning authority. I have not been involved in this process.

4. Effects on the World Heritage Site

4.1 Setting the Context – Edinburgh’s world-renowned status (With reference to Draft Design Manual, P5, PART ONE: Strategic Aspirations)

Edinburgh is a prosperous European capital city which enjoys an international reputation as one of the continent’s most attractive cities. The Draft Design Manual acknowledges that the townscape of central Edinburgh has long been recognised as a work of art in its own right and one of the UK’s principal heritage assets. It is a UNESCO designated World Heritage Site, renowned for its unique architectural heritage.

The Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design published in August 2003 by The City of Edinburgh Council City Development Department: Planning and Strategy describes the Georgian New Town as constituting “the most extensive example of a Romantic Classical city in the world. The juxtaposition of the Old and New Towns across a landscaped divide creates a capital city of world renown.”

The Standards clearly set out the Council’s aspirations for a creative and innovative approach to new development which draws on and interprets the city’s past.

They succinctly describes Edinburgh’s character as stemming ”from the relationship between its natural and built form, the configuration of buildings and city structure, the composition of historic buildings and tenement setting and the contrast between planned and organic, enclosure and openness”

The value of the city’s heritage is reflected in the fact that one third of the city has conservation area status.

4.2 A very specific set of Challenges (With reference to Draft Design Manual, P29, PART TWO: Design Parameters, Urban Fit)

Edinburgh’s World Heritage status presents a very specific set of challenges.

Achieving an appropriate design solution that respects the integrity of Edinburgh’s townscape is of critical importance. The proposed tram must take cognisance of the built heritage, in particular the setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments and their contribution to the overall townscape or landscape. This includes the visual impact of the proposed tram route upon views both of (or towards) and from listed buildings and designed landscapes and gardens. It is paramount, therefore, that the distinctive character of the city is respected.

Only the southern sections of the Roseburn Corridor i.e. broadly from its junction with Queensferry Road to Haymarket Terrace are within the World Heritage Site. In this location the proposed tram will run entirely on segregated alignment on the former railway solum.

We seek clarification on the World Heritage Site boundaries. Our understanding is that the section of the Roseburn Corridor described above are not in the World Heritage Site. We also challenge the suggestion that to use the Roseburn Corridor ensures that there will not be a visual impact – this is not the case. There will be – on an urban linear park, and on the vistas and views from sections of the Corridor, particularly on bridges (eg the Coltbridge Viaduct). These vistas were recognised in draft Conservation character appraisals of the Coltbridge area which were made by the Promoter.

4.3 Achieving an appropriate Fit

One of the key impacts of the proposed tram system will be visual. This is of particular relevance in the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area which do not have the physical capacity to incorporate dramatic change. In this particular location, the context of a residential area and former railway corridor present a differing set of criteria for consideration than those associated with the urban areas within the World Heritage Site. Greater natural screening is afforded by the more vegetated character of these areas.

We rebut this. The witness is assuming only one sort of visual impact and is neglecting to understand the savage visual impact of the tram on an

urban wildlife site and much-used human green corridor – and on views and vistas from the Roseburn Wildlife Corridor across the city.

Alignment (With reference to Draft Design Manual, P27, PART TWO: Design Parameters, Alignment)

Visual intrusion will be minimised by ensuring that the alignment of the tram route follows existing urban form and complements the use of the public realm.

An appropriate suburban fit will be achieved by addressing the existing volume of space in a holistic way, respecting the overall form and coherence of the places affected.

The detailed alignment of the tram line has to be a balance between many different and sometimes conflicting pressures and constraints: engineering, environmental, aesthetic, financial and operational. The final alignment will require to provide an equitable balance between these matters. A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan has been prepared on behalf of the promoter by ERM.

4.4 Reducing the visual impact of OLE

Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) (With reference to Draft Design Manual, P105, PART TWO: Design Parameters, OLE)

The aspiration set out in the Design Manual is to mitigate potential visual intrusion by reducing clutter in the public realm. This is achieved by ensuing that the number of OLE poles is kept to the minimum necessary. The same principle applies to the Roseburn Corridor.

No mention is made of the fact that using the Roseburn Corridor alignment introduces visual street clutter into a tranquil, green urban wilderness area which is relatively free of such clutter.

The key to minimising visual intrusion from OLE is to turn careful design which ensures it is positioned well to relate to key views, landmarks and historic buildings. Within the Roseburn Corridor advantage will be taken of the natural screening effect afforded by the surrounding vegetation in adjacent gardens. Integration of OLE with the landscape can be achieved more effectively in an area where it is viewed against a back cloth or through a foreground of natural planting rather than being seen against the skyline.

This again describes only the perspective of looking at the Corridor. We are concerned for users of the Corridor, and wish the views from the Corridor to be protected.

The localised positioning, final height and spacing of the OLE poles will be considered in relation to their specific context at the detailed design stage.

The promoter undertakes to consult with the objector prior as part of the detailed design and construction processes.

In this particular context the visual benefit of using shorter support columns needs to be balanced against the requirement for reduced spacing.

4.5 Maximising the benefit of screening from existing vegetation

The design ethos in the Roseburn Corridor is to retain the existing vegetation where feasible, using new planting to enhance that retained therefore maintaining the visual perception of a green corridor strongly associated with this location.

In the short term, the 5-10 years immediately following construction, the visual impact of the tram will have a negative effect until the new planting in the corridor begins to reach maturity. The ensure both immediate impact and long term establish the detailed design specification will allow for the planting of a range of species in a variety of sizes. Smaller whip and feathered stock will provide the long term framework whilst heavy standard and specimens will provide immediate impact and scale in the short term.

We wish to see mature specimens introduced immediately, so that the 5- 10 year time lag does not occur.

Natural vegetation will provide a filtered screening of the tram infrastructure whilst additional screening elements such as acoustic barriers and fencing, appropriate to their context, will also be considered where appropriate.

This again fails to recognise entirely the impact on the Corridor itself. Most of the Corridor is not visible to anyone other than residents close to it and to users of it. The entire character of the Corridor will be despoiled by current users. Does this witness accept that? The Roseburn Corridor is not merely a decorative green ribbon – it has over 1000 people movements a day along it. What is the visual and design mitigation for these users? Does this witness accept that the tram’s visual impact will be severe, detrimental and permanent for users of the Roseburn Wildlife Corridor and that this will discourage walking and cycling and amenity user of the Corridor?

5. Conclusion

5.1 The Draft Design Manual sets out the way in which good design can help make a positive contribution to Edinburgh’s public realm mitigating the visual intrusion of the proposed tram system on the World Heritage Site, Conservation Area and Listed Buildings at both the strategic and detailed level.

We rebut this. Good design can do nothing to relieve the visual impact of the tram on the Roseburn Corridor and its users.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B) LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Dick Dapre’s Statement by Tina Woolnough

3.0 We rebut this. The Roseburn Corridor is currently a multi-modal Corridor which is used by pedestrians and cyclists. Because cyclists are not permitted to cycle on walkways (Edinburgh byelaws), we take this to mean that the current status of the Roseburn Corridor is multi-modal, with pedestrians and cyclists able to roam across a shared space. This is supported by the Central Edinburgh Local Plan. Therefore, we argue that the tram should not be able to exceed the speeds at which existing traffic (cyclists) operate. As the Roseburn Corridor passes through several Safer Routes to School 20mph zones, we have taken this as our preferred operational speed.

4.1 The Promoter’s agents have given us a variety of speeds over the last few years. Our understanding is that tram vehicles are capable of 80km/h (approx 50mph) but that the Promoter does not expect the tram to travel at these speeds, although it could. We have been promised speed profiles for the Roseburn Corridor, so that we can see where the fastest speeds will be achieved (and where the most noise, wind- rush, danger etc might therefore be located). We are awaiting these.

4.3 The speed of 60mph was given at a public meeting in Craigleith two years ago by tie’s Alex Macaulay.

4.6 This may be the case, but roads do not have over 1000 people movements a day travelling across the same shared space.

5.2 point 1 We do not wish to have barriers; rather our preferred multi-modal option is for a speed limit of 20mph. We have repeatedly tried to engage with the Promoter to discuss this option, but we have been turned down.

5.2 point 2 The key difference is the excessive proposed speeds in residential areas, along a protected Urban Wildlife Site which is highly valued and used for its amenity. If trams are passing every 3.75 minutes, how will the Promoter be able to avoid delays caused by pedestrians,

cyclists, dogs etc without substantial segregation? On the basis that there are over 1000 people movements a day, and that these will be enclosed into a restricted 3m width if there is segregation, does the witness not think that this will cause visibility obstructions and crossing safety issues, on a par with densely populated city centre streets?

5.2 point 3 This sounds as if the witness is making an assumption that there will be segregation, which is contrary to what the Promoter has told us and is not confirmed by other witnesses.

5.2 point 4 Does the witness refer to segregated or shared space with the tram?

5.3 What may be “common” elsewhere is not the case in the Roseburn Corridor, which is an enclosed space along the bulk of its length and which has an extremely high density of cyclist/pedestrian usage. Bridges/tunnels compound the “enclosure”. We do not believe the space will be safe with the speeds suggested by the Promoter. We wish the open, multi-modal aspect of the Corridor to be maintained and believe a speed restriction would achieve this.

6.1 and 6.2 Our understanding is that the Midland Metro example is not an enclosed space, that there is “shoulder room” in which pedestrians and cyclists can avoid one another, that it is not limited to 3m and that it is not densely used (as per the Roseburn Corridor).

It is not comparable. And what is a “significant incident”?

Our understanding is that this second example is not directly comparable either – speed of trams is less, density of usage is less and there is not a confined space.

7.1 Our understanding is that the route has not yet been “designed” as the drawings etc are indicative/illustrative, no detailed designs have been submitted yet to HMRI (eg at tunnels/bridges) for comment. We wished to ascertain whether it was the Promoter’s view that a physical barrier would be a requirement of HMRI, but the Promoter has been coy about sharing that professional opinion. A “50:50” chance of it being required was the only answer we have been able to elicit. We do not want barriers – we want a speed restriction, as we see this as the safest way to retain the multi-modal character and purpose of the Corridor.

7.2 We do not accept this, because of the particular aspects of the Roseburn Corridor (confined space, high human amenity usage etc).

7.3 The Promoter has confirmed that there is nowhere which has all the characteristics of the Roseburn Corridor. Our view is therefore no precedent that is the same – or useful as a comparison – for the purposes of safety assessments. We

also wonder where the risk assessments of the Corridor are, which would support this witness’s assertions.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Archie Rintoul on the subject of compensation.

This statement appears to be incomplete? - there is no analysis or explanation.

What does 2.1.2 mean in practice? ("In cases where no land is required, compensation is payable for reduction in value caused by the physical factors associated with the scheme, in terms of Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended.")

Residents are concerned that the value of properties immediately adjacent to the tram alignment will fall in value relative to the value of similar properties which are not adjacent to the tram line (eg in the next street).

Such a relative fall in value will mean that affected residents will suffer financially when (for whatever reason) they move to another property.

We would like to see this situation recognised and specifically provided for by the ETL1 bill.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Brian Evans on the subject of visual impact.

3.4 - reference to the design manual. The majority of the content of the design manual is concerned with track and stops in street locations. There is virtually no information about the design for the Roseburn Corridor.

4.1 is about the old and new towns and is irrelevant to the Roseburn Corridor.

4.3 Natural screening is mentioned. However much of this will be lost.

What does "…the tram route follows existing urban form and complements the use of the public realm" mean? What specifically will be done to minimise visual impact?

What does "An appropriate suburban fit will be achieved by addressing the existing volume of space in a holistic way, respecting the overall form and coherence of the places affected." Mean? What specifically will be done to minimise visual impact.

The witness notes that there will need to be a balance between engineering, environment, aesthetic, financial and operational pressures. We would like to know how these will be balanced and what weightings will be used. Ie financial pressure cannot be used at a later stage to cut back on environmental and aesthetic mitigation. If the levels required are not affordable, this needs to be recognised now and a decision made about the overall viability of the scheme. - The current promises need to be delivered.

4.4 We welcome the understanding of concerns and the commitment to consultation with objectors as part of detailed design. This consultation needs to allow for the dialogue to impact on the final design. We would also like the tram scheme to require such consultation - so that it cannot be withdrawn or discounted if operational issues conflict.

4.5 We are concerned that there will a 5-10 year delay in before new planting reaches maturity. The tram scheme was announced in 2003. If construction is completed in 2008 it will take until 2018 before vegetation has recovered to its existing state. My pre-school children will have left home before this is achieved. Elsewhere we have expressed concerns over loss of privacy and security. We need a commitment to the use of mature planting in order to restore the screening effect of vegetation in a much shorter timescale.

Overall the Design Manual appears to have little to say about the Roseburn Corridor. The Landscape and Habitat Management plan is more relevant but is still incomplete. Moreover the LHMP draft issued on 31 May omitted a number of trees, hedges and vegetation (just in the 200 yard section to the South East of Craigleith Drive) which have been drawn to the attention of the promoter. These errors reduce our confidence that the LHMP will be robust or delivered. GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Gary Turner on the subject of drainage.

3.1 - Agree the existing drainage system has failed. The problem is that the existing drainage system successfully collects water from the cutting below Ravelston Dykes, but then discharges some of this water from the side of the embankment behind Blinkbonny Road.

3.1 - Andrew Coates' statement wildlife and habitat does not mention the impact of vegetation on drainage.

3.2 - Agree that drainage from the tram track area is important. However the problem is larger in that water draining into the cutting area (below Ravelston Dykes) is collected into a drainage system which then leaks water out of the side of the embankment (above Blinkbonny Road). This problem should be explicitly recognised as requiring action from the planned drainage system.

3.2 - A full survey of the existing drainage system will need to be undertaken in order to ensure that it can be replaced. GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Gary Turner on the subject of lack of security.

The main thrust of this statement is that the tram will not increase antisocial behaviour and that the tram stops will not attract troublemakers. (3.1 to 3.5).

However the objections from group 34 relate to the loss of privacy and security arising from the removal of vegetation.

We expect that the presence of the tram will have a neutral effect on the level of anti-social behaviour (eg stone and egg throwing). However the reduction in vegetation will increase the impact (literally in the case of missiles!) that this behaviour has on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. (Currently it is only at 14 and 16 Blinkbonny Road where this is a problem. At this point there is currently no vegetation, following the removal of a 60ft high leylandii hedge).

Similarly we expect that the impact of the tram on the presence of burglars will be neutral, but that with the removal of vegetation it will be easier to enter gardens and then to make illegal entry at a point that cannot be seen from the street. (again as demonstrated by illegal entry to rear of 16 Blinkbonny Road (in June 2005), following entry from the Roseburn Corridor, facilitated by the lack of vegetation at that point).

We would like to see the security value of the vegetation recognised. The re- instatement plan for vegetation should ensure that security and privacy are re- instated quickly (ie without waiting 10 years for small plants to grow). This should include selection of species (eg hawthorn, wild rose) and size of replacement planting.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Gary Turner on the subject of loss of land.

It is helpful to confirm that the limits of deviation are just that, since various diagrams - have shown work outside the LOD.

The ownership of the strip of land may be unclear. However there are gardens into which this strip of land has been incorporated in the past. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this are (the land ownership is, after all, unknown!) it is the case that the tram development will entail disruption to gardens.

We would like to see the situation (land incorporated into gardens) recognised by the promoter. How will the construction contractor deal with this? Fences (and at least one shed) will need to be moved. Liaison with householders will be required. Has this been recognised? GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Ian Kendall on the subject of damage to property - construction.

The concerns of residents are that (in the Blinkbonny Road / Avenue / Craigleith Drive area) the construction work will take place above properties, particularly those on Craigleith Drive.

The terms set out in the COCP appear reasonable.

How will the COCP be enforced? Will householders have to pursue contractors for compensation? Will householders be supported by the promoter?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Les Buckman on the subject of Stop Locations.

3.1 The issues considered for stop locations do not include local traffic impacts (eg informal park and ride, leading to increased local congestion), or wildlife (ie proximity to badger setts, leading to permanent disturbance of these setts).

5.1 - limited access dictates stop locations. The Ravelston Dykes stop will still be difficult to access because of the deep cutting. We consider that the difficulties of access vindicate our argument that the Roseburn Corridor is not an appropriate alignment for the tram as it is not easily accessible to commuters and does not attract high levels of patronage in the area.

6.1 - Notes the patronage for the Roseburn stop as being half the average for the route. What are the patronage levels for the other stops in the Roseburn Corridor?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by John Adams, to statement by Les Buckman on the subject of Stop Locations

Concerns raised in our witness statement (group 34, statement 9) are not addressed:-

• Consultation with residents on stop locations • Impact on badger setts of stop locations • Change of location at Maidencraig, without further consultation with residents GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Les Buckman on the subject of Traffic Impacts.

4.2 - the ES records worse traffic levels on many streets as a result of the tram, including Queensferry Road. GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Rahul Bdlani on the subject of Human Rights.

3.2 - reference to public interest. We note that the principal driver for the construction of the tram line and for this alignment is the property development at Granton, and that the initial planning, feasibility and route selection were undertaken in order to consider whether a transport link could be created to this development. The reasons for creating this tram route through the Roseburn Corridor are not a wider public interest.

3.2 also refers to compensation. Clear undertakings have still not been given on compensation for loss of value as a result of noise and visual impact - ie the reduced marketability of properties bordering the tram line.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Scott McIntosh on the subject of Health and Safety.

The majority of this statement relates to electromagnetic effects.

However the Health and Safety concerns set out in our witness summary and witness statement (Group 34 number 7) include

Construction -

• Vehicles / plant / trees or branches falling from the embankment onto neighbouring properties • Cranage going out of control. • Water escape causing flooding • Smoke and exhaust pollution • Chemical contamination • Vibration damage • Light pollution / glare • Disturbance of vermin causing them to enter neighbouring properties

Operation -

• Danger of derailment (possibly due to vandalism) and vehicles falling from the embankment. • Danger of falling onto the track and being hit (particularly if ground conditions are snow or ice). • Impact on cyclists and pedestrians of passing trams - eg all users moving away from the tram before it passes increasing the risk of collision.

These concerns are not addressed by this witness' statement GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Scott McIntosh on the subject of Property Prices.

3.4 - Craigleith / Ravelston / Dean areas do not need an improvement in image and will not gain from the tram scheme in this way.

3.5 - Possible effect on prices. It is possible that the average price of property that is within (say) 500m of the tram may increase. Our concern is that the increases will be in properties that are further away and that the properties that are adjacent to the tram will see a relative fall in value.

(My house will be 100m from a tram stop, but because of the restricted access to the corridor, it will be a walking distance of 750 - 850m to get to this tram stop - so I will have all the noise impact of the tram, but a significant walk to actually access it!)

(I note that whilst I live next to the tram route and work in the west end, I would have to walk 2/3 of the distance to work in order to get to and from tram stops. Factor in the cost of the tram fare and the wait for the tram, and the tram is of no benefit to me at all.)

3.7 - Croydon circumstances (prices lower than average) do not apply in this area and cannot therefore be extrapolated.

4.1 - Reference to regeneration impacts. This area does not require regeneration and so cannot benefit in this way from the trams.

5.4 - Dublin. Not comparable as Dublin had far worse traffic conditions than Edinburgh.

Information does not examine the relative impact on properties immediately adjacent to the route.

The claimed benefit of a 15% increase in value arising from the tram is mathematically incorrect. (see table below). Because of the large change in the market irrespective of the tram it is necessary to compare the increased prices in the two areas directly, which leads to rather lower figures than those claimed.

Base price no tram with impact tram of tram South County 100 155 170 9.7% D

Dublin 8 100 145 165 13.8%

Dublin 24 100 137 154 12.4%

No information is given on other factors that could also have affected the relative levels of price increase - eg other amenities in the areas compared.

5.5 - 5.11. It appears that the properties in question were previously less desirable due to access problems. Access is not currently a problem in this area.

6.1 - Assertion that Edinburgh prices should also benefit from increased prices. However as noted the examples given relate mostly to properties that were not previously desirable - therefore not comparable to the area covered by group 34.

If the promoter is confident that the impact on prices will be positive, amending the bill to provide compensation for properties where there is a relative loss of value should not create a problem for the promoter. (As the promoter is asserting that there will be no claims under such provision). GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Scott McIntosh on the subject of Emergency Vehicles.

The witness statement does not state whether, following construction of the tram, it will still be possible for a police car or an ambulance or a maintenance vehicle to make its way along the Roseburn Corridor.

Will such vehicles be able to pass pedestrians and cyclists?

Will such vehicles be able to turn in order to return to their access point?

We are concerned that there will be insufficient space at some under and over bridges for such vehicles to make their way along the corridor.

We are also concerned that such vehicles will not be able to allow space for pedestrians or cyclists, and would not be able to pass each other, once the walkway is bounded by fences etc.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Group 34 - rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Tim Blower on the subject of Ground Conditions.

Group 34 noted that residents remember that there were problems of land slip at the time of operation as a railway (50 years ago). We understand that contributory factors were construction of embankments using waste material, and heavy rain, combined with heavy rail operations. (ie embankment either side of Craigleith Drive).

TB's statement explains that investigations into ground conditions have been undertaken. He does not explain whether these investigations identified any problems.

If the embankments have been built using waste material etc, what problems could this present for the tram scheme? What would have to be done to mitigate it? Could such a problem be addressed without major disturbance to the area?

(TB's statement describes the process for investigation, but does not explore the actual problems and solutions).

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

RESPONSE BY TINA WOOLNOUGH TO GARY TURNER’S STATEMENT

Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Bridge Clearances 4. Conclusions

1. Resume

1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald Edinburgh. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have been in my present post for 2 years. Prior to that I was a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald Newcastle and have a total of 17 years working in the Highway and Transportation field. I have built up an expertise in tram schemes through projects in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Tees Valley as well as Edinburgh.

1.2 The projects I have been instrumental in include highway schemes, heavy rail schemes and light rail. Within the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 (ETL1) scheme I have taken the role of Stakeholder Manager for the technical support team. I have been actively involved with liaison groups aimed at informing the community and stakeholders on the process and progress of the proposed tram scheme currently before the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses:

Bridge Clearances

(ii) Provision of structures (iii) Existing clearances (iv) Requirement for tram (v) Widening of underline structures

3. Bridge Clearances

Provision of structures

3.1 At present there are 11 structures along the Roseburn Corridor. These comprise of 5 overline bridges (bridges that the tram will travel over):

Ravelston Dykes Bridge St Georges School Access Road Bridge Queensferry Road Bridge Telford Road Bridge Holiday Inn Access Bridge

This is factually incorrect. The bridges listed above are in fact the underline bridges.

And 4 underline bridges (bridges that the tram will travel under):

Roseburn Terrace Railway Bridge Coltbridge Viaduct Craigleith Drive Bridge Groathill Road South Bridge

This is factually incorrect. The bridges listed above are in fact the overline bridges.

and 2 footbridges:

St Georges Road Footbridge Telford Drive/Easter Drylaw Drive Footbridge.

3.2 Subject to the engineering requirements of the scheme, and the condition of the bridges, it is proposed that all of the structures will be retained with the exception of the Telford Drive/Easter Drylaw Drive Footbridge. This footbridge is deemed redundant and will be demolished and an at grade access to the corridor created.

Existing clearances

3.3 The square span (width) of the overline bridge structures is nominally 9m. The clearance requirements for the tram alignment have been discussed with HMRI and generally a walkway/cycleway can be accommodated adjacent to the tram corridor at a width of around 3m. Therefore, the overline structures are able to accommodate the tram and the walkway/cycleway. 3.4 The width of the underline structures is nominally 8m. To accommodate the tram and the walkway/cycleway the bridge deck will be widened. Generally this is proposed to be done asymmetrically, (i.e. to one side). For aesthetic reasons Coltbridge Viaduct will be widened symmetrically, i.e. on both sides. This can be done by widening the existing bridge deck or by the use of a separate lightweight structure alongside the existing deck. The final proposals will be developed during detailed design.

The Promoter retains the right to demolish overline and underline structures if required, so the declared intention to retain them offers limited reassurance. This necessity to demolish or not will not become clear until the detailed design stage. No assurances are given regarding the heritage value of some of the structures and the fact that Historic Scotland is minded to list four of the structures. We are unsure as to how badgers will be accommodated and as to whether barriers between the cycle/walkway and the tram will be required. We are also unsure as to how safety escapes will be provided in tunnels/on bridges if barriers are required. We seek clarification on these points.

Requirement for tram 3.5 The clearance requirements for tram alignments are given in the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance part 2, section G, Guidance on Tramways. Discussions on the interpretation of these guidance notes have been held with the HMRI and the proposals for the tram alignment through the overline bridges developed. The overline bridge structures, where the available width will introduce a reduction in the walkway cycleway width, are: • Ravelston Dykes • St George’s School • Queensferry Road • Telford Road

CORRECTION: these are the underline bridges.

3.6 The physical clearances through these structures will be based on a combination of the following:

Track alignment through the structure Constraints on the approach to the structure Sightlines

We would suggest that speed restrictions on tunnel/bridge approaches should also be included.

3.7 The current alignment has developed the clearances for the walkway/cycleway as follows:

Ravelston Dykes 2.80m St George’s School 2.90m Queensferry Road 2.70m Telford Road 2.55m

Some of the measurements included in the LHMP did not include gaps between trams and structures. They also were variable in scale and in the measurements given. For example, the gaps between fixtures and the tram seems to vary. Can the witness supply plans which are accurate cross-sections so that we can get a proper understanding of how the trams and the over/underline bridges can be accommodated?

3.8 Further refinement of the design will be undertaken as the specification for the tramcar is finalised and the precise locations of other features such as fencing, overhead line columns and noise mitigation measures (if required) are determined. These refinements will be developed by the detailed design team and the operator and will be subject to ongoing discussion with HMRI to confirm their safety and acceptability. The overall objective will be to combine a safe alignment for both the tramway and the walkway/cycleway, with the widest walkway possible, given the physical constraints of the bridges. It is proposed that a continuous 3m walkway/cycleway can be accommodated throughout the length of the Roseburn Corridor with reductions in this width being constrained to acceptable limits at these structures. Ongoing discussions are being held with organisations such as SPOKES as well as HMRI on the width availability. It is worthy of note that of the 3 kilometres of corridor under consideration only 4 bridges require to be developed in this way.

We rebut the 3m cycle/walkway requirement. The Promoter’s own Guidance for Cycle Design indicates, where a shared walk/cycleway occurs – particularly when it is well-used - there is a desirable minimum of 4m, plus “shoulder room” in constrained spaces of 0.5m on each side (ie an additional 1m). Our evidence is also that the vast majority of cyclists using the Corridor were not members of Spokes or any other cycling organisation, and we feel that the Promoter has not engaged

with Corridor users adequately. Spokes are clearly not representative of the vast majority of cyclists on the Roseburn Corridor, and their views should be regarded as of limited relevance. What is an “acceptable limit” and who will decide what is “acceptable”? We would point out that alterations would not be required to these bridges if an alternative alignment was chosen.

4. Conclusion

4.1 A continuous surfaced walkway/cycleway will be provided throughout the Roseburn Corridor. Where the tramroad passes beneath 4 of the existing structures, the cycleway walkway will be locally narrowed from 3m reducing the width by approximately 10 to 45cm.

This witness does not give actual figure for each of the four bridges. Bearing in mind we are only talking about four bridges, can accurate figures/drawings be provided? How wide exactly will the walk/cycleway be at the pinch points? Can the witness give figures and drawings for all scenarios – ie with and without a substantial barrier, with and without a small barrier etc? Can the witness then test these with HMRI? It is our contention that because the Promoter failed to assess human usage of the Corridor, proper allowance for cyclists and pedestrians has not been made. It is not enough that a walkway/cycleway be continuous – it needs to be fit for purpose and should meet the Promoter’s own cycling guidelines ie it should be at least 4m in width in order for the multi-modal function of the Corridor be retained.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Gary Turner’s witness statement on bridges By Tina Woolnough for groups

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Craigleith Drive Bridge and Groathill Road South Bridge

(i) Undertaking from promoter

3. Craigleith Drive Bridge and Groathill Road South Bridge

Undertaking from promoter

3.1 It is recognised that the tram works could provide a good opportunity to replace the existing structures with ones that provides modern highway clearances on both Groathill Road South and Craigleith Drive, rather than retain the restricted road access that currently exist. However, following consultation with local residents through the Community Liaison Groups, it has been clearly established that residents’ preference is for the structures to retain their current clearances, as the low headroom restricts the numbers of HGVs using Groathill Road South and Craigleith Drive and the restricted width prevents the route becoming a “rat run.”

3.2 Subject to satisfactory structural condition of the existing bridges, there is no intention under the tram proposals to replace the existing Groathill Road South Bridge or Craigleith Drive Bridge. Widening of the structure can be achieved either by widening the existing deck or by adding a walkway/cycleway decked structure alongside the existing structure. Further information on the condition of the existing structure will be obtained to define the best option during the detailed design process.

Whilst residents welcome the retention of clearances, the caveat “subject to satisfactory structural condition” is of concern. If a

new bridge were required, we seek assurances that existing clearances are maintained.

3.3 The promoter has already given an undertaking that Groathill Road South Bridge will be retained subject to its structural condition and that any works will not fundamentally change the operations of the road network. The promoter is equally prepared to give a similar undertaking for Craigleith Drive Bridge.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Craigleith Drive and Groathill South Bridges are required to be widened to allow the tram to pass over them. If the condition of the existing structures is found to be adequate, this can be achieved by widening the deck and leaving the underlying structure in place. The promoter has already given an undertaking that Groathill Road South Bridge will be retained subject to its structural condition and that any works will not fundamentally change the operations of the road network. The promoter is equally prepared to give an undertaking for Craigleith Drive Bridge.

We remain anxious that, should any bridge need to be demolished, modern clearances would be required, and that the concerns of local people would preserving existing clearances would not be met. Is this the case? At what point will the structural soundness of the bridges be known?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Gary Turner’s witness statement byTina Woolnough

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Footpath to Craigleith Drive

(i) Existing access routes being retained (ii) Diversion routes during construction

3. Footpath to Craigleith Drive

Existing access routes being retained 3.1 The promoter does not intend to stop up the existing access route formed by the footpath linking Craigleith View to Craigleith Drive. Both footpaths are to be retained and, in addition, a link will also be provided to give pedestrian access to the Roseburn Corridor and the tramway.

What does this witness mean by “both footpaths” and “in addition”? There is only one footpath from Craigleith View to Craigleith Drive; there is another from Ravelston Dykes to Craigleith View; there is also a footway access underneath Craigleith Drive tunnel which is needed to access buses on Queensferry Rd. Which is the second footpath to which the witness is referring? There is already an access from Craigleith View/Ravelston Dykes down to the Roseburn Corridor. What “additional” route is the witness describing?

3.2 There is, therefore, no intention to stop up either of these access routes.

Diversion routes during construction

3.2 The construction works associated with the ETL1 along the Roseburn Corridor are sufficiently removed from the access footpaths so as not to

impact on them during the main construction works. Local .improvements works to the footpaths may require a temporary diversion but wherever possible the existing footpath will remain open.

Does this refer to all three of the footpath access routes I have described above? If so, then we are satisfied that there are no points of dispute on this issue, provided that closures are indeed minimal, for limited periods of construction, for pedestrian safety purposes.

3.3 Disruption during construction works, including the issue of accesses to properties and businesses, including footways, is addressed by the promoter by the establishment of suitable codes and contractual requirements. The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter's contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP].

We do not accept the Promoter’s contention that “the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience”. We have yet to be provided with evidence from the Promoter of any long term benefits of the tram to residents who live adjacent to, or who use the Roseburn Corridor as a linear park. Our view is that the tram will have a longterm and permanent negative impact on the Corridor and its users.

3.4 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects, particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham and planned for Liverpool (the CoCP for Merseytram (Liverpool) was considered during the Public Inquiry of the Merseytram Draft Order deposited under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. The inspector subsequently reported that the draft order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State subsequently followed the inspectors advice).

3.5 The CoCP has been subject to rigorous appraisal by all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, the Consultants and professional advisors to the scheme.

The CoCP does not incorporate proposed mitigations for the Roseburn Corridor, which gives us concern regarding the status, enforceability and responsibility of the mitigations. Who is to be responsible for implementation, management and enforcement? We do not therefore gain reassurance from the CoCP and we do not agree with its contents. It was never offered to us as a draft for comment.

3.6 The CoCP requires that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.7 The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

This issue highlights our concern that the City of Edinburgh Council and the Promoter are one and the same body – that there is an inherent conflict of interest where the developer is also the policeman/custodian of the public interest. If agreement with the parties listed is not possible, what will be the next course of action for the Promoter?

3.8 Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

3.9 Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

3.10 All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)]

The Promoter is again the monitoring body. The public needs an independent watchdog to act in its interests.

3.11 At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

The body setting the standards is one and the same as the developer.

3.12 The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.13 Additionally s. 4.4 (b) requires the setting up of a complaints Hotline to ensure that any problems are quickly attended to [ s. 2.3].

3.14 Compliance with the CoCP will be a requirement of the construction contracts.

We are unclear as to arbitration for complaints. We also believe that there should be an emergency 24 hour hotline.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Permanent stopping up of the footpath to Craigleith Drive is not being promoted. The footpath will be linked to the Roseburn Corridor to aid access to the walkway/cycleway and tram stops. Some temporary disruption to access may be required during localworks associated with the footpath, details will be agreed with affected residents in accordance with the CoCP.

We seek clarity as to which footpaths the witness is describing. Will all three pedestrian accesses be maintained (Craigleith Drive to Craigleith View, under the bridge at Craigleith Drive, Craigleith View to Ravelston Dykes)?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Gary Turner statement by Tina Woolnough On local accessibility

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Local accessibility

(i) Rights of way (ii) DDA compliant access

3. Local accessibility

3.1 Rights of way

The promoter is not seeking powers to stop up any existing public rights of way within the Roseburn Corridor. An important aspect of the function of the corridor is as a walkway/cycleway and as such access onto it for walkers and cyclists is particularly important. All formal public access points have been identified and these will be retained as close as possible to their existing position. Some new access points will also be created. Proposals for access are indicated in the LHMP, further surveys will be undertaken to define them in more detail during detailed design.

Access is a crucial issue for local people and for Corridor users. We can’t understand why details of this haven’t been forthcoming by now. Because the diagrams in the LHMP are described as “indicative” and “illustrative” we are not clear of their status.

3.2 DDA compliant access

Existing access arrangements to tram stops from adjacent streets will be improved in accordance with the appropriate Disability Discrimination Regulations affording high quality accessibility for all groups of users. Access will remain along the walkway/cycleway which

will be realigned alongside the entire length of the tramway within the Roseburn Corridor giving greater access to a wider group of users.

Where is the witness’s evidence that there will be “greater access to a wider group of users”? Our evidence is that there is currently very good access for those with disabilities and that the linear park, traffic free environment is the particular amenity that is enjoyed by all users. Trams travelling at possible speeds of up to 50mph are going to make the Corridor very unattractive for existing users – the vast majority of whom stated in our survey that their usage would be affected by the introduction of trams. We would like the Promoter to clarify how the tram line one proposal, aligned with a pedestrian/cycleway, ensures the safety of visually or orally impaired users, or frail elderly users.

We seek clarification that the proposed access from Craigleith View to the Corridor (as shown in the LHMP) is DDA compliant, because we believe it is not.

We also seek clarification as to how the proposed stations are accessible to mobility-impaired passengers, when there is no close drop-off point for those who might need car transport to tram stops. We also seek clarification of the inclusion – or not – of a lift at Ravelston Dykes station. We also seek clarification of whether or not the Promoter has the power to dispense with proposed stations altogether (and further inhibit access to the tram). We rebut the accessibility claims of the Promoter because the Corridor is inherently inaccessible, is not linked to a Park and Ride site, has limited access points, is invisible. We believe an on-road alignment is far more accessible in every way.

4. Conclusion

4.1 The Promoter is not seeking powers to stop up any existing public rights of way within the Roseburn Corridor. Existing access arrangements to tram stops from adjacent streets will be improved in accordance with the appropriate Disability Discrimination Regulations affording high quality accessibility for all groups of users.

We rebut and dispute the claim of “high quality accessibility for all groups of users”, on the above-mentioned grounds. We would like to request the witness’s evidence for making this claim. Accessibility was not included in early route sifting appraisals, and we believe that the Roseburn Corridor, and the Craigleith and Ravelston stops, provide very poor accessibility for mobility-impaired tram passengers and very poor integration with other forms of public transport. We would ask that the Promoter be required to review the Work Package One route siftings using all STAG criteria, including accessibility and not just selective criteria, and without weightings.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS:

2 – JOHN ADAMS

3 – MR AND MRS PEILL

29 – PETER GORRIE

46 – GRAHAM RODGER

61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR

79 – MR AND MRS GRANT

99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON

162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Jim Harries’ Witness Statement by Tina Woolnough

Issue: Safety/tram speed

3 Operation on line of sight

The way in which trams are driven is similar to bus driving, and totally different to driving a train. Unlike trains, trams are driven on line of sight. This means that they can stop before colliding with obstructions. Trains are unlikely to be able to stop before a collision. This is why train systems are fenced off from the public and signalling systems are used to stop trains from colliding with each other. Trams, like buses, often run on streets where there are pedestrians and many other hazards. Tram driving is best thought of as being similar to driving a bus.

Can the witness confirm that buses are unlikely to be driving at possible speeds of up to 50mph in enclosed, unsegregated spaces with over 1000 people movements a day?

4 Brake performance

Tram brake systems include “track brakes”. These are devices that magnetically attract the rails and the friction between the track brake and the track slows down the tram. The combined effect of both the brakes that act on the tram’s wheels and the track brakes results in an overall brake performance that is equivalent to that of a bus.

5 Tram speed signage and enforcement

2

Tram speeds on new tram systems are indicated in kilometres per hour, not miles per hour. 50 mph is virtually the same as 80 kph, so care has to be taken when debating tram speeds to avoid any confusion.

Trams are driven on line of sight, relying on the tram driver to judge the available stopping distance. Places where the tram driver’s sight lines are likely to be restricted will be reviewed as part of the design process, and permanent tram speed restrictions will be indicated to the tram driver by installing tram speed restriction signage along the route.

Who decides these speed limits and when is the decision about speed restrictions taken? What are likely locations for speed restrictions along the Roseburn Corridor, assuming no segregation between tramway and footpath? What are the likely locations assuming segregation?

Tram drivers are not allowed to exceed these speeds. Their training and the enforcement of driving trams to the speed restrictions is based on the culture in the operation of trains, where any failure to comply with the speed restrictions is treated a serious matter.

6 Tram driver training process and monitoring

Tram driving is a skill that is governed by the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations. All tram driver training courses are fully documented and the assessment of tram drivers is also fully documented. Unlike other road vehicle drivers, tram drivers are subject to a programme of regular monitoring of their performance once they have passed the tram drive training course. This training and monitoring process delivers tram driving standards that are professional, safe and consistent.

3

7 Incidents involving tram driver speeding

The trams carry an event recorder which is the equivalent of a sophisticated tachograph or flight recorder. This continuously records the tram’s speed and the operation of some of the tram’s controls including the brakes, horn and indicators.

Instances of exceeding the speed limit may be detected as a result of:

1. .Supervisors and staff from the tramway monitoring tram drivers. Any incidents of speeding will be reported.

2. Incident recorder records are checked on a random basis in order to identify incidents of “speeding”.

3. Any reports from the public, regulatory authorities or other third parties

In all cases, the event recorder data can be used to verify whether the speed limit was exceeded or not. Appropriate action and/or retraining will undertaken with any drivers found to be exceeding the speed limits.

8 Incident investigation and the "black box" data recorder on the trams

Information is being continuously recorded by the tramway systems as follows:

1. The data recorder carried on each tram, as explained above

2. The data held centrally by the tramway control system

3. CCTV images both inside the tram and from cameras pointing forwards on each tram

4. CCTV at tramstops

All of this information allows any incident to be reconstructed with a great deal of certainty. The reconstruction of incidents on tramways can be achieved with much greater accuracy than almost any other category of road traffic incidents. This enables the real causes of incidents to be identified with great certainty. Consequently lessons can be learnt in order to reduce the level of risk, and action can be taken with those responsible for the incident when this is appropriate.

4

9 Tram system design and approval process

5

9.1 Tram System Design Process

The tram system design process considers all aspects of the tram system, and the speed at which trams operate is a fundamental part of the design process.

In order to deliver the necessary service to passengers on the tram system, rapid journeys are essential. A slow tram system is not attractive to passengers and a slow system will fail to meet its goals from the perspective of passengers, the public, funders and the City Council.

What is this witness’s evidence that “rapid journeys are essential”, or more essential, than an alignment which travels where people need to go? As the majority of projected passengers from the Waterfront do not yet live there, as the developments are not completed, where is the evidence that a rapid journey time is a passenger priority for the Tram Line One loop?

Tram speed limits are influenced by many factors, and are set at a speed that meets all of the following constraints:

1. Driver’s sightlines and stopping distances. These vary with may factors, including:

a. Gradient

b. Tram speed

c. Tram brake performance

d. Visual obstructions

e. Junction design

f. Degree of segregation for other traffic and pedestrians

g. Traffic and pedestrian flows

Bearing in mind points d, f and g, if no segregation is featured along the Corridor, we assume speed restrictions would apply. Can the witness confirm this, or at least share his professional opinion, based on his professional experience? Can the witness share his professional experience on the likelihood of substantial segregation being required if the tram does travel at speeds of up to 50mph?

2. Track geometry and the consequential ride comfort of passengers

3. The performance of the tram itself

4. Occasionally other factors such as noise and vibration can influence the tram speed limit.

Would the improved survival rates for badgers at lower running speeds be just such a possible factor?

6

9.2 Tram System Approval Process

The Health and Safety Executive’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) is the body that grants permission to operate tram systems. They also ensure that other statutory bodies are content that the system can be operated by consulting directly with them. HMRI will satisfy itself that all aspects of the design and implementation of the tram scheme have identified and addressed all relevant risks.

HMRI is not responsible for the safe operation of the system. This responsibility rests with the tram operator.

HMRI will use their “Railway safety Principles and Guidance, Part G, Tramways” in particular as guidance in their approval process. This document can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/rspg/index.htm .

HMRI will satisfy itself that bodies such as Police, Fire, Ambulance services, the Roads Authority and Network Rail are content with the tram systems prior to approving the operation of the tramway.

The tramway design process will include ongoing dialogue with HMRI and all other relevant bodies in order to ensure that the processes used to establish that all aspects of the design, including the maximum speeds of the trams on the route are safe, robust and acceptable to the approval process.

We have made frequent inquiries of the Promoter with regard to the access of the Corridor by ambulances and the emergency services, the possible requirement of segregation by HMRI, the possibility of speed restrictions, the operational challenges of the tunnels/bridges etc. This witness is offering a helpful insight into safety procedures, and we strongly believe that the Promoter could have submitted more detail – for example, the diagrams in the LHMP – to HMRI for comment. HMRI input to our concerns at this stage (or earlier!) would have been very helpful. We have contacted HMRI ourselves, and the inspector has been as helpful as possible, but has reiterated that he can only comment on plans which are brought before him, not on theoretical positions. This witness, with his experience of other tram systems, is we believe able to comment on theoretical options, and we would ask him to look at the particular detail of the Roseburn Corridor and share with us what Transdev will be recommending that the Promoter puts before HMRI on key issues – segregation or not, speed restrictions or not, emergency access, ancillary fencing (eg preventing access to the tramway from gardens), badger fencing and tunnels. Can the witness also share with us the likely timetable for decision-making regarding speed limits, segregation? sesegregationetail

7

10 Regulatory regime

The key regulatory authority that has a direct interest in the risks from the speed of the tram once the system is also the Railway Inspectorate (HMRI). However, the part of the HMRI that enforces Health and Safety legislation is separate from the part that operates the approval process. It is normal practice for HMRI to undertake inspections of the tram system once it is open to the public. This is likely to include both formal prearranged inspections and unannounced spot checks. HMRI will also react to any reports from the public that may relate to the safety of the system. HMRI has the full powers to enforce Health and Safety Legislation including issuing Improvement and Prohibition Notices and to prosecute individuals and organisations.

11 Trams are safe

The good safety record of tram systems has been covered in other evidence.

8

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Les Buckman’s Witness Statement By Tina Woolnough

1. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

1.1. The evidence presented here relates to the option development and selection process for the western section of the Line 1 loop, namely that between the City Centre and Granton. In broad terms, the evidence will set out a series of sequential steps taken that culminated in the adoption of the Roseburn Corridor as the preferred route for Line 1.

It is noted that this witness has declared that the option development is for the route from Granton to the City Centre, ie., it is not claimed that Haymarket was the target.

1.2. This option development and selection process was undertaken consistent with the guidance set out in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)1. At all times, options were developed to a level of detail sufficient to enable a robust and auditable selection to be made.

Our understanding is that this is not accurate – STAG guidelines were applied selectively, with selective weighting, at selective points in the route sifting procedure.

1.3. These steps on which this evidence is based are set out as follows:

• Step 1: Review, appraisal and sifting of all the potential route sections that may be used to make up a Line 1 loop;

• Step 2: Derivation of corridor options upon which comprehensive appraisal was undertaken and a preferred option was selected; and

1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Transport/Integrated/14788/518

• Step 3: Development of options within this corridor.

1.4. Options serving the Western General Hospital were considered at all steps above.

This statement contradicts statements from other witnesses that the WGH was added in as an option at a later stage, on the request of the local authority. Our understanding is that patronage from the WGH was not factored in.

1.5. The process and results of these steps are summarised in Section 4.3 – 4.5 of the Line 1 STAG report of September 2004. It is important to note that, as the scheme developed, some figures might have changed since the production of the various reports referenced by this evidence. Nevertheless, the relative assessments of the merits or otherwise of the options referred to in this evidence have broadly been kept.

2. STEP 1: ROUTE SECTIONS

2.1. The Northern Loop was initially conceived through the Outline Business Case (OBC study, which is now called the North Edinburgh Rapid Transit study "NERTS"), and was designed to serve key areas including the city centre, Granton, Newhaven, Leith and the new development areas along the waterfront. The development and definition of the route was based on STAG objectives, patronage potential, feasibility criteria and on the results from the consultation process.

2.2. The process of selection of possible route sections making up the Line 1 loop involved a number of tasks:

• From the NERTS and subsequent consideration of further potential options, a total of 61 possible links (discrete segments of routes within the broad Northern Loop) were identified.

Can this witness confirm that the Roseburn Corridor was identified at the beginning and that its selection never changed throughout all the processes?

• An initial sifting process was carried out to eliminate the worst performing links, using the following four STAG consistent criteria, with weights applied (so that more important criteria have a greater consideration in the process):

• Technical (weight of 1.5)

• Economy (weight of 1.0)

• Transport (weight of 1.25)

• Environment (weight of 1.25)

(STAG suggests the use of weightings as a mechanism to help sifting options (See Chapter 4, page 4-5, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/transport/stag- 00.asp). They were used in an attempt to make the sifting process more transparent, less subjective, auditable and fair. They reflect the importance given by the planners to each of the criteria under consideration (i.e. there is no guidance for the actual weights used). This ensures that more important criteria are given greater consideration than less important ones.)

We rebut that the weightings were “used in an attempt to make the sifting process more transparent, less subjective, auditable and fair”. Where is the evidence that giving, for example, Technical consideration a weighting of 1.5 is fair? Is this a cost and engineering weighting? Why were STAG criteria not used in full at the early route sifting stage? Where were land use considerations and planning and transport guidelines not applied at the early route sifting stage? How could the Roseburn Corridor be scored in relation to the environment, when no human amenity surveys had been done and no wildlife surveys had been done? When did Haymarket get factored in?

Each link was then scored (using a seven-point score) against each criterion. The process resulted in an overall score for each link and an overall ranking. Some 30 links were carried forward to the following stage.

• From this more manageable number of links, certain sequences of links were put together into sensible loop combinations, or routes, for testing.

“Sensible” sounds like a subjective view. What were the criteria used for this? Why was the loop arrived at?

• Four coherent loop route options were selected for further development and subsequent appraisal using STAG. Some of these options included minor variations (e.g. along Princes Street and along the disused rail line). These route options are: ƒ Preferred Route. ƒ Crewe Road. ƒ Easter Road. ƒ Junction Street.

2.3. Further information about Step 1 can be found in the Work Package 1 report of December 20022.

2 Work Package 1 Report, Report No. 203011/0004B, 19 December 2002, Mott MacDonald et al.

3. STEP 2: CORRIDOR OPTIONS

Appraisal Process

3.1. Given the level of project development and information available at this stage, the four options identified were appraised using a simplified version of the STAG appraisal table. This retained the key elements of the appraisal, namely appraisal against the planning objectives and the government’s five objectives (using a sub- set of sub-objectives commensurate with the level of appraisal and available information).

Does the witness concede that the use of STAG was selective, and that this “simplified” version might be construed as being designed to have a specific outcome, that is, to select the Roseburn Corridor? Does the witness agree that it would have been possible to apply all the STAG criteria at all stages of the selection process and that this might – or would – have led to a different outcome? Was NPPG17 applied?

3.2. To support this process, a detailed modelling exercise was carried out to produce estimates of demand for each of the four options, considering:

• The AM and inter-peak periods;

• Bus, tram and rail demand;

• Forecast years: 2006, 2011 and 2016.

The results indicated that the Preferred Route was the best performing, with Easter Road route close behind. Crewe Road and Junction Street performed demonstrably worse.

Did “best performing” include patronage other than residential? We rebut the modelling if, for example, key traffic generators such as the Western General Hospital, were not included (although note as per above, that this witness claims all route options included the WGH).

3.3. The STAG process confirmed that the Preferred Route option performed best overall, and on this basis, was recommended as the preferred option. Further details of Step 2 are set out in the Work Package 1 report of December 20023.

STAG was applied only to restricted route options. We rebut this methodology as a means of “retro-fitting” the route selection to use the Roseburn Corridor.

Comparative Assessment between Former Rail Corridor & Crewe Road

3.4. This evidence focuses on two key routes, one along the disused rail corridor (Preferred Route) and the other which avoids that corridor (Crewe Road route). These routes are shown in Figures 1 and 2 overleaf.

3.5. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the comparative appraisal of the former rail corridor against the Crewe Road option.

3 Work Package 1 Report, Report No. 203011/0004B, 19 December 2002, Mott MacDonald et al

Figure 1 – Preferred Route

Figure 2 – Crewe Road Route

Table 1 – Former Rail Corridor Appraisal Summary Results To improve accessibility Planning To reduce pollution objectives To reduce congestion To make the transport system safer and more secure Materially improves accessibility to the Granton and Leith development areas and Performan to the socially deprived areas of North Edinburgh. Provision of a high quality ce against public transport system, with significant sections off-street or segregated, will planning encourage modal shift, reducing the environmental impact of traffic and reducing objectives congestion. Inclusion of modern security systems will enhance the safety and security of users and non-users alike. Sub- Quantitative Scor Objective Qualitative Assessment Objective Assessment e Economy Transport Provides high quality PT service in northern By 2016, LRT +++ economic Edinburgh. Western section off-street or patronage of 18.5m efficiency segregated, reducing impact on highway pa, removing 14.3m network. veh/km from highway network. Economic Route penetrates key business centres of +++ activity City Centre, West End and Leith, but could and reduce access to businesses by car. locational Provides accessibility to existing and impacts regeneration areas of employment. Supports regeneration areas of Granton and Leith by materially improving accessibility. Environme Noise and Short term noise impacts during – nt vibration construction. Noise from tram operations (particularly at night), although reduced traffic noise from modal shift is possible Air quality Tram operation has potential to reduce local + air pollutants if reductions in road traffic flows result from modal shift Townscap Scheme affects townscape of a number of – – e and conservation areas, including Edinburgh – cultural New Town (World Heritage Site). Mitigation heritage crucial to minimising townscape and visual effects Natural Habitat loss from Roseburn railway corridor. – heritage Best management practice during and construction will prevent significant impacts biodiversit to the Firth of Forth SPA/ cSAC/SSSI and y Water of Leith UWS. Safety Security Benefits to security on stops and vehicles. ++ Accidents Number of road + accidents: 13 (2006) or 15 (2011/16)

Accessibil Base Journey +++ ity Accessibili timesavings from ty city centre to Granton = 12 minutes and Leith = 22 minutes. Population within 800 m of scheme = 125,100 Integratio Transport A number of tram stops with quality ++ n interchang interchange facilities, enabling efficient es inter-modal transfers. Policy Access benefits to deprived, elderly and ++ integration mobility impaired, with level boarding access and wheel chair facilities. Land use Closely consistent with land use and ++ transport planning policy. integration

Table 2 – Crewe Road Corridor Appraisal Summary Results To improve accessibility Planning To reduce pollution objectives To reduce congestion To make the transport system safer and more secure Materially improves accessibility to the Granton and Leith development areas and Performan to the socially deprived areas of North Edinburgh. Provision of a high quality ce against public transport system will encourage modal shift, reducing the environmental planning impact of traffic. However, the route is entirely on-street and will have mixed objectives impacts on reducing congestion. Inclusion of modern security systems will enhance the safety and security of users and non-users alike. Key Quantitative Scor Objective Qualitative Assessment Indicator Assessment e Economy Transport Provides high quality PT service in By 2016, LRT ++ economic northern Edinburgh. Wholly on-street, with patronage of 15.1m efficiency attendant impacts on highway network. pa, removing 10.7m veh/km from highway network. Economic Route penetrates key business centres of ++ activity and City Centre and Leith, but could reduce locational access to businesses by car. Provides impacts accessibility to existing and regeneration areas of employment. Supports regeneration areas of Granton and Leith by materially improving accessibility. Environme Noise and Short term noise impacts during – nt vibration construction. Noise from tram operations (particularly at night), although reduced traffic noise from modal shift is possible Air quality Tram operation has potential to reduce + local air pollutants if reductions in road traffic flows result from modal shift Townscape Scheme affects townscape of a number of – – and cultural conservation areas, including Edinburgh – heritage New Town (World Heritage Site). Mitigation crucial to minimising townscape and visual effects Natural Best management practice during – heritage construction will prevent significant and impacts to the Firth of Forth biodiversity SPA/cSAC/SSSI and Water of Leith UWS Safety Security Benefits to security on stops and vehicles. ++ Accidents Number of road + accidents: 9 (2006) or 11 (2011/16) Accessibil Base Journey time ++ ity Accessibilit savings from city

y centre to Granton = 13 minutes and Leith = 22 minutes. Population within 800 m of scheme = 101,700 Integratio Transport A number of tram stops with quality + n interchange interchange facilities, enabling efficient s inter-modal transfers. No interchange at Haymarket, Policy Access benefits to deprived, elderly and ++ integration mobility impaired, with level boarding access and wheel chair facilities. Land use Closely consistent with land use & planning ++ transport policy. integration

WE REBUT THE ABOVE TABLES.

There is no such thing as “closely consistent with land use and planning policy”. It either meets criteria, or it doesn’t. The Crewe Rd option could have included an interchange at Haymarket and we do not see why this wasn’t incorporated. The use of the word ‘planning’ is a misnomer in this context. It is of course the objectors’ case that planning should have been given greater prominence.

4. STEP 3: OPTIONS WITHIN CORE CORRIDOR

4.1. A more detailed appraisal has been undertaken for key options within the preferred corridor, namely (Figure 3 illustrates these options):

• Former rail corridor; • Telford Road; and • Craigleith Road.

Figure 3 – Options within the Core Corridor

Former Rail Corridor/Telford Road

4.2. Within the preferred corridor, the option of traversing Telford Road in order to better serve the Western General Hospital was raised and further development on this subsequently took place (Step 3). New patronage estimates indicated that there was no clear case for either option. While the Telford Road option would provide improved accessibility, it would require considerable additional costs (including land acquisition), result in longer journey times and cause more traffic conflicts.

4.3. Despite the economic and technical argument in favour of the former rail corridor, Telford Road option was also taken forward to public consultation, which was held in mid-2003. Following this consultation exercise, the Promoter reviewed the technical analysis and consultation results and recommended the adoption of the Roseburn corridor as the preferred route.

This decision overturned the democratic choice. It should also be noted that City of Edinburgh Council elected representatives were given wrong information about the route options.

4.4. The relative merits of the former Railway and Telford Road corridors have been evaluated against the STAG criteria. The results are summarised in Table 3 below (the “+” sign indicates where each option performs better).

4.5. The former railway corridor performs significantly better in technical and operational terms, as well as requiring considerably less capital costs. It also captures more patronage and hence revenue than the Telford Road option. The main area where the railway corridor loses out is on the perceived accessibility of the stop location for the Western General Hospital, which is further away from the rear entrance than for the Telford Road stop.

4.6. Further details of the technical analysis and consultation results were set out in a report in September 20034.

4 Review of Telford Road Options, Report No. 203011/0028C, September 2003, Mott MacDonald et al

Table 3 – Summary of Key Issues for Route Comparison

Objective STAG Sub-objective Former Railway Telford Road s Corridor Corridor Implemen Technica Permanen • No landtake required + • Landtake required t-ability l t Landtake Appraisal Feasibilit y Highway • One junction to be + • Four junctions to be and modified modified Traffic • No traffic interaction • Significantly greater Issues with tram traffic effects on the tram Parking • No issues with + • Significant impacts and parking/servicing on parking/servicing Servicing Issues Structures • Underbridge at South + • More structural and / Groathill Road earthworks required Earthwork requires to be s widened to accommodate the tram PU Issues • Minimal PU + • Significant PU relocations relocations Route • approx. 1480m + • approx. 1670m Length (100% off street (15.5% off street segregated) segregated) Operation Run Time • 2 minutes 20 + • 4 minutes 40 al (1) seconds seconds Feasibilit Operation • Fewer risks + • Significantly greater y al Issues operationally operational issues Environme Noise • Potential noise • Less noise impacts + nt and impacts introduced Vibration Biodiversi • Possible affects on • Less effects than + ty small areas of habitat Core Option although mitigation possible. Economy TEE Capital • £8 million + • £15.9 million Cost (excludes land/property and vehicles if required, plus higher operating costs) Patronage • 10.5 m pass/year + • 10.3 m pass/year & (2011) (2011) (1) Revenue • Revenue £7.4m • Revenue £7.2m

Objective STAG Sub-objective Former Railway Telford Road s Corridor Corridor Safety Accident • Minimal risk of + • Greater risk of s accidents accidents Security • Isolated stop location • Better visibility and + could lead to security vandalism and crime Accessibili Base • Less accessible • Good access to the + ty Accessibi tram system from -lity the adjacent residential area and the Western General Hospital Note: (1) Run times are based on latest available information and include an allowance for junction delays, whereas the patronage forecasts relates to earlier run time estimates. Because run times are now slightly higher for the Telford Road option, the patronage figures for this alternative are also slightly optimistic.

Former Rail Corridor/Craigleith Road

4.7. Through the on-going consultation for Line 1, a further option was raised. It consisted of routing Line 1 via Craigleith Road and Crewe Road and rejoining the preferred route at Ferry Road, to further improve access to the Western General Hospital (the main entrance being on Crewe Road) and local business. However, this option was found to have a negative impact on demand and revenue, whilst incurring additional capital (including land take and property demolition) and operating cost, reducing system reliability and causing adverse impacts on the highway network. On this basis, this option was rejected and the preferred option via the Roseburn Corridor retained.

4.8. The comparative assessment between the former railway and Craigleith Road corridors is shown in Table 4 below (the “+” sign indicates where each option performs better).

4.9. The former railway corridor performs again significantly better in technical, operational and economic terms, while the Craigleith Road option would provide better accessibility to the Western General Hospital and other key destinations. The railway corridor option also captures more patronage and revenue by 2011. Further analysis and findings were set out in a report in November 20035.

5 Craigleith Options Summary, Report No. 203011/58B, November 2003, Mott MacDonald et al

Table 4 – Summary of Key Issues for Route Comparison Objective STAG Sub-objective Former Railway Craigleith Road s Corridor Corridor Implemen Technica Permanen • No landtake required + • Land-take required. t-ability l t Landtake Significant if Appraisal Feasibilit segregated running y on Craigleith Road is achieved. Highway • One junction to be + • Four Major and modified Junctions. Traffic • No traffic interaction Significant effects Issues with tram on tram – further modelling and analysis would be required to confirm feasibility at Crewe Toll. • Unpredictable operation due to long length of shared running on Crewe Road. Parking • No issues with + • Impacts on parking and parking/servicing and servicing, Servicing including possible Issues loss of parking at retail park. Structures • Underbridge at South • Long length of + / Groathill Road enhanced track bed Earthwork requires to be required on shared s widened to running sections. accommodate the tram PU Issues • Minimal PU + • Significant PU relocations relocations Route • approx. 1480m + • approx. 2810m Length (100% off street (8.2% off street segregated) segregated) Operation Run • 2 minutes 20 + • 8 minutes 30 al Time(1) seconds seconds Feasibilit Operation • Fewer risks + • Significantly greater y al Issues operationally operational issues. • Unpredictability on shared running sections. • Full priority at junctions unlikely to be achieved.

Objective STAG Sub-objective Former Railway Craigleith Road s Corridor Corridor Environme Noise • Potential noise • Less effects than + nt and impacts introduced railway corridor. Vibration Biodiversi • Possible affects on • Less effects than + ty small areas of habitat railway corridor. although mitigation possible Economy TEE Capital • £8 million + • £30.5 million (+ Cost higher operating costs) Patronage • 10.5 m pass/year + • 10.1 m pass/year & (2011) (2011) (1) Revenue • Revenue £7.4m • Revenue £7.1m Safety Accident • Minimal risk of + • Greater risk of s accidents accidents Security • Isolated stop location • Better visibility and + could lead to security vandalism and crime Accessibili Base • Less accessible • Good access to the + ty Accessibi tram system from -lity the adjacent residential area, Western General Hospital, BAE, Police College and retail park Note: (1) Run times are based on latest available information and include an allowance for junction delays, whereas the patronage forecasts relate to earlier run time estimates. Because run times are now higher for the Craigleith Road option, the patronage figures indicated for this alternative are considered optimistic. Is this witness suggesting that had there been no former railway route along the Roseburn Corridor available that the tram proposal would not have been advanced?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Rebuttal of Les Buckman’s Witness Statement by Tina Woolnough

1.

2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

2.1. This evidence cover a range of issues related to the impacts of traffic on the road network as a result of the introduction of Line 1 in Edinburgh, and is structured as follows:

• Road traffic model, used to forecast the impacts on traffic; and

• Highway benefits, as one of the key elements of STAG appraisal process.

3. ROAD TRAFFIC MODEL

3.1. A comprehensive computer model of Edinburgh's transport system has been developed to simulate the changes in private and public transport and consequent impacts from the implementation of the tram system. On the highway part, the model has a representation of the road transport network in Edinburgh and its environs, and through its assignment capability, is used to forecast the impacts on this network. The starting point for the model is 2001, with forecast years of 2011 and 2026. The model covers the morning peak, off-peak and inter-peak periods.

3.2. The changes in traffic flow, as predicted by the model, are largely due to the displacement of traffic by the tram, for example due to reduced road capacity in the streets on which the tram will operate and an element of re-routing of traffic in areas where particular traffic movements would be altered to accommodate the tram.

3.3. Further evidence on the impact on traffic flows arising from the introduction of Line 1 will be covered in the evidence presented by Stuart Turnball.

4. HIGHWAY BENEFITS

4.1. The economic impacts (both positive and negative) accrue to travellers remaining on the highway network. Such impacts are widely accepted as a key element of the appraisal of transport schemes, and are indeed a fundamental part of the appraisal process and guidance in the UK (webTAG) and Scotland (STAG).

4.2. For Line 1, the highway benefits have been estimated with the use of the transport model described above, and represent a considerable proportion of the overall benefits of the scheme. The model predicted net highway benefits, even if more congestion has been estimated at particular locations. The modelling analysis has indicated that Line 1 will remove significant levels of car demand from the highway network (total of 40.6 million veh-km per year in 2026, which reflects the severe levels of congestion forecast by that time).

Could the witness clarify this? Is it correct to say that the “severe levels of congestion forecast by that time” are dependent on the completion of the developments in the Waterfront area. What assumptions about levels of completion were factored into the modelling? Is it the case that, if development slows, or is unsuccessful, there will not be the projected tram patronage nor will there be the projected congestion? In other words, tram patronage and traffic levels are entirely based on assumptions about property developments which may or may not prove to be correct. There is evidence at present of both difficulties in selling properties in the Waterfront and of a slowing in the property market in Edinburgh – are these factored into tram patronage and traffic forecasts?

4.3. The Transport Economic Efficiency analysis was based on the use of the TUBA (Transport Users Benefit Appraisal) computer program, developed for the Department for Transport to undertake economic appraisal for multi-modal transport studies. TUBA is also compliant with current economic appraisal guidance, hence the appraisal process has used standard tools which are consistent with STAG.

We note that TUBA is used to appraise “multi-modal transport studies”. Was any assessment of the impact of tram line one on cycling and walking along the Roseburn Corridor assessed?

4.4. The model estimated travel time and operating costs savings for car trips, as a result of a more efficient transport network overall. Reduced levels of congestion caused by modal shift resulted in a large number of travellers experiencing a small level of benefit thereby producing a significant level of cumulative benefits.

We note the witness describes a “small level of benefit” for a “large number of travellers”. What reduction in the “large number of passengers” would lead to a tiny or insignificant level of benefit? This witness seems to be describing a self- fulfilling prophecy which is extremely vulnerable to changes in the assumptions

that underlie it. Thus, if property development at Granton is less successful than is predicted, or the travelling habits of residents do not conform to expectations (afterall, most properties in Granton will have two parking spaces), both patronage and benefits are impacted, as well as economic viability and the justification for using the Roseburn Corridor to achieve a faster journey time. The extreme risk of putting all tram patronage eggs into the Waterfront basket could be mitigated by changing the alignment to meet known public transport needs – serving the Western – and by using a more direct alignment into the city centre.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Mark M Bain’s witness statement by Tina Woolnough

2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses

(i) Alignment considerations.

3. Alignment Considerations

3.1 This evidence relates specifically to the geometric design (horizontal and vertical fit of track) of tram alignments before and following selection of tram route corridors. Preliminary geometric design is undertaken in the early stages of projects to establish whether particular routes are technically feasible. It is however uncommon for candidate routes to be found technically unfeasible and other factors usually determine which route is selected for development. For evidence specifically relating to route selection, reference should be made to that particular witness statement. This evidence does however consider the physical extents of a tram corridor which is predominantly influenced by the geometric design of tram alignments.

This is contrary to the justification given by other witnesses on route selection, where technical feasibility was given a higher weighting than, for example, environmental factors (Work Package 1). If Mr Bain states that “it is however uncommon for candidate routes to be found technically unfeasible”, how was technical difficulty/feasibility measured? Was cost the key factor? What is “technical difficulty”?

3.2 Within this statement reference is made to ‘corridor(s)’ and ‘Limits of Deviation’ and consequently these terms are explained below.

¾ Corridor is the term used to define the restricted tract of land used for the construction, operation and maintenance of the authorised tram works, and any associated infrastructure and landscaping including any mitigation measures; and

¾ Limits of Deviation (LoD) is the term used to define the extent to which the works can deviate from the centre lines shown on the plans. In lateral terms, the works can deviate within lines that have been drawn on the parliamentary plans. In vertical terms, the works can deviate up

to three metres upwards and to any extent downwards. LoD are used to introduce a certain amount of flexibility in where the works may be constructed, otherwise the Bill would be impracticably strict. If the works had to be constructed along the centre lines indicated on the plans, then the slightest alteration that might be required would mean that the works would be constructed contrary to the authorisation.

3.3 Although the LoD need to be flexible they need not be unduly wide, and it should also be noted that total extent of the LoD need not necessarily be subject to compulsory acquisition although the Bill as written provides such powers. The promoter is only interested in acquiring the lands that will allow the authorised works to be constructed, operated and maintained with some degree of flexibility to alter the alignment if required.

3.4 This flexibility can in certain cases benefit the landowner as well as the promoter. One example of where such flexibility can present opportunities for landowners is in the section of the route that passes through the land owned by Forth Ports at Leith. Without this flexibility it would not have possible to respond to the Forth Ports emerging development proposals and the mutual benefits that have ensued would not have been possible to achieve with tighter LoD.

3.5 The extent of the LoD is made sufficient to allow for the construction of the tram, which would normally be a larger area than that required for tram operation, which is generally a smaller area than that required to facilitate maintenance of the built infrastructure, which is in turn is usually smaller than the area required for the construction of the tram. This demonstrates that depending on the stage of a tram systems development the area actually required within the LoD varies.

We note that the LoD includes all of the Roseburn Corridor. The “flexibility” described by this witness has significant implications for the viability of the wildlife mitigation proposals. The powers of the Bill apply to the LoD, which means that the construction and operational requirements of the tram supersede the need for mitigation. This witness therefore appears to contradict the assumptions behind the mitigation proposals – that is, that they are entirely feasible, and are realistic.

3.6 Where the tram is located in the public highway the LoD is generally extended for a certain distance into side roads at road junctions in order to provide the promoter with sufficient scope to regulate road levels.

3.7 It should be noted that the promoter and their technical advisers have made efforts to minimise the impact on private land once route corridors have been identified. However, until the LoD are drawn and corresponding land searches have been conducted the ownership and/or rights of/over all land parcels is not known.

3.8 All geometric design of ETL1 tram alignments comply fully with the requirements of the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance (RSPG), Part 2, Section G – Guidance on Tramways first published by the Health and Safety Executive in July 1997 with the current revision recently issued in February

2005. As noted in Paragraph 2 of this report ‘This document does not intend to set out mandatory standards. It supports and amplifies the Part 1 safety principles by giving examples of established good practice acceptable to the Inspectorate to provide an acceptable level of safety for the public (passengers and others), employees and contractors’. The Inspectorate refers to HM Railway Inspectorate. As the RSPG provides guidance and does not set out mandatory standards, the Inspectorate will consider departures from the guidance on a case by case basis.

3.9 When designing tram corridors, the corridor needs to be sufficiently wide to allow not only for tram operation but also its initial construction and subsequent maintenance (and also maintenance of adjacent developments). It should be noted that greater width will be required for the particular tram vehicle configuration, sections of curved track, Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) support poles, Inspectorate safety clearances (specified in RSPG, Part 2, Section G) and to accommodate stop platforms. These examples are not exhaustive but represent the main factors that impact on the width of tram corridor. Some examples of non direct factors that affect the width of tram corridors, which need to be considered in the design, include the need to accommodate footways and cycleways, undertake visibility assessments to take into account the needs of both vehicle and tram drivers and also those of pedestrians and cyclists, and develop integrated road and tram junction layouts. Once again, these examples are not an exhaustive list of factors.

We recognise that Mr Bain is describing theoretical issues, but we would invite Mr Bain to share his professional opinion regarding the specifics of the Roseburn Corridor, the width and safety requirements that are likely, the line-of-sight for the Corridor, the stopping distances, the inclusion of footpath/cyclepath, emergency access etc.

3.10 With reference to RSPG, Part 2, Section G, Paragraph 102 to 105 inclusive, the following definitions are respectively provided.

¾ ‘The definition of the developed kinematic envelope (DKE) is based upon the static envelope and the dynamic envelope.’;

¾ ‘The static envelope is that formed by the maximum cross-sectional dimensions of trams to be used on the tramway and, where applicable, their loads when at rest on straight and level track. It should take into account allowances for tolerances in the manufacture of the trams and the effects on the suspension of tram loading and loads arising from the wind and other weather.’;

¾ ‘The dynamic envelope is the static envelope enlarged to allow for the maximum possible displacement of the tram in motion, with respect to the rails on straight track. It should take into account tram suspension characteristics, and allowances for tolerances in the maintenance of the trams including wear. The effects of end-throw and centre-throw of trams on curved track are not included, and are disregarded in the development of the dynamic envelope.’; and

¾ ‘The kinematic envelope is the dynamic envelope enlarged to allow for the permitted tolerances in track gauge, alignment, level and cross- level and the dynamic and static effects of track wear.’.

3.11 Following on from these definitions and with reference to RSPG, Part 2, Section G, Paragraph 107 reads ‘A DKE should be established by enlarging the kinematic envelope to take into account all the possible effects of curvature, including superelevation of the track, and end and centre throw of the tram. It too is speed dependant, but is unique to the particular location at a given speed’. It should also be noted that the DKE is unique to a particular tram vehicle. Definitions and an illustration to clarify the meaning of superelevation, end throw and centre throw are provided below.

¾ Superelevation (also referred to as Cant in railway sector) is the term used to indicate the raising of the outer rail on curved track to allow faster speeds than if the two rails were level. Cant compensates for the centrifugal force arising from a train traversing a curve;

¾ End-throw is the term used to indicate the dimension measured from the centreline of a curved section of rail track to the outermost point of a tram vehicle body when traversing the curved section of rail track (End throw = E + 0.5 Tram Vehicle Width); and

¾ Centre-throw is the term used to indicate the dimension measured from the centreline of a curved section of rail track to the innermost point of a tram vehicle body when traversing the curved section of rail track (Centre throw = C + 0.5 Tram Vehicle Width).

3.12 Currently no particular tram vehicle has been selected for use on the Edinburgh Tram network. However, it is understood that the promoter is seeking to implement a high quality low floor tram vehicle. Although there are only a selected number of manufacturers who each offer only a select few standard tram vehicle configurations, there are both commonalities and differences with respect to the discrete vehicle parameters which influence the width of the DKE. Consequently, an outline vehicle specification was prepared at the outset of the ETL1 project that included a standard set of typical tram vehicle characteristics which were adopted for tram alignment design. These characteristics were reviewed at the outset of the ETL2 project to arrive at the set of mutually agreed tram vehicle characteristics which are consistently applied in all design work undertaken for the development of the Edinburgh Tram network. These characteristics are detailed in Section 6.3.1 of the Line One STAG Appraisal report (Revision H) dated September 2004.

Can we assume that, as the vehicle characteristics were detailed in the STAG appraisal, they were not brought into the Work Package One route appraisal? Does this mean that the technical difficulties identified in the Work Package One process did not include or involve a known tram specification?

3.13 Not all of the above referenced vehicle characteristics impact on the tram corridor width and hence the geometric design of the tram alignments. However, the main characteristics that influence the tram corridor width/ alignments are listed below.

Indicator Characteristic Overall length 40m Vehicle width 2.65m Vehicle height, excluding pantograph 3.365m (from top of rail to roof) Minimum horizontal radius 25m Minimum vertical radius (sag or hog) 500m Multiple unit operation Only in case of breakdown and emergency Bi-directional Yes Maximum gradient 6.5% (see 3.14)

3.14 It should be noted that since the vehicle characteristics were first specified, the maximum gradient figure of 6.5% has been reviewed and revised to 8.0%. The original figure was chosen to allow greater flexibility in the specification of the number of traction motors used in each typical tram vehicle. Following receipt of the detailed topographical survey, it was identified that a few localised points on the route would require the maximum gradient to be set at 8.0%. These points are local to the streets which connect St Andrew Square with Princes Street and Queen Street.

This gradient means that the tram vehicle could comfortably operate along, for example, Orchard Brae. Why were “technical difficulties” which resulted in the alignment selection not reviewed in the light of this change in gradient capability?

3.15 The overall length of 40m and width of 2.65m were specified to provide a particular tram vehicle capacity commensurate with early patronage figures.

3.16 Most modern tram vehicles are articulated, and are configured from two or more tram vehicle body units jointed together by articulations which allow the body units to rotate relative to each other. These units are generally supported by bogies (an undercarriage with generally four wheels pivoted below particular points of a tram vehicle unit), but certain tram configurations can have body units which are suspended between two articulations supported directly by bogies. In relation to the DKE extent, the number of body units and length of each body unit, the number of articulations and length of each articulation, the relative distance from the outer end of the body unit to the nearest bogie, and the relative distance from an internal bogie to the nearest articulation are all critical factors. Examples are shown below.

3.17 Although the DKE extent can be predicted by design to a certain accuracy, the exact DKE extent can only be established once a particular tram vehicle has been procured and the exact dimensions are known.

This could presumably have some consequences on the tram alignment. What could the consequences be, for example, along the Roseburn Corridor?

3.18 With reference to RSPG, Part 2, Section G, Paragraph 85 reads ‘The tramway path is the area reserved for a moving tram in its environment. It is derived from the DKE by adding the minimum appropriate clearances where this is specified in this document, or a clearance agreed with the Inspectorate if this document does not specify one. It therefore depends upon the DKE and upon the nature of the operational environment and the structures and features within it‘. The ‘… minimum appropriate clearances …’ are specified in Paragraphs 110 to 114 inclusive depending on the particular environment the tram is operating within. It should be noted that ‘… tramway path …’ can also be referred to as the ‘tram swept path’.

3.19 In the development of the geometric design of tram alignments myself and colleagues at Mott MacDonald have used a number of market leading and industry standard computer software packages which include the following.

¾ Bentley MX which is an advanced, string-based modelling tool that enables the rapid and accurate design of road and rail alignments. It enables you to design three-dimensional alignments representing particular road features or rail trackwork;

¾ AutoTrack for Light Rail Design allows the user to undertake advanced swept path analysis of all types of trams and other rail bound vehicles. The system can be used to check clearance envelopes for the tram body and the pantograph envelope; and

¾ AutoTrack for Highway Design is an advanced swept path analysis software package which allows the user to model all types of steered vehicle. Uses include the analysis of junctions, roundabouts, car parks, service stations and loading areas.

3.20 The geometric design of the tram alignments was initially undertaken using the Ordnance Survey Landline Mapping information supplied on request from the City of Edinburgh Council under their license agreement. As this information is only two dimensional and therefore has no height information, it was necessary to procure a three dimensional topographical survey to allow both horizontal and vertical alignments to be designed. BKS Surveys Ltd, in collaboration with Becker Geomatics, was appointed in Autumn 2003 to undertake the topographical survey of both ETL1 and ETL2.

3.21 BKS chose to undertake the topographical survey predominantly by means of an aerial photogrammetric survey, which entailed flying at very low altitude (1000ft AMGL) along the routes with the resulting aerial photography exposed at a photoscale of 1:2000, where AMGL means Above Mean Ground Level. These photographs were subject to a photo control survey using Global Positioning System (GPS) static methods resulting in a typical point accuracy

of ± 7mm horizontally and ± 10mm vertically. A control framework of Permanent Control Markers (PCM’s) on the ground was established using GPS methods, with additional secondary GPS points established at 1km spacings which are accurate to ± 5mm horizontally and vertically. The resulting ground Photo Control Points (PCP’s) were then subject to aerial triangulation before the topographic and height data was captured to generate a three dimensional Digital Terrain Model (DTM).

How well does this system take into account idiosyncracies such as the bridges and tunnels along the Roseburn Corridor? And vegetation cover?

3.22 In relation to the ETL1 route, the survey method described above was used for the entire route with the exception of the city centre section of the route between the junctions of Manor Place/Shandwick Place and Broughton Street/Picardy Place. Within the city centre area, the City of Edinburgh Council provided tie with the topographical survey data, which had been surveyed by Loy Surveys for use on the Central Edinburgh Traffic Management (CETM) project. This survey was undertaken using traditional land surveying techniques. With regard to both surveys undertaken, the requested tolerances for levels and co-ordinates of directly recorded points on strings were set at ± 7mm vertically and ± 20mm horizontally for carriageways and hard surfaces and ± 20mm vertically and ± 25mm horizontally for other points. The Loy Surveys CETM survey was tied into the ETL1 survey to provide a DTM for the complete route.

4. Alignment Considerations (Specific)

4.1 I can confirm that the parliamentary alignment meets all the technical criteria detailed earlier in this statement.

4.2 With reference to the alignments considered as alternatives to the Roseburn Corridor in MM Doc. Refs. 203011\0004 (Work Package 1 Report) and 203011\0058 (Craigleith Options Summary), none of these options have been subject to detailed geometric design. In terms, of whether they meet the criteria detailed in this statement, it could be said that they could all be engineered to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, if the repercussions of doing so were ignored. These repercussions are discussed in the particular witness statements that specifically relate to issues associated with route selection appraisals, highways and traffic impacts, capital costing and patronage and journey time.

What exactly does the witness mean by this paragraph? In particular, what does the witness mean by the sentence “In terms, of whether they meet the criteria detailed in this statement, it could be said that they could all be engineered to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, if the repercussions of doing so where ignored”? Would it be true to say that, because no alignments were “subject to detailed geometric design” that all the alignments in Work Package One – and other slight variations which were not considered – could all be engineered to satisfy the criteria? This witness appears to undermine and contradict other witnesses on the route selection process. If no tram vehicle was specified, and not detailed geometric design was done, what exactly were

the technical difficulties which were given the disproportionate weightings that led to the current alignment choice?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Objector Rebuttal of Neil Harper statement by Tina Woolnough (number cross-refers to witness statement)

2.1 Could this witness clarify the timing of his involvement and the extent of it? Was he involved in Work Package One route sifting? If not, was anyone else from his company or any other quantity surveyor?

2.2 Were these principles only applied to the latter route selection stages ie after Work Package One? Were they applied as part of the STAG process?

3. This demonstrates that the Promoter does not consider mitigation as an integral and essential part of the tram project. To properly compare route options, all costs should surely be taken into account? Should not all costs, plus contingencies, within the LoD be included? Would not the cheapest route be the most direct route, ie Crewe Rd Sth, Orchard Brae, Queensferry Rd, Drumsheugh Gdns, Palmerston Place? What is the cost of the Roseburn Corridor leg?

Were all costs for the early route sifting calculated? In particular, for a shorter, more direct alignment along Crewe Rd Sth, Orchard Brae, Queensferry Rd, Drumsheugh Gdns?

4. We categorically rebut this. There are a number of other feasible routes which have not been costed. Also, public accessibility and social inclusion, meeting the public need, environmental cost, cost and impact of discouraging walking/cycling on the Roseburn Corridor are all costs which have to be taken into account. The bridges/tunnels on the Roseburn Corridor may be required to be demolished and rebuilt. The extent and cost of this is not known, as structural surveys have not been done.

1

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Roger Jones’s witness statement by Tina Woolnough

1 How the visual impacts will be mitigated in Edinburgh

1.1 The detailed design of the Edinburgh tram is to be contracted directly by tie, and carried out in a priority sequence so that the maximum amount of detail will be established and approved before a contract is let for construction.

1.2 Each individual pole has been defined by CEC as requiring prior planning approval. This will ensure that the design is assessed in detail through the approvals process.

We rebut the notion that the Planning Authority can guarantee impartiality on tram planning requirements when it is also the developer.

1.3 The Design Manual [P50/21] sets out general requirements for the OLE design. A revision to the document has been prepared and is to be considered by the City of Edinburgh Planning Committee with the intention of release for further consultation. The aims of the revision include making the requirements and the approvals process clearer.

The Design Manual has no legal status, and because of this, may be viewed as a statement of intent (albeit a very generalised one). There is no guarantee, when cost and detailed design difficulties are factored in, that its intentions will be implemented.

1.4 The application of the Design Manual will be considered by a Design Working Group involving tie and the promoter, the planning authority, the transportation department of the Council, the designers, and key third parties such as Historic Scotland.

The vast majority of the parties involved in the Working Group are all part of the tram development team. Despite the ES agreeing that there would be severe and detrimental impact on the World Heritage Site and on several conservation areas across the city, Historic Scotland have withdrawn their objection. The protectors of the World Heritage Site have been conspicuous in their absence. In terms of the historically valuable bridges/tunnels along the Roseburn Corridor, four of which Historic Scotland is minded to list, the overhead lines will have a severe and detrimental impact on vistas, aspect, amenity and heritage. In such a constricted space, there are safety issues as well as amenity/heritage ones which are unresolved.

1.5 The design process will be staged with localised areas defined and considered as a whole to determine the most appropriate format for the OLE layout including the potential for the use of building fixings,

1.6 The guidance to the designers and the subsequent design reviews and approvals will be carried out within tie by staff who have had experience of the process in other UK systems and understand the lessons learned and the options for mitigation of the visual intrusion.

No matter what the experience of professionals, only local people and users of the Roseburn Corridor understand, value and appreciate its amenity, the vistas across the city (especially from the Coltbridge Viaduct) and the green urban linear park aspects of the Corridor. No amount of professional expertise can mitigate by design for what will be a damaging, if not ruinous, addition to the Roseburn Corridor. We have questions about OLE and safety at over-bridges and under-bridges, and supporting pillars and safety for pedestrians (especially the partially- sighted) and cyclists; we have outstanding questions about wildlife and OLE (impact on birds and bats?).

1.7 The resulting designs will be defined in detail to the contractors as part of the tender process and the site works will be monitored for compliance with the design.

1.8 tie also intend to make the best use of experience, through the appointed operator (Transdev), from recent new systems constructed in France such as Nantes, Orléans, Grenoble and Strasbourg. We believe it is generally acknowledged that some very good results have been achieved on these systems.

2 Conclusions

2.1 The concerns raised these objections to the Line One Bill are acknowledged and understood.

2.2 We trust that the foregoing gives sufficient information to show that tie and the promoter take the issue of the visual intrusion of the Overhead Line Equipment seriously and is approaching the design and procurement in a way that will allow the best result to be achieved.

Whilst we understand that this witness is trying to be reassuring, there is no acknowledgement that the OLE will have a severe and undesirable impact on our cityscape; that OLE are ugly and will intrude on aspect and vista all over the city; that fixings and support structures will add to, or introduce, street clutter (especially in areas such as the Roseburn Corridor where street furniture is limited because of the urban wildlife site designation). We note that in much of the Promoter’s tram literature, OLE cables are “whited out” in photographs, to give a misleading impression. We also note that a letter in the Edinburgh Evening News recently expressed concern about the problems of integrating high vehicles (such as double-decker buses) and OLEs. We request clarification on this issue. We request information on bird casualties for OLEs and also information on any treatments that could be applied to fixings in the Roseburn Corridor to protect wildlife and human amenity. With the OLE, the Roseburn Corridor is going to lose all of its linear park qualities and will look horrendous. We note that all of the photos submitted by this witness show very urban, built-up settings, already full of the usual street clutter. We assert that the Roseburn Corridor, if trams are introduced, will bear no resemblance at all to how it currently looks, as a piece of natural wilderness in the heart of Edinburgh.

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal by Tina Woolnough, to statement by Steve Mitchell on the subject of noise.

3, 3.1 - 3.3 We welcome Mr Mitchell’s recognition of the noise impact on the Roseburn Corridor.

3.4 - Does the guidance make any mention of “character” which might include habitats of protected wildlife, such as badgers, or protected sites, such as urban wildlife sites, or areas of high human amenity value, such as walkways, parks or recreational green spaces?

3.5 - We challenge the phrase “unnecessary disturbance”. This witness has already acknowledged that noise impacts are significant and most pronounced on the Roseburn Corridor, an area of high wildlife and human amenity value. The best means of avoiding “unnecessary disturbance” would be a re-routing of tram line one to avoid the Roseburn Corridor. All of the noise impacts on the Corridor represent “unnecessary disturbance”.

3.6 - We rebut the suggestion that the use of the Roseburn Corridor for tram line one is a “necessary construction project”. It is not; an alternative alignment with no noise impact on the Roseburn Corridor is possible.

3.7 - We would put it to this witness that one of the “best practicable means” to minimise noise impact on the Roseburn Corridor is to put tram line one on- road instead. We would request this witness’s input as to whether noise impacts are solely measured on human residences. Are noise impacts factored into human users (of the cycle path) and on wildlife? Can this witness describe whether or not noise impact was a factor in early alignment selection processes? At what stage was this witness brought into the project?

3.12 - We rebut the use of impact solely on residential houses on the Roseburn Corridor. Did the mitigation measures factor in human amenity usage of the Corridor – especially when the Promoter had done no surveys to assess the level and frequency of that use? Have noise mitigation proposals, both for construction and for operation, factored in wildlife impacts?

3.13 - Does the policy consider re-routing the tram where noise impacts are severe? The Policy is not enforceable, and is a generalised statement of intention, which does not consider design details or cost restrictions. We are also concerned that the watchdog for noise impacts is the Council, which is also the developer of tram line one.

3.14 - We rebut these thresholds on the basis that they will be averages. Base noise levels on the Roseburn Corridor vary greatly, depending on leaf cover, time of day etc. Noise impacts on pedestrians/cyclists immediately adjacent to the tram (wind effect etc) will be severe and unpleasant. Rebuttal by Graham Scrimgeour, to statement by Steve Mitchell on the subject of noise

5.4 - use of criteria in reverse. The criteria for new house building involves a choice on the part of the house purchaser to accept the level of noise in the area. However in the case of the tram scheme, existing residents have no choice over this new source of noise. Currently the properties alongside the Roseburn Corridor experience low levels of noise. Residents consider that this is a valuable attribute of the properties and contributes to their value. These houses and gardens provide a quiet place to relax, away from the noise that affects other parts of the city.

We rebut the assumption that criteria used for new house building (where the buyer has a choice and can accept the noise - presumably in exchange for a lower price) can be used in reverse to force residents to accept a major increase in noise. (ES page 214 - increase of 13dB daytime and 17.4dB in the evening).

5.5 We agree that the very low levels of pre-existing ambient noise should be considered, and that the result of this consideration should be to reduce the level of noise to which the sound of the tram should be mitigated.

5.16 Rail grinding - if the frequencies are low (less than once per year) - grinding should be undertaken by closing sections of the line (it is a 2 track loop - so service can continue), so that work can be undertaken during the day rather than at night.

6.4 It is stated that it is 30 years since there has been tram type noise on the Roseburn Corridor. It is over 40 years since passenger services ended and nearly 40 years since goods services ended. It should also be noted that the former railway service had only 15 trains a day in each direction and only operated between 8am and 7pm Monday to Saturday. The Roseburn Corridor has never seen the intensity of use, or extended hours of operation that are planned for the tram scheme.

7.4 The tram would run over Craigleith Drive. It would also run on an embankment on either side, and for some distance to the south east. This embankment will tend to broadcast the noise of the tram.

7.7 We agree that the ambient noise levels are low. However we consider that it is important to assess these levels so as to clearly identify the significant increase in noise that will be experienced. We do not consider that it is appropriate to simply use the higher threshold figures as the starting point for assessing the impact of noise. Residents chose to live here because it is quiet and value this lack of noise. This should not be ignored or discounted.

7.12 We do not accept the target levels of mitigated noise. The objective should be to constrain the increase in noise, recognising that the ambient noise level is very low.

7.14 We strongly rebut the statement that effectively residents will get used to the noise. We do not wish to get used to the noise. We do not want to have conversations in our gardens regularly interrupted by passing trams. As stated above the lack of "city noise" in the area is considered to be a benefit of living in this area. Whilst residents elsewhere may live with greater noise, this will be a significant and permanent loss to residents in this area.

7.19 We rebut the statement that, in effect, the noise mitigation cannot be enforced because this might mean that the tram could not be operated. We consider that this is reasonable. It the tram system is not built, or is not maintained in order to achieve the stated mitigated noise levels, it should cease to operate through that section of the route until the problem has been remedied. If there is no enforcement, there is no reason for the operator to achieve the mitigated levels at any point on the route.

7.20 We rebut this interpretation of planning policy. This tram route was proposed in order to demonstrate the viability of a property development in Granton. After construction the tram scheme is not about job creation. Planning policy is about trade offs between costs and benefits, what we are proposing is the enforcement of a trade off that is proposed by the promoter - ie a given level of increased noise (which we consider is already excessive). If the scheme proceeds on the basis of these proposed noise levels, there should be a mechanism for ensuring that they are not exceeded.

It is completely unreasonable to state that a desire to enforce the noise levels that the promoter is planning, is contrary to planning policy. The witness' assertion that infrastructure may generate noise is already demonstrated by the 13dB and 17dB increases in noise (above disputed ambient measurements) that are planned for this area. What we seek is enforcement to ensure that these increases are not further exceeded. Having no enforcement surely means that plans can be ignored - which is surely contrary to planning policy!

7.21 - Since the City of Edinburgh Council is effectively the operator (even it through an "arms length" subsidiary), there is a conflict in making another branch of the same organisation responsible for monitoring. We consider that the only way for residents to be able to challenge the operator if problems arise and ensure that they are rectified is by having an independent monitoring mechanism.

Appendix

The "What is noise" and "Noise and vibration policy" documents have been presented at CLG meetings. We consider that these have been very informative and helpful in understanding the information on noise that is set out in the other tram documents, particularly the Environmental Statement.

However in our witness statements (group 34, statement 1) we have noted our understanding that loudness doubles with each increase of 3dB, as supported by HSE website - "Guidance note - noise frequently asked questions" and "information sheet - noise in engineering". This understanding make an increase of 17dB very significant! GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

REBUTTAL OF STEVE MITCHELL’S STATEMENT BY TINA WOOLNOUGH

2 Scope of Evidence

2.1 My evidence addresses:

• Baseline conditions • Tram Noise Policy and Legislation • The Edinburgh Tram Code of Construction Practice • The Edinburgh Tram Noise and Vibration Policy • Further work since the Environmental Statement • Effects of noise and vibration on users of the Roseburn Corridor • Noise Mitigation in the Roseburn Corridor

2.2 Noise and vibration at properties allongside the Roseburn Corridor are addressed in my Witness Statements for Groups 33-36 and 43 that represent objectors to the tramway who own these properties.

3 Background

Baseline Conditions

3.1 The majority of the ETL1 route runs along existing streets with approximately 3km of the route running along the Roseburn Rail Corridor. There are neighbouring properties along the majority of its route. In the Leith and city centre areas many of these properties are commercial with some residential areas too. In other areas the route passes through mainly residential areas which are more sensitive to noise effects, particularly at night.

3.2 The effect of tram noise will depend to some extent on the existing noise levels; tram noise will be more noticeable in currently quiet areas and less obtrusive in already noisy areas. The ES reports baseline noise surveys at 26 representative receptors long the route. The existing noise environment along the route can be considered as two distinct types; sections in the city

1 along streets, and the off-street Roseburn Corridor section. Along the street running sections ambient noise levels are generally high with noise levels mostly in the range of 60 to 70 dB LAeq, period during the day and 55 to 65 LAeq, period in the night-time hours when the tram will operate.

3.3 Along the Roseburn Corridor the corresponding noise levels are mostly in the range of 45 to 50 dB LAeq, period during the day and 35 to 40 LAeq, period at night, except near to road crossings where levels are higher. The potential for noise impacts is therefore substantially greater along the Roseburn Corridor than elsewhere.

We welcome Mr Mitchell’s recognition of the noise impact on the Roseburn Corridor.

Tram Noise Policy and Legislation

3.4 There are no statutory limits on noise from railways or from tramways in Scotland. Planning Advice Note 56 Planning and Noise primarily gives guidance on planning new housing development, but in paragraph 17, under the heading Noisy Development, it gives the following guidance:

Planning Authorities should generally aim to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable noise disturbance. They should also make appropriate provision for development necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure even though it may generate noise. Areas vary in character and level of noise that area acceptable in one location may not be acceptable in another.

Does the guidance make any mention of “character” which might include habitats of protected wildlife, such as badgers, or protected sites, such as urban wildlife sites, or areas of high human amenity value, such as walkways, parks or recreational green spaces?

3.5 Tie has recognised that in planning, designing and operating ETL1 and 2 there will be opportunities to incorporate noise and vibration mitigation measures to help avoid unnecessary disturbance. Tie’s committed approach to noise control is presented in two documents; the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) covering the construction phase, and the Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy covering the operational phase. The commitments to noise and vibration control made in these are summarised below.

We challenge the phrase “unnecessary disturbance”. This witness has already acknowledged that noise impacts are significant and most pronounced on the Roseburn Corridor, an area of high wildlife and human amenity value. The best means of avoiding “unnecessary disturbance” would be a re-routing of tram line one to avoid the Roseburn Corridor. All of the noise impacts on the Corridor represent “unnecessary disturbance”.

2 The Edinburgh Tram Code of Construction Practice

3.6 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 recognises that noise disturbance cannot be used as a reason to prevent necessary construction projects by advocating the use of ‘Best Practicable Means’ for reducing construction noise. The promoter has adopted this approach as a means of minimising noise and vibration disturbance during the necessary construction works. Accordingly, a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) has been prepared as a means of enforcing the use of best practicable means through contractual requirements. The CoCP takes the commitments made in the ES and summarises them into a form that will be contractually binding on the contractor who constructs the tramway.

We rebut the suggestion that the use of the Roseburn Corridor for tram line one is a “necessary construction project”. It is not; an alternative alignment with no noise impact on the Roseburn Corridor is possible.

3.7 The CoCP requires the Contractor to have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise disturbance from noise and to comply with the recommendations of BS5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites. As such, the CoCP does not give a permit to make noise levels up to the stated limits, but rather to minimise noise as far as practicable. The overriding requirement is to adopt the ‘Best Practicable Means’ to control noise and vibration levels. The term ‘Best Practicable Means’ is defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act where‘…practicable’ means reasonably practicable having regard among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications’. The test of Best Practicable Means has been tested in a substantial body of case law relating to statutory nuisance from construction works. It is for this reason that it provides a clear and appropriate test against which to ensure that adequate noise and vibration measures are adopted during the construction phase.

We would put it to this witness that one of the “best practicable means” to minimise noise impact on the Roseburn Corridor is to put tram line one on-road instead. We would request this witness’s input as to whether noise impacts are solely measured on human residences. Are noise impacts factored into human users (of the cycle path) and on wildlife? Can this witness describe whether or not noise impact was a factor in early alignment selection processes? At what stage was this witness brought into the project?

The Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 Noise and Vibration Policy

3.8 During the preparation of the ES it became clear that there was potential for noise impacts, mainly at the houses along the Roseburn Corridor, and discussions took place to consider what mitigation measures should be developed given the absence of any statutory requirement to control tram noise. It was also recognised that although noise impacts may not be predicted in other areas, where there are noise control measures that can

3 make the whole system quieter, the promoter should take them. Tie committed to an approach where noise mitigation would be developed wherever significant noise impacts were predicted and the measures were reasonably practicable and are not unacceptable to affected parties. This approach was adopted in the ES and led to the set of mitigation measures reported therein.

We rebut the use of impact solely on residential houses on the Roseburn Corridor. Did the mitigation measures factor in human amenity usage of the Corridor – especially when the Promoter had done no surveys to assess the level and frequency of that use? Have noise mitigation proposals, both for construction and for operation, factored in wildlife impacts?

3.9 Since lodging of the Bill, with the accompanying ES, various objectors to the scheme have questioned tie’s commitment to noise mitigation and sought clarification as to the measures to be adopted. In response to this tie has produced The Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two Noise and Vibration Policy (the N&V Policy) which was first published in March 2005. The policy seeks to strike a balance between the need to limit noise levels in some areas and the objective of providing a safe and efficient tram service. City of Edinburgh Council Environmental and Consumer Services department assisted in the development of the N&V Policy and endorse it.

Does the policy consider re-routing the tram where noise impacts are severe? The Policy is not enforceable, and is a generalised statement of intention, which does not consider design details or cost restrictions. We are also concerned that the watchdog for noise impacts is the Council, which is also the developer of tram line one.

3.10 The N&V Policy commits to a hierarchy of noise mitigation measures starting with the tram vehicles design, through the track design, to noise screening structures, and as a last resort noise insulation. These mitigation measures are to be applied above certain threshold levels. These threshold levels are the same as those used on the ES to assess significant noise impacts. The peer review of the ES, by Casella Stanger, accepted these thresholds as appropriate for assessing tram noise.

We rebut these thresholds on the basis that they will be averages. Base noise levels on the Roseburn Corridor vary greatly, depending on leaf cover, time of day etc. Noise impacts on pedestrians/cyclists immediately adjacent to the tram (wind effect etc) will be severe and unpleasant.

3.11 Other tram promoters in the UK have produced Noise and Vibration Policies in recent years; Centro in Birmingham and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham have policies produced in the last two years for the proposed extensions to their tram systems. The ETL1 N&V Policy adopts equivalent standard to these policies, consistent with best practice.

4 Further Work Since the Environmental Statement

4 4.1 The extent and form of noise mitigation measures in this area has been developed through detailed noise modelling as reported in the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a developing document that has been published in stages since April 2005. Prior to that, in October 2004, noise mitigation measures were illustrated for sample sections of the corridor in ERM‘s report Development of Environmental Mitigation Measures in the Roseburn Corridor.

4.2 The Edinburgh Noise and Vibration Policy sets target levels for noise mitigation. Along the Roseburn Corridor, unlike street-running sections of the route where options are more limited, the track design can be modified and screening provided to provide noise mitigation. This is the focus of noise mitigation throughout the corridor, and it is not envisaged that noise insulation will be required.

We request further information about this screening. Might it, for example, take the form of a barrier/high screen close to the track on some sections? There is again no enforceability for noise impact mitigation and no research has been done to assess the impact of the tram noise on human amenity/usage of the Roseburn Corridor.

4.3 Much work has been done since the first issue of the LHMP in April to develop this mitigation as an integral part of the design. Modelling work on requirements for noise mitigation has been refined. The visual impact of noise barriers within the corridor has been recognised and, in response to this, progress has been made in developing a low level screening structure, referred to as the ‘acoustic plenum’. This differs from the more conventional form of noise barriers, in that it allows the noise propagation path from the tram wheel/rail interface to the receptor to be interrupted close to the track and at a low level, so it is less visually obtrusive. The current concept has dimensions similar to a tram stop platform, although narrower, ie very close to the trams but below tram floor level. It comprises a hollow box that absorbs the noise that reverberates under the bodies of the passing tram vehicles. A form of acoustic plenum has been used to great success in Hong Kong. I expect a similar system would provide adequate mitigation along the Roseburn Corridor.

We are familiar with this witness’s enthusiasm for the plenum concept, but question whether it would be given funding priority by the Promoter. We also question its advantages for wind-rush noise, wheel squeal etc when tracks age (or indeed, as the HMRI inspector notes, where grass track bed results in premature wear and tear on tracks.)

4.4 There are a series of design challenges to overcome before the form of the acoustic plenum can be finalised, and it is possible that any of these could jeopardise its feasibility. Safety considerations pose the greatest challenge, and space across the tram solum is at a premium in some areas. However, preliminary discussions have been held with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, and it appears likely that the acoustic plenum is a feasible option for noise mitigation.

5

4.5 If it should transpire that the noise plenum is not the best solution, then conventional noise barriers will be pursued. These would generally have the appearance of solid wooden fences. Where barriers are required in sensitive areas semi-transparent materials may be used for the upper portion of the barrier to reduce the possible enclosing effect on the corridor. In order address the worst case, the LHMP has been progressed to include noise barriers within the landscape and habitat proposals.

Mr Mitchell has consistently recognised that no mitigation can remove all noise impacts on the Corridor and that the Corridor will certainly not be as it is now. This honesty has been welcome, when other consultants for the Promoter have suggested that the Corridor will be better in every way than it currently is as a result of the tram project.

5 Affects on Users of the Corridor

5.1 Users of the corridor are transient and are not as sensitive to the affects of noise and vibration as residents in their homes. Tram noise and vibration will be intermitted. In the tram’s off-peak periods, including Sundays when the corridor is more heavily used, trams will pass only every 7.5 minutes. Whilst the tramway will have a negative affect on the noise climate of the corridor, this will not prevent walkers and cyclists from using the corridor in the same way as they do today.

We rebut this. Where is Mr Mitchell’s evidence to support this? As the Promoter was unaware of the high level of amenity usage of the Corridor, this statement is a subjective view. Tram noise and vibration will be intermittent, but frequent at all times and very frequent in peak times. Even in off-peak times, the noise and vibration impact will be more extreme and intrusive onto the tranquillity and peace of the Corridor.

The gaps between exits and entrances on the Corridor are very spaced out – amenity users – if there are any left, and our survey showed that over 70% of respondents said that their usage of the Corridor would be affected by Tram Line One - are likely to experience several trams passing even on a fifteen minute walk. The noise, vibration, disturbance, stress and unpleasantness of introducing motorised vehicles, travelling at high speeds, on a currently traffic- free foot and cycleway is going to have a severe impact on usage. We have requested an alternative on-road alignment or a speed restriction – both of these would remove or reduce noise and vibration on the Corridor.

6 GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Scott McIntosh’s statement by Tina Woolnough

1. 2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Health and Safety effects due to infrastructure

(i) Radiation risks from electric traction systems (ii) Risks from rails in the road (iii) Risks from overhead line support columns

3. Health and Safety effects due to infrastructure

Risks from electric traction systems - General

3.1 There are two broad categories of electric traction system used in railways, tramways and other urban transport systems;

• Direct Current systems [dc] these generally use voltages in the range of 550 volts [v dc] to 1500 volts [v dc]. • Alternating current systems [ac] these generally use a voltage of 25000 volts [v ac] at a frequency of 50 – 60 cycles per second (hertz [hz])

3.2 The lower voltage dc systems are generally used on urban trolleybus, tramway and metro systems, with the higher voltage ac systems used for main line and suburban ‘heavy rail’ systems. All systems use open conductors to transmit the traction current from the sub-stations to the trains. Low voltage dc systems either use overhead wires or – on fully segregated railways – a low level conductor rail. High voltage ac systems always use overhead power supply.

3.3 The only known hazards from low voltage dc systems are electric burns or electric shock if the victim comes into direct contact with the bare conductor. These risks are increased in high voltage ac systems in that it may be possible for the current to bridge a small air gap [‘arc over’] to injure persons who do not come into direct physical contact with the bare conductor.

Could this witness describe how the public would be protected from accessing the conductor at the bridges and tunnels along the Roseburn Corridor? Could this witness also describe how overhead lines and double-decker buses are integrated?

Safe operation of the tramway and its electric traction system

3.11 I have issued a questionnaire to the operators of all the existing major tramway operators in the UK, asking them to indicate the number of occasions since the system opened (or during the last 10 years if the system has been operating for a longer time) they have had problems with the overhead line system. The full results of the survey were not available at the time that this Witness Statement was presented. Full results will be laid before the Parliamentary Committee once all responses have been collated, however it can be said that, to date, not a single incident has been reported of a failure of the overhead line system leading to the injury of a passenger, passer-by or local resident.

We would appreciate the opportunity of putting questions to this witness once this evidence does appear.

Risks from rails in the road

3.12 It has been claimed that steel tram rails may cause additional risks to road users. There has been one case where an accident has been attributed to the presence of rails in the carriageway, the case – Roe V South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive – is subject to final review and it would be inappropriate to comment upon the case in great depth until final determination; however it would appear that acceptable tolerances for laying apparatus in the street may have been exceeded in this case and that this may have been a significant factor in the skidding of the vehicle being driven by Mr Roe.

Concerns have been expressed about cyclists and tram tracks – the risks of skidding on rails in wet conditions and of cycle wheels becoming stuck in rails. How will this be dealt with on the Roseburn Corridor? Do rails obtrude? Will there be grass bedding or not?

3.13 The potential risk from tram rails has been mitigated on most systems by a combination of measures;

• careful alignment of the rails and carriageway surface • ensuring that tram rails are laterally offset in shared carriage lanes so that road vehicles do not normally run on the area occupied by the rails • careful road layout to ensure that traffic lanes do not cross tram rails at shallow horizontal angles.

Presumably, within the confined space of the Roseburn Corridor – assuming no segegration – there is a risk that cycles will cross tram rails at shallow horizontal angles. Is this the case?

3.14 The Health and safety executive publish annual accident statistics for all rail systems, those for tramways show that over 80% of all accidents involve minor moving vehicle collisions (vehicles ‘jumping’ traffic lights and coming into contact with trams, etc.) – very few accidents are as a result of other road vehicles skidding on tram rails.

3.15 It is claimed that tram rails present a particular hazard to cyclists. It is often claimed that cycle wheels can become trapped in tram rail grooves. Given that the groove in a tram rail is approximately 45mm wide this would only seem to be a potential hazard for specialist cycles with narrow ‘racing’ tyres. The risks of cyclists skidding are recognised and special advice as to how cyclists should cross tramlines is now included in the Highway Code. In laying out designated cycleways the need to ensure that the cycleway crosses the tramway at as near to 90 degrees as possible is recognised and special provision for this – and for special road markings is recognised.

Please apply the above paragraph to the Roseburn Corridor – and see our comments under point 3.13.

3.16 It is notable that the London Borough of Croydon – which has all of the street running sections of Tramlink within its boundaries – has some of the lowest cycle accident figures in London. In 2000 and 2001 – the first two years of Tramlink operations – it had the lowest cycle accident figures of any London Borough.

Are there any areas similar to the Roseburn Corridor?

3.17 Pedestrians are at very little risk from tram rails, pedestrian crossings are usually laid out to cross the tramway at 90 degrees to the rails and all moving parts of tram turnouts (‘points’) are located away from pedestrian areas.

How will this work on the Roseburn Corridor? Pedestrian crossings will, assuming no segregation as has been suggested by other witnesses, be at all sorts of angles.

Risks from overhead line support columns

3.18 It is recognised that overhead line support columns are frequently more robust than street lighting columns. A motorist driving into a column may therefore be at potentially greater risk of damage to their motor vehicle or injury to themselves than if they were to collide with a street lighting column. This risk is recognised and is ‘designed out’ of the system as far as is possible by placing columns at the rear of footways, where they are protected by a normal highway kerb and by the width of the footway. Where columns are relatively close to the carriageway they may be protected by special upstands or built up kerbs to deflect road vehicles.

How will the columns be arranged on the Roseburn Corridor, so that they are visible to cyclists travelling at speed, or so that they are safe for visually impaired users of the Corridor?

4 Conclusion

4.1 There is no evidence that the introduction of a tramway in Edinburgh, using electric traction at in the range 550 V dc to 1500 V dc will create any significant accident risk. There is very little evidence that other parts of the tramway infrastructure will add significant accident risks to other road users.

We are concerned that the safety requirements and issues on the Roseburn Corridor have not been assessed. Has a Risk Assessment been done? Is it this witness’s view that there will have to be segregation on the Corridor? GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Rebuttal of Scott McIntosh’s statement by Tina Woolnough

3.6 European aerodynamicists are working with the leading rail vehicle manufacturers to establish maximum air-flow figures for various types of rail vehicle and to recommend safe limits in the vicinity of structures and people. Although the Europe-wide deliberations have not been concluded it is likely that for heavy rail trains the limiting windload would be;

• 17meters per second [m/s] at a passenger platform for a 100kmh passing freight train • 15 m/s at the platform for a 200kmh passing passenger train.

Whilst this is not directly relevant, pedestrians/cyclists might be only 1m away from trams moving at speeds of 50mph. Presumably there is some impact?

3.7 Trams will move at far lower speeds [trams have a maximum design speed of 80kmh] and they will have a cross sectional area of less than 50% of a high speed passenger train. The aerodynamic assessment is that a tram will only generate wind speeds of 3-5 m/s, which is more than 200% below the proposed European safety limits.

4. Conclusion

4.1 A pedestrian standing close to a tram moving at the trams maximum speed will experience very small wind turbulence effects and these effects will not cause any discomfort or danger to the pedestrian. This conclusion is supported by practical day-to-day experience across Europe, where pedestrians walk and cycle close to tramways with no discomfort or danger.

We rebut this. Our concern was about the unpleasantness of slip- streaming and noise impacts from speeding trams and the negative

impact of this on walkers and cyclists who currently enjoy a traffic-free environment. Presumably slip-streaming is more pronounced where vehicles are in close proximity to pedestrians/cyclists and when vehicles are moving fast.

We challenge the implications made by the witness in including these photographs. Are they directly comparable? Do the trams featured travel at 50mph? There are scant pedestrians/cyclists in the photos – do these cycle/walkways have more than 1000 people movements per day?

GROUP 34 (ROSEBURN AREA B)

LEAD OBJECTORS: 2 – JOHN ADAMS 3 – MR AND MRS PEILL 29 – PETER GORRIE 46 – GRAHAM RODGER 61 – GRAHAM SCRIMGEOUR 79 – MR AND MRS GRANT 99 – LORNA AND NICK HUDSON 162 – BLACKHALL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Rebuttal of Les Buckman’s witness statement by Tina Woolnough

ISSUES FOR STOP LOCATION

1.1. A range of issues have been taken into account when deciding on stop locations:

• Technical – such as physical and engineering constraints and interaction with the highway network (for on-street stops);

If design detail is not yet available, could this witness elaborate on how technical considerations are assessed?

• Demand – ideally, the stop would be located where it can serve the highest possible number of people, but even stops with low usage can be relevant in feeding into higher usage stops;

Could this witness explain the last half of this sentence? Would the witness also agree that the Western General Hospital might represent a stop which would serve “the highest possible number of people”?

• Accessibility – stop locations should have high levels of accessibility to the surrounding catchment area, including satisfactory physical access to the station;

Could the witness explain how the Roseburn Corridor has “high levels of accessibility…including satisfactory physical access to the station”?

• Network connectivity – at the appropriate locations, stops should be provided to integrate the new service with existing public transport stops and services, providing wider connectivity across the public transport network (a notable example being Haymarket to integrate with rail and bus services through this hub).

Could the witness describe how the Roseburn Corridor section of tram line one provides “wider connectivity”? Can the witness confirm that Haymarket seems to be an after-thought in the route selection process, retrospectively being used to justify the use of the Corridor? Can the

1

witness confirm that neither accessibility or network connectivity were factors in Work Package One or in early alignment sifting?

2. INTER STOP SPACINGS

2.1. The typical range for inter-stop spacings for UK tram schemes is between 600 to 800 metres; this is normally higher than for buses, where stop spacings normally range from about 300 to 400 metres. The average space between stops for Line 1 is around 700 metres (22 stops within 15.5 km), towards the lower end of the spectrum for the range of UK tram systems.

2.2. A balance is normally sought between, on the one hand, introducing more stops providing higher accessibility levels and lower access time, but on the other hand, minimising the number of stops in order to reduce in-vehicle journey times.

Is the witness aware that Edinburgh enjoys one of the most successful bus services in Britain, with bus stops that are closer together and more frequent than other cities of a similar size? Does the witness think that stop spacing of around 700m (and we would like to see the deviations from this average), in the context of these bus stop spacings are going to be attractive to passengers who wish to travel to the city centre?

3. ISSUES FOR ROSEBURN CORRIDOR

3.1. The choice of stop locations within the Roseburn corridor was heavily influenced by the nature of the corridor, notably the available access points. Between Roseburn and Telford Road in particular, the route is a narrow linear corridor with the back gardens of residential development on both sides; access to the corridor is effectively limited to the locations where roads cross this alignment and hence this was the key factor in determining stop locations.

The witness appears to be conceding that the Roseburn Corridor has poor access and therefore represents a poor alignment choice. Is this correct?

3.2. On that basis, stops were located around the following road intersection points:

• A8 Roseburn Terrace (Roseburn stop);

• Ravelston Dykes (Ravelston Dykes stop);

• A90 Queensferry Road (Craigleith stop);

• A902 Telford Road (Groathill Road North stop); and

• B9085 Ferry Road (Crewe Toll stop).

2

4. THE ROSEBURN STOP

4.1. Demand forecasting using the transport model shows reasonable level of demand for the Roseburn stop. The model has forecast a total of some 0.46 million trips per year using the in 2011; in 2026 this increases to some 0.60 million passengers per year. These demand levels represent some 2.3% of the total demand on Line 1, against a network average of 4.5% per stop (given the 22 stops on Line 1). There will be variation in stop usage, but stops with lower than average usage are valid in feeding demand into higher usage stops.

Could the witness explain how these figures were arrived at? His own figures appear to show that Roseburn demand levels are well below the average per stop. Would the Roseburn Corridor have been the preferred alignment based on patronage figures alone? It seems unlikely.

4.2. The location of the Roseburn stop was to a great extent dictated by the presence of the Roseburn and Coltbridge viaducts, which are physical constraints to the south and north respectively. The selected location was the only place that allowed the introduction of a stop and the running of the track over both viaducts.

This appears to meet neither criteria of accessibility or desirability – just sheer necessity. This does not sound like proper justification for a stop. It also confirms our view that the Roseburn Corridor represents a very poor choice of alignment in terms of accessibility and patronage.

4.3. An alternative stop location to the south of the A8 has been examined, in response to comments at CLG's, but it is high on an embankment and will cause significant visual intrusion for a number of flats close by.

4.4. In wider terms, a stop at Roseburn will facilitate integration with the bus network and provide improved travel opportunities for local residents in the Roseburn area, notably the ability to travel to destinations on the Line 1 route not directly served by bus, such as Granton. The proposed location also facilitates good access to the surrounding area.

Has the witness examined the levels of demand for passengers to go from Roseburn to Granton? Is it fair to say that no bus serves Granton from Roseburn because there is no demand?

3