Wards affected: Item no

EXECUTIVE BOARD 29 th October 2001

NET DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 th October 2001

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – NET

NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT – NETWORK DEVELOPMENT

1. SUMMARY

This report provides an update of the NET network feasibility studies and preliminary public consultation.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:-

2.1 Further work and consultation on route options be undertaken to ensure that local concerns have been addressed and that all alternatives have been thoroughly assessed and a further report be brought before the Board in early 2002;

2.2 The budget implications as set out in section 12 and the City Treasurers observations are noted;

3. BACKGROUND

Futher development of light rail systems is a key plank in the Government's transport policy. In Nottingham the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) is a fundamental element of the Local Transport Plan, combining with other measures to provide an integrated transport system to reduce traffic congestion and pollution and assist inward investment, urban regeneration and social inclusion. Line One of NET, now under construction, is intended to be only the first of a network of routes which will eventually bring the environmental, economic and accessibility benefits of light rail to other areas of the conurbation.

A report was presented to the Executive Board on 6 February 2001 outlining progress on the NET network extension studies. A wide ranging study of potential LRT routes within the conurbation assessing their potential transport, economic and environmental benefits had been undertaken by consultants MVA and WS Atkins. The study identified alternative route options to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford to be taken forward for further studies to identify preferred routes. A separate study commissioned by the County Council subsequently recommended that an extension from Beeston to Chilwell should also be incorporated into the further studies. The cost sharing arrangements between the two authorities have been amended to reflect the additional option.

The report also provided details on the process for taking routes forward. Selected routes will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny as to their adherence to Government objectives and their commercial viability. Approval of the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) will be required before any routes meeting

the necessary criteria can be promoted through the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) process. The TWAO is the means by which to obtain the power to construct and operate LRT lines. In parallel, discussions will be held with Government and potential private sector concessionaires and funders to secure a funding package for the scheme.

4. ROUTE OPTIONS APPRAISAL

Since the appointment of the consultants, considerable work has been undertaken to further investigate the route options. This has focussed on an assessment of engineering feasibility of alignment and construction locations, environmental impacts of the route options, and the likely patronage and cost-benefit performance of the route options. At this stage of route assessment, much of the work has been at a “high” level. Its purpose has been to appraise the route options to sufficient depth to enable a robust comparison of the alternative “corridors” to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford in order to select preferred routes. These would be assessed at a later stage in much greater detail, with a detailed public consultation on the specific routes.

A preliminary public consultation took place during the summer seeking views on the possible tram network, particularly from those living in the vicinity of the seven route options under consideration. This was not intended to be a statistically meaningful exercise, but gives an indication of levels of support. A sample distribution of questionnaires to 17,000 households in the affected corridors was undertaken, and leaflets were left in public buildings. Discussions have also been held with the Nottingham Transport Partnership, District Councils, bus operators NCT and Trent, the Environment Agency and interested third parties including the University of Nottingham, QMC and Nottingham Tennis Centre. Adverts and articles were placed in the business press and Evening Post.

5. APPRAISAL CRITERIA

A set of nine appraisal criteria have been used to assess the relative performance of the route options. These are based on;

• The national transport objectives as laid out in the Transport White Paper, to improve the environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. • Local transport objectives, as set out in the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP), which elaborate on the Government’s objectives. • Government requirements for assessing how and whether schemes can be delivered in practice, including the financial and commercial performance of a scheme, its affordability and its public acceptability.

The appraisal criteria are:

• Operational capability • Costs • Usage • Cost – benefit analysis • Integration with other transport modes • Development and regeneration potential • Engineering impact • Environmental impact • Public acceptability

A detailed explanation of the criteria is set out in appendix A. The operational criteria in particular considers NET journey speeds which must be fast and competitive against alternative modes and operational reliability which requires as much segregated running as possible, and for high priorities when interacting with other traffic. The scheme costs, usage and cost-benefit analysis highlight the economic and commercial deliverability of the scheme. The link to wider policies is made, in particular, through assessing integration with other modes and land use planning. The engineering and environmental criteria assess the buildability and local impact of the scheme and the views of the public and stakeholders are assessed in relation to overall acceptability.

6. ROUTE COMPARISONS

The consultants’ studies have been undertaken to assess the seven route options on the basis of their performance against the above criteria and summaries of their findings are provided in appendix C, D and E. Summaries of the key points as they affect the seven options are provided in sections 7 to 10 below. It should be noted that much of the technical information will be subject to on-going refinement as the scheme develops. The patronage and cost-benefit information in particular is less developed than expected owing to delays in receiving outputs from the Greater Nottingham multi-modal model. Areas which require further development are summarised in MVA’s progress report (appendix C). The initial indicators provided to date do however provide a useful benchmark for comparisons between options, but are insufficiently robust to rule out any options at this stage.

The route options are shown on the attached plan (appendix B). All the options share a common section in the City Centre, which requires a viaduct across Nottingham Station from the Line One terminus north of Station Street. An interchange stop would be provided over the station and this is being investigated as part of the Nottingham Station Masterplan. The cost of the structure would be shared between route options if two or three of the routes are taken forward.

The plan also identifies common sections of route between the Station and Queens Drive park and ride site on the Beeston and Clifton (via Queens Drive) options. These shared sections would offer enhanced service frequencies and significant savings in route costs and these are identified in the assessment of route options. It should be noted however, that despite long sections of shared running, the Beeston South and Clifton via Queens Drive options together are more expensive than the Beeston North and Clifton via Wilford options together.

7. BEESTON ROUTES

Both Beeston routes would provide an important strategic role. The Beeston North (BN) option serves the major destinations of the Queens Medical Centre (QMC) and the University of Nottingham. It also operates through the Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) development site, which is expected to achieve employment levels of 3 – 4,000 by 2005. The Beeston South (BS) route would operate through the Crossgate Drive / Riverside industrial park and the Boots site. Both options serve Beeston Town Centre, and the BS route also serves the Rylands residential area to the south of Beeston. Route performance is set out below;

• Operational capability . BN (20.5 mins) has a significant journey time advantage over BS (25 mins) and importantly, over existing bus services (24 – 33 minutes).

Neither route provides high levels of segregation from other traffic. The strategic road network is crossed 4 times on BN and 3 times on BS. For both options further detailed consideration needs to be given to priority requirements for tram operation and broader traffic management measures.

• Costs . BN (£102m) has a marginally cheaper capital cost than BS (£112m), although the difference would be negligible if BS was developed in combination with Clifton Queens Drive. BN has lower operating costs (approximately 5 – 10%), requiring fewer vehicles to operate the service due to the shorter route length.

• Usage . Initial patronage estimates indicate a greater demand for the BN option, as this route serves more densely populated areas, the QMC and University, and has shorter journey times. However, demand from the Queens Drive park and ride site on BS offsets this lower patronage to a certain degree.

• Cost–benefit . Initial indicators suggest BN would score more highly than BS due to higher patronage and time savings. This is despite BS having significant levels of demand associated with park and ride at Queens Drive, since only marginal benefits will be attributable to existing park and ride users.

• Integration . Both options offer enhanced integration with other modes, with BS linking to existing sites (Beeston rail station, Queens Drive park and ride site) and BN offering the potential for interchange with buses at the QMC which will link into the Ring Road ‘major’ bus proposal and at University Boulevard (with the potential to serve Shuttle Bus services from Boots, Siemens etc). Both options integrate with Nottingham Station and Beeston Bus Station.

• Development/regeneration potential . BN has a strong potential with links through the ROF site and passes the Highfields Science Park. This route has good potential for developer contributions. BS route passes adjacent to the ROF site and offers enhanced potential for the Riverside/Crossgate Drive industrial area. Both routes offer significant opportunities for Beeston Town Centre.

• Engineering impact . Both routes are feasible. BN requires significant structures over the railway at Lenton Lane and across A52 between QMC and University. The ‘base’ route for BN involves the acquisition of 16 flats at Neville Sadler Court, but alternative alignments are under investigation. These, however, involve longer journey times and operation on congested roads. There is some loss of car parking on route and a strip of land from Highfields Science Park, Nottingham Tennis Centre and University Boulevard.

BS requires significant viaduct/retaining wall structures. It operates in approximately 1km of floodplain adjacent to the River Trent and has a difficult crossing under the A52 where headroom is restricted. There is also a very difficult crossing of the railway adjacent to Beeston Station. There is also some loss of car parking on route.

• Environmental impact . BS is considered “marginally less constrained” and no statutory conservation sites are affected. BS has less impact on townscape, historic landmarks and noise. BN has less impact on water resources. BN crosses 2 sites of importance for nature conservation (SINC) and a wildlife corridor, and its effect on ecology is considered significant and adverse. BS directly affects 1 SINC.

• Public acceptability . Over 750 respondents to the corridor leaflet indicated support for BN with just over 400 supporting BS. However, 106 residences have objected to BN and 5 to BS. The BN responses are mainly concerned with the route along Lower Road / Fletcher Road. (See section 11 and appendix F).

On the basis of the above and subject to addressing the Lower Road area concerns, the BN route is performing comparatively better than BS, particularly in the key areas of journey time, patronage and cost-benefit analysis. It would play a key strategic transport role in the conurbation, linking the high demand areas of Beeston, QMC and the University with the City Centre, Line One and other network extension routes. Serving the QMC is particularly important, being probably the largest generator of trips in the conurbation outside the City Centre. The site is already congested and the hospital has indicated strong support for the route, as it complements their own development plan by opening a new entrance through the centre of the hospital site. These benefits are compared against the BS linkage with the Crossgate Drive/Riverside industrial area, Boots and Beeston Rylands.

8. CHILWELL EXTENSION (CE)

This route operates from Beeston Town Centre along Chilwell High Road and through the Chilwell residential area via Cator Lane and the open space adjacent to Clumber Avenue and Eskdale Drive. The route terminates at a park and ride site adjacent to the A52(E) at Toton Lane. Route performance is set out below;

• Operational capability . On journey time, CE is 8.25 minutes to Beeston Town Centre and 29.25 (BN option) or 33.75 (BS option) minutes to Nottingham Midland Station. The route has 57% segregation from other traffic, but operates on-street along the narrow and busy Chilwell High Road. This will give reliability concerns and would require further detailed consideration of broader traffic management measures along this section.

• Costs. The capital cost for CE is £27 million. For the length of route it serves, this is significantly lower than all the other route options under consideration, primarily due to the lack of significant structures and long sections of off-street running. Operating costs are significantly lower than other routes.

• Usage . CE offers substantial increases in patronage over terminating NET in Beeston, reflecting in particular the high catchment population living close to the route in Chilwell and the park and ride site. The option performs well with both Beeston options but is particularly good with BN due to the faster journey time and the intermediate attractors on the BN route.

• Cost–benefit . By providing higher levels of demand and greater time savings, CE would be expected to score higher in benefit terms than the other options, at the cost of a relatively small increase in capital costs.

• Integration . The route offers potential feeder bus services within Chilwell and from Stapleford to the park and ride site at Toton Lane. The park and ride site could also be attractive for intermediate journeys to Beeston, the University (17 minutes) and QMC (18 minutes).

• Development and regeneration potential . The extension provides limited potential along its route, but combining it with a Beeston option will strengthen links to

development/regeneration sites along the core route e.g. the Royal Ordnance site on Beeston North.

• Engineering impact . The route is feasible. Some land acquisition will be required from shop forecourts on Chilwell High Road, and from Chilwell College House Junior School playing fields for the juction at Chilwell High Road/Cator Lane. The ‘base’ route involves operating on-street through Sandby Court, although an option to operate immediately to the south of the complex is under investigation (see Section 11 below).

• Environmental impact . The route operates along the open space corridor through Chilwell. Detailed route alignment designs can minimise environmental loss and the open space can be redesigned to preserve much of the existing visual amenity and recreation value. The route between Inham Road and the proposed park and ride site is in greenbelt.

• Public acceptability . Over 550 respondents to the corridor leaflet indicated support for the extension. However, 69 residences have objected to the extension, and these mainly concern the use of the open space and the route through Sandby Court. (See Section 11)

Overall, the Chilwell extension would enhance the overall performance of a Beeston core route, offering strong potential patronage and cost-benefit, with a significant residential population close to the line and a park and ride site at the terminus which in itself will offer improved modal choice for A52 traffic. The route is relatively cheap to build and feasible in engineering terms. Provision of effective traffic management measures on Chilwell High Road and a safe route at Sandby Court would be essential to maintain a reliable operation. The route has some significant environmental (amenity) impacts which will require minimising with appropriate mitigation measures.

9. CLIFTON ROUTES

The Clifton via Wilford (CW) option passes along Queens Walk, the 2.5km former railway embankment behind Wilford and Compton Acres / Ruddington Lane, and runs to the south of Silverdale and into Clifton. The Clifton via Queens Drive (CQD) route operates adjacent to the ROF development site, through the Crossgate Drive / Riverside industrial park, and into Clifton via the Queens Drive park and ride site and a new river bridge across the Trent. Both options serve Clifton Centre, Nottingham Trent University and a proposed new park and ride site at the terminus adjacent to the A453. Route performance is set out below;

• Operational capability . CW (24.5mins) has a significant journey time advantage over CQD (26.75mins) and over bus services (27 – 37 mins). CW has a much higher level of segregation from road traffic (72% compared to CQD 32%) and does not cross the main road network except for the relatively minor Wilford Lane. CQD crosses the A453 on 3 occasions and operates through the congested Queens Drive area. This suggests CW will provide a more reliable operation.

• Costs. CW (£97m) has a significantly cheaper capital cost than CQD(£132m) The £35m difference would be reduced to approximately £18m if CQD was developed with BS and costs were shared between the routes. The routes have similar

operating costs.

• Usage . Initial patronage estimates indicate a greater demand for CW option than CQD, since the latter serves more sparsely populated areas and with longer end to end journey times. However, demand for the Queens Drive park and ride site offsets this lower patronage to a certain degree.

• Cost-benefit . Initial indicators suggest CW would score higher than CQD. CW offers higher levels of patronage and time savings for the local catchment, whilst having a reasonable level of park and ride demand using the Clifton site and lower capital and operating costs. By contrast, lower levels of patronage and time savings on CQD will not be offset by higher park and ride benefits; there being only marginal economic benefits attributable to the existing park and ride users at Queens Drive.

• Integration . CQD route would serve the existing park and ride facility at Queens Drive, whilst CW provides the possibility of a small site at Wilford Road. Both routes integrate with Nottingham Station and provide potential bus interchange in Clifton Centre and at the Clifton park and ride site.

• Development and regeneration potential . CQD route passes adjacent to the ROF site and offers enhanced potential for the Riverside/Crossgate Drive industrial area. CW offers some modest potential for the Wilford industrial area.

• Engineering impact . Both routes are feasible. CW operates along the pedestrianised Queens Walk and crosses the river on the Wilford Toll Bridge which requires upgrading and strengthening. A retaining bank/viaduct may be required to minimise floodplain effect immediately south of the River. The old railway embankment between Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane requires lowering and/or removing to provide width for a path and landscaping/noise barriers. Alternative routes to the embankment on adjacent roads would increase journey times but are to be assessed further. The exact alignment entering Clifton is still to be determined but may require acquisition of two properties.

CQD requires significant viaduct/retaining wall structures in floodplain adjacent to the River Trent and has a difficult crossing under the A52 where headroom is restricted. A major new bridge is required over the Trent adjacent to Clifton Boulevard. The consultants are currently investigating the possible location of the bridge to the east and avoiding the difficult crossing of the A52. A crossing to the west had been assumed to date as it maximised the benefits of combining the route with BS option. The full impact of this alternative option will be reported before a recommendation is made.

• Environmental impact . Based on DTLR guidelines, both options have a “significant and adverse” impact on the local ecology. On CQD, this is due to the impact on the riverbanks from a new bridge over the Trent. On CW, this is due to the use of the former railway alignment and indirect impacts on the Wilwell Cutting SSSI. Overall, CQD is considered “marginally less constrained”. CQD has less impact on townscape and noise. CW has less impact on the water environment, as it passes through the floodplain for a lesser distance. Both routes have sections in greenbelt, including the Clifton park and ride site.

• Public acceptability . Over 650 respondents to the corridor leaflet indicated support for CW, with over 600 supporting CQD. 169 residences have objected to CW, and 2

to CQD. The CW responses are mainly concerned with the use of the railway embankment on CW (see section 11 and appendix F). A petition with 750 signatures objecting to CW route has also been received by County Council.

In economic and commercial terms, and subject to addressing the railway embankment concerns, CW route is the more viable route, with advantages in journey time, reliability, capital costs, patronage and cost-benefit analysis. It provides a faster journey for residents of Clifton and park and ride users, serves the centre of the Meadows and the Wilford Industrial site, and provides extremely competitive journey times from Compton Acres, Wilford and parts of Silverdale into the City Centre. CQD, however, offers other benefits by providing an important link to the employment areas in Riverside and Crossgate Drive beyond that accessible from the BN route.

10. WEST BRIDGFORD ROUTES

The route options share a common section over much of their route length. Both options operate along Arkwright Walk, over Trent Bridge, past the Council Offices and sports facilities situated to the south of the River and through West Bridgford Town Centre (Central Avenue). The Gamston route (GT) operates along Davies Road to a proposed park and ride site adjacent to the A52(E). The Sharphill Wood route (SH) operates along Rectory Road and Musters Road to the Sharphill Wood development site which was included as a residential site in the Rushcliffe Local Plan first deposit draft. A park and ride site could also be provided at the SH route terminus. An alternative SH route option to operate along the whole length of Musters Road from Trent Bridge cricket ground was originally the core route but as it does not serve West Bridgford Town Centre it is not considered in the comparison below. Route performance is set out below.

• Operational capability . GT(15.25mins) has a marginal journey time advantage over SH(16.25mins). Both routes have modest journey time savings over the bus services, which take 16 – 21 mins. GT has a greater level of segregated running, although the absolute levels of segregation for both route options are very low(GT 38%, SH 12%). Both routes have significant interface with the highway, crossing congested Trent Bridge area on street, and there is a risk of unreliable operations due to the number of complex road junctions.

• Costs . The capital costs for both routes are very similar with GT £68m and SH £73m. Operating costs are very similar for both options.

• Usage . The patronage levels for both options are also very similar. The absolute levels are considerably lower than the Beeston and Clifton options primarily due to the relatively low residential densities which are spread across a wide range of different roads served and due to the small journey time differentials between NET and the existing bus network.

• Cost–benefit. The relatively low levels of patronage and small journey time differentials between NET and the existing bus network suggests that both of these options would generate relatively low levels of economic benefit.

• Integration . Both options offer enhanced integration with other modes, with links to Nottingham Station and potential interchange with feeder buses at West Bridgford town centre and park and ride sites at the termini.

• Development and regeneration potential . Both options will assist in the regeneration of the East Meadows and would provide a link to the Waterside Regeneration Zone. SH terminates in a major housing site identified in the Rushcliffe Local Plan first deposit draft.

• Engineering impact . Both options are feasible. Both routes pass along the pedestrianised Arkwright Walk, and follow the existing highway across Trent Bridge. The bridge and approaches will require widening. The alignment would operate across recently traffic calmed Central Avenue. On GT, a new bridge over the Grantham Canal will be required. On both routes there is minor landtake from gardens/frontages to provide visibility splays at junctions and tramstops.

• Environmental impact . Both routes impact on Trent Bridge (Grade 2 listed) and pass the old Trent Bridge, which is a scheduled ancient monument. Both routes are therefore predicted to have “significant adverse impacts on archaeological resources”. The GT route along Radcliffe Road and Gamston Park and Ride site is in greenbelt. Overall, the GT has less impact in terms of noise, townscape and historic landmarks. SH has less impact on the biodiversity and water environment. Neither route is considered more constrained than the other.

• Public acceptability . Over 500 respondents to the corridor leaflet indicated support for both GT and SH. 7 residences have objected to GT and 18 to SH.

Overall there is little difference between the route options in terms of the commercial criteria, operating characteristics, and engineering and environmental impacts. There are however important issues to consider regarding park and ride and new development. The GT option serves a park and ride site at the terminus at Gamston which is seen as a key element in the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan to reduce traffic entering the conurbation from the A52/A46/A606. This site is proposed initially as a bus based operation, although its design would take account of a possible upgrade to tram operation at a later date. Subject to planning permission, the site is included in the County Council’s programme for 2002/03. This park and ride site is likely to serve much of the existing demand. Further consideration is required on the future demand for additional park and ride capacity such as at Sharphill Wood.

There is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding the location of new housing and employment development in Rushcliffe. The Highways Agency has objected to several sites which rely on access to the trunk road network (A453 and A52). These roads form a collar between the conurbation and several potential development sites. A new A52 multi-modal study is expected to commence in Spring 2002 and report in Autumn 2003. These results of the study will inform the development proposals in the forthcoming Rushcliffe Local Plan. The scale and location of future developments could have a significant impact on the usage of both proposed tram routes.

11. PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The preliminary public consultation held this summer has prompted considerable interest in the NET extension proposals, and many respondents have indicated support for the idea of extending the network within these three corridors. However, there are a number of areas which may be directly affected where considerable concern has been expressed, notably Compton Acres/Wilford (CW), Lower Road, Beeston (BN) and parts of the Chilwell extension. Public meetings have been held in each area, and residents groups have been set up at Compton Acres and Lower Road. When invited, representatives from the City and County Councils have attended these meetings. Leaflets have been issued to local residents in these areas responding to the issues that have been raised. The main concerns are summarised below;

• Lower Road area . (BN route)

The core route alignment would operate along two existing culs-de-sac (Lower Road and Fletcher Road) and require the acquisition of approximately 16 (of 51) flats of sheltered accommodation in Neville Sadler Court. It may be possible to rebuild these locally. As well as the loss of property, residents are concerned that the tram would change the nature of the local environment. A number of alternative route options between the University and Beeston Town Centre are being investigated in outline and following suggestions arising from earlier public consultation. There is concern that all might involve longer journey times and increased operation on strategic roads with existing congestion problems. This may reduce the ability of the tram to attract high levels of patronage, particularly from car users.

On the core alignment, residents were also concerned that on-street parking on Lower Road and Fletcher Road would be lost, and that land from gardens on adjacent Pelham Crescent would be required. However, Lower Road and Fletcher Road are wide enough to accommodate the tram and on-street parking, and the route would not impact on the Pelham Crescent gardens.

A representation from local residents in this area has been received and is attached in appendix F.

• Compton Acres area . (CW route)

The route alignment would follow the former railway embankment behind Wilford and Compton Acres/Ruddington Lane. Local residents are very concerned at the loss of habitat along the embankment and the indirect impacts on the Wilwell Cutting SSSI, the loss of a local amenity as the route has been upgraded to provide a nature trail and the potential for noise / vibration and visual intrusion.

As indicated earlier, ERM consider the impacts on the ecology on the embankment to be significant and adverse. They have however indicated that the habitat adjacent to the CQD crossing of the River Trent is of significant value and hence this is also significant and adverse. Neither site is statutorily designated. ERM state that the embankment “is more significantly impacted in terms of loss of amenity value and magnitude of impact. However this type of habitat is more easy to recreate……..the species and communities found by the River Trent were less common than those along the disused railway. These types of habitats (i.e. riverside) are often more natural and botanically species rich.”

On the indirect impact on the SSSI, ERM state “Part of the Wilwell Farm Cutting SSSI is important for its wetland habitat, although this is recognised as having declined over the past 20 years (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust). Although it is considered unlikely, as mitigation measures are likely to be effective, the hydrological characteristics of the site may change as a result of NET and therefore the habitats and species present at the site may be affected. At the EIA stage, a hydrological survey will be carried out to monitor the existing hydrology and to recommend measures to prevent impacts occurring”.

On the nature trail and intrusion issues, a footpath would remain and mitigation measures such as landscaping and visual noise barriers would minimise the impacts. To implement these measures will require the total or partial removal of the embankment. Two alternative route options along Main Road, Wilford and Ruddington Lane; and part embankment / Ruddington Lane are being investigated in outline. The Main Road section has limited width and poor visibility and both options would impact on journey times.

It is important to bear in mind that there have been proposals for a NET Network for some considerable time. The Nottinghamshire Structure Plan, adopted in November 1996, identified an indicative network and has a policy (5/3(f)) which specifically provides “protection against the development of land that would prejudice the retention or appropriate development of the rail network. Such protection would apply to the disused railway embankment.

A representation from local residents in this area has been received and is attached in appendix F.

• Chilwell extension

The route alignment operates along the ‘open space’ in Chilwell between Cator Lane and Inham Road. Along this section it passes through the Sandby Court residential complex, which houses elderly people. Along the open space, the alignment would occupy a relatively small proportion of the space and detailed routeing can preserve as much of the existing visual amenity and recreation value as possible, including the children’s playground. There is no realistic alternative route option along this section. The ‘core’ route option alignment through Sandby Court would be on-street, and would require some relocation of parking spaces. An alternative route option immediately to the south of Sandby Court has been investigated in outline and involves the loss of some trees, the culverting of a stream and the loss of some landscaped land.

12. THE NEXT STEPS

Whilst a great deal of information has been provided by the consultants’ studies, it is premature to select preferred routes until more information is available. This will focus in particular on usage, cost-benefit analysis and more testing of the localised alternative route options referred to in section 11 above. The testing of these options would in any case be necessary in preparing a TWAO application and for a subsequent Public Inquiry. However, undertaking this work now will lead to a minor delay in previously reported timescales for the submission of the application and subsequent stages in the development process.

Before the final route selection, it is proposed that there should also be some further public consultation targeted at the three locations where alternative route options are being considered. This could take the form of local exhibitions showing the results of the most recent investigations and identifying the range of impact and environmental, engineering and economic implications. Consideration should also be given to a further round of consultation along other sections of the routes prior to their approval.

The outcome of the further consultants work will be reported to Members early in the new year. Subsequent to route decisions a further round of consultation will have to be made on the detailed alignment with immediate frontages and stakeholders such as the Environment Agency and local business.

The change in the timing of the TWAO application will lead to an underspend of the network extension budget allocation during this financial year. However, the delayed work will be undertaken during 2002/03 and consequently it is proposed to carry forward any underspend. This will be required in addition to the funding allocation for 2002/03 to be made through the Local Transport Plan.

13. CITY TREASURERS OBSERVATIONS

It is not possible at this point in time to estimate what the underspend may amount to.

The current years LTP resources are being used to finance the costs in question. These resources comprise borrowing approvals granted for the development of the LTP itself and the advance funding for the charging Development Partnership activity. In both cases, the City Council has been issued “2 year Supplementary Credit Approvals” (SCAs). Members will be aware that no other borrowing approvals are available for 2 years, but this different approach is recognising the fact that these complex transport schemes require a longer development period.

When the carry forward has been determined an equivalent amount of SCA will be carried forward to finance that expenditure in 2002/03.

14. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

NET Line One is being designed to be Disability Discrimination Act compliant, with low floor vehicles and level access to facilitate ease of use for people with mobility difficulties. The network extensions will bring these advantages to a wider and larger population.

15. CORPORATE OBJECTIVES

Regeneration / creating local employment opportunities. The report refers to development sites and regeneration potential within the corridors to be served by the system.

Sustainability. By providing a clean, pollution free (at point of use) travel alternative, the NET network will help to protect and enhance the environment and will promote and sustain the quality of the city and the urban area.

16. BEST VALUE

Extending the NET system will add value to the public investment already made in Line One. The DTLR criteria for financing future investment include the requirement for Best Value, which will be sought through a combination of public and private funding.

17. Background papers other than published works or those disclosing confidential or exempt information.

NET network extensions engineering reports for Beeston, Chilwell, Clifton, West Bridgford, and route combinations. Mott MacDonald, October 2001.

Nottingham Express Transit Line One extensions : Environmental Appraisal of Options. ERM, October 2001.

18. Published documents referred to in compiling this report.

None.

19. Appendices

A Appraisal criteria B Map showing routes C MVA progress note D Mott MacDonald Executive Summary E ERM Executive Summary and DTLR assessment (NATA) F Public consultation representation from Lower Road and Compton Acres

Neil Bates EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - NET Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5NT

Contact Officer: Pat Armstrong, NET Project Office. Ext. 56713

Appendix A.

Appraisal criteria for assessing route options.

1.1 Operational capability

Providing the optimal operating conditions is fundamental to achieving a successful tram system which will achieve its objectives and benefits. These have been assessed by measuring journey times and comparing them with alternative modes of travel. The system must be reliable, with as much segregated running as possible and have high priority when interacting with other general traffic. ‘Pinch points’ and congested areas in the highway network should be avoided. Journey times are between the terminus stop and Nottingham Station. Additional journey time to Old Market Square is 2.5 minutes.

1.2 Costs

Capital and operating cost estimates have been supplied by the engineering consultants and subject to further refinement. The capital cost estimates have increased significantly from those provided in the earlier WS Atkins/MVA study, reflecting the more detailed subsequent investigations, their preparation using unit rates compiled from several similar project sources, the inclusion of trams, design and project management costs and a market escalation factor. Those costs exclude land, property and finance costs. Operating costs have assumed a frequency of 6 trams per hour, in each direction, operating between 0600 and 2400. In practise it is possible that frequencies will reduce in the evenings.

1.3 Usage

Outline estimates of usage levels have been derived using the Greater Nottingham multi-modal model. The main centres of demand, including employment, commercial, educational and hospital facilities served by the options are also indicated. Further analysis is required before a confident assessment can be made about the relative performance of alternative route options.

1.4 Cost–benefit analysis

The detailed transport cost–benefit analysis is required by Government to assess traveller and non-traveller benefits from the scheme and comparison of benefits with the cost of investment, maintenance and operation. Projects will normally be expected to have a benefit cost ratio of greater than one (benefits must be equal to or greater than costs) and not require an operating subsidy (revenue must exceed operating costs).

1.5 Integration with other transport modes

This will assess the ability of the options to cater for the expansion or further integration with existing and proposed transport infrastructure in the conurbation, in particular with bus, heavy rail and park and ride sites.

1.6 Development and regeneration potential

National and local objectives seek to integrate land use and transport and identify the importance of locating new development where it can be integrated with public transport facilities. Significant employment and residential development is planned through the Local Plan process in the conurbation up to 2011. New tram lines can also act as a catalyst for regeneration.

1.7 Engineering Impact

The feasibility of constructing the alignments has been assessed. This has focussed on ‘hotspots’ on the route options, structures, stop locations, the interface with the highway and the technical risks. In determining route alignments, several sub-options have also been investigated in detail. The Executive Summary provided by the consultants is provided in appendix C.

1.8 Environmental Impact

An initial environmental appraisal has been undertaken for each of the route options. Although at a ‘high level’ the appraisal has been based on established criteria contained in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Governments guidelines in assessing major transport schemes known as the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA). A full EIA will be undertaken on the routes taken forward for a Transport and Works Act application. The Executive Summary and assessment of options against the NATA guidelines is provided in appendix E.

1.9 Public Acceptability

This seeks to assess the views of locals, and to identify in particular where there are significant local concerns about the proposals. The figures quoted for responses to the consultation are up to and including 8 October 2001. The level of support for the proposals from key stakeholders should also be assessed. Appendix B.

Appendix C.

Progress Note

Title: Nottingham Express Transit: Network Extensions

Subject: Progress and Initial Indicators

Ref: C05903

Version No: 1

Date: 15 October 2001

Author: DC/mva

1. Summary

1.1 Initial patronage indicators have been developed for each route option. These measures need to be refined and expanded and full appraisals of the economic performance of the options need to be developed. This work is on-going and will be completed in the coming weeks in order to develop firm estimates of NET ridership based on the work outlined above. However, the initial indicators provide some useful comparators between the route options within each corridor and between corridors.

1.2 Annual patronage estimates rank the schemes in the following order:

1) Beeston route options with Chilwell 2) Clifton via Wilford 3) Beeston North 4) Clifton via Queens Drive 5) Beeston South 6) both West Bridgford route options

1.3 Extending the Beeston options to Chilwell appears particularly attractive. This extension provides the highest level of patronage, providing high levels of service from the large catchment areas west of Beeston and park and ride facilities at Stapleford.

1.4 For local catchments, the Beeston North and the Clifton via Wilford options appear to outperform Beeston South and Clifton Queens Drive, largely since the latter serve more sparsely populated areas and with longer end-to-end journey times. However, demand from the Queens Drive park and ride site offsets this lower patronage to certain degree.

1.5 The West Bridgford options both have substantially lower levels of patronage, due partially to a fairly diverse catchment area for both options and relatively low journey time differentials between NET and the existing bus network. Planning data and other underlying changes suggest greater growth in NET demand from West Bridgford over time compared to other route options.

1.6 Although a full range of economic indicators required to enable a detailed ranking of the economic performance of each route option is unavailable, in general, options that attract higher levels of patronage and provide faster journey times will generate more economic benefits than those with lower patronage and lower journey time benefits. Park and ride may be an important source of benefits, but only marginal benefits will be attributable to those existing users remaining at the Queens Drive site and to a lesser extent at the proposed Gamston site.

1.7 Scheme capital and operating costs also form an important element of the economic case. Costs for both the Beeston North and Clifton Wilford routes are less than their respective alternatives, whilst the costs for the Chilwell Extension are relatively low reflecting the nature of the extension. Capital costs for the West Bridgford options are substantially lower than for the Beeston or Clifton extensions.

1.8 The patronage, benefit and cost indicators point towards Beeston North and Chilwell performing better in economic terms than Beeston South and Chilwell, Clifton via Wilford offering improved performance over Clifton via Queens Drive; and both the Gamston and Sharphill options showing similar performance to each other but with low levels of economic benefit.

1.9 The following sections provide an outline commentary on initial indicators developed to date. Comments on each route corridor are as follows:

Detailed Corridor Issues: Beeston/Chilwell

1.10 Demand. Overall demand on the Beeston North route is likely to be greater, albeit marginally, than Beeston South, as the latter will benefit from the volume of existing park and ride demand at the Queens Drive site. The Chilwell Extension offers substantial increases in patronage over terminating NET in Beeston particularly with the Beeston North option. This is because the Chilwell Extension offers increased accessibility from the relatively remote and poorly served Inham Nook area, whilst also providing some local access from the south-east corner of Stapleford and offering park and ride facilities from the Stapleford site with access from the A52.

1.11 The Chilwell Extension also improves access within ‘greater’ Beeston such that a relatively high proportion of public transport demand from this area would choose NET for journeys to central Nottingham. With the Beeston South option the journey time and routeing suggest a much lower capture of travellers from Beeston to the city centre.

1.12 The Beeston North route options serve the University and QMC, with NET being expected to capture a relatively high proportion of demand from these important areas to the city centre. This assumes that a suitable stop location can be found on East Drive in the University and that a ‘main’ entrance to QMC is provided at the south of the existing building shifting the emphasis away from the current north entrance.

1.13 The Beeston South option provides for increased accessibility to the industrial areas around Thane Road, Electric Avenue and Crossgate Drive, however public transport demand from these areas is limited and the likely spread of trip origins suggest it may be difficult to achieve substantial absolute increases in public transport demand.

1.14 For all the Beeston options a substantial level of demand would remain on the existing bus network, principally on the longer-distance Rainbow services from Long Eaton,

but NET would attract patronage from the urban bus networks, particularly for the Chilwell Extension.

1.15 Economic Case. At present, firm economic indicators are not available to determine the relative merits of each route option. However, initial indicators point to a stronger performance by the Chilwell Extension than the shorter route options. The Chilwell Extension, in providing higher levels of demand and greater time savings, would be expected to score higher in benefit terms than the other options, at the cost of a relatively small increase in capital costs.

1.16 Of the two Beeston terminating options, the higher levels of patronage and time savings for the local catchments suggest that Beeston North would score more highly than Beeston South. This is despite the South option having significant levels of demand associated with park and ride from Queens Drive, largely since only marginal benefits will be attributable to the existing park and ride users at this site.

Detailed Corridor Issues: Clifton

1.17 Demand. The journey time benefits and routeing via Wilford afforded by the Clifton via Wilford option suggest a higher level of demand than for the Queens Drive option, although the volume of existing park and ride demand at the Queens Drive site suggests that the differences are unlikely to be very significant.

1.18 Of the total park and ride demand in the corridor, the expected demand at the Clifton site appears to be much higher for the Wilford option than the Queens Drive alternative. However, much of this demand is expected to move out from Queens Drive, with only a small increase in overall park and ride demand. With both the Clifton and Queens Drive site handled by the Clifton Queens Drive option, NET park and ride demand in the corridor would be higher for this option than the Wilford routeing.

1.19 The Clifton Queens Drive option provides for increased accessibility to the industrial areas around Thane Road, Electric Avenue and Crossgate Drive, however public transport demand from these areas is relatively limited. This option would only be able to serve the fringes of the Meadows residential area along Meadows Way.

1.20 The routeing of the Clifton Wilford route option would be expected to provide high levels of accessibility for the Meadows with two stops along Queens Walk. This route option also serves the Ruddington Lane and Wilford Village areas that currently have relatively infrequent and circuitous public transport routes. NET would be expected to capture a significant proportion of demand from this area, but with lower capture rates from the area immediately around Wilford Lane that has access to the relatively frequent and fast bus routes travelling between Clifton and City via County Hall.

1.21 For both route options, NET would be expected to capture a large proportion of public transport demand, but existing demand on the longer distance routes to/from Gotham and the south-west would largely remain on bus.

1.22 Economic Case. Although firm economic indicators are not available, it is most likely that the Clifton Wilford option would score higher in economic terms than the Queens Drive option. The Wilford option offers higher levels of patronage and time savings for the local catchment, whilst having a reasonable level of park and ride demand using the Clifton Site and, importantly, lower capital and lower operating costs. By contrast, the lower levels of patronage and time savings of the Queens Drive option will not be

offset by higher park and ride benefits; there being only marginal benefits attributable to the existing park and ride users at the Queens Drive site.

Detailed Corridor Issues: West Bridgford

1.23 Demand. Initial indications of overall patronage levels for the two West Bridgford route options suggest similar patronage levels, but with different sources of demand; the Gamston option performs better in terms of park and ride, whilst Sharphill attracts more demand from the existing public transport market.

1.24 Overall levels of NET capture are relatively small in both corridors. This appears to be partially due to the relatively low levels of underlying demand which are spread across a wide range of different roads served and due to the relatively small journey time differentials between NET and the existing bus network.

1.25 In terms of local catchment, both schemes will attract the same level of demand on the common section of route to Central Avenue. The routeing of NET along Arkwright Walk with two stops in the area, would be expected to provide high levels of accessibility for the Meadows.

1.26 The differences between route options emerge east and south of Bridgford centre, with the Sharphill route having a larger potential market and offering an improved level of service over the infrequent bus service on offer.

1.27 In contrast, the local catchment on the Gamston route is smaller and already has high levels of service provided by the out-of-town bus routes to Radcliffe, Bingham and Cotgrave. The additional demand from the Gamston park and ride site over that expected for Sharphill appears to offset any differences in local catchment.

1.28 Economic Case. The relatively low levels of patronage and small journey time differentials between NET and the existing bus network suggest that both of these options would generate low levels of economic benefit.

2. Progress to Date

2.1 Following development of the initial patronage indicators, further work is required to refine and expand the initial patronage indicators and to develop full appraisals of the economic performance of the options. Key tasks include:

• Inclusion of more up to date scheme definitions being developed through more detailed engineering design, including stop locations, journey times and capital/operating costs; • Refinement of the forecasts of NET usage, including issues related to new public transport and park and ride usage, in particular the relationships between forecast NET park and ride usage and the existing extensive provision within the City; • Detailed work on the sensitivity of the forecast patronage to changes in the scheme specification and to other exogenous factors, including the likely responses of local bus companies to the introduction of NET; • Development of economic indicators for each route option, including incorporation of techniques required by the recent introduction of new standard appraisal software. This work also needs to consider the

approaches to the appraisal of park and ride; a shortcoming in the current software with no agreed approach yet developed; • Assessment of patronage and operational linkages to NET Line One; • Assessment of key interactions between route options, primarily in terms of local patronage catchments, park and ride demand and potential cost economies; • Optimisation of route options – key issues to be considered include refinements to stop locations, journey times and priority through the highway network and particularly in terms of their impacts on the highway network itself.

2.2 This work will enable a set of robust patronage and economic indicators to be presented which will allow the comparative patronage and economic performances of the route options to be considered. Complementary work considering engineering and cost issues, including engineering risks assessment, will also feed into this process.

2.3 Subsequent work starting in the new year will involve a further refinement of the forecasting procedures in order to develop a robust submission to Government during the spring of 2002. This submission is referred to as an Annex E and will start a process involving a detailed audit of the economic case by DTLR. This work will concentrate solely on the route options to be taken forward for funding, although the processes will be available to reassess routes not being taken forward as immediate priorities.

2.4 The forecasting work in 2002 will incorporate new traffic additional data made available in early Autumn 2001 and is likely to require a number of refinements to the forecast procedures to ensure full compatibility with emerging economic appraisal requirements. Following the submissions to Government and the audit review, there may be a need for further data collection and adjustments to the processes as required by DTLR and their advisors.

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

Appendix D.

NET Project Office Lawrence House Talbot Road Nottingham NG1 5NT

NET Network Extensions

Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary

Report reference 61985/10/E

October 2001

Mott MacDonald Spring Bank House 33 Stamford Street Altrincham WA14 1ES Tel 0161 926 4000 Fax 0161 926 4100

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

NET Network Extensions

Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary

Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description (Print) (Print) (Print) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) October RJ Park CTC Gibson DA Hand First Issue – A 2001 INCOMPLETE DRAFT October RJ Park CTC Gibson DA Hand B Draft for Client comment 2001 RJ Park CTC Gibson DA Hand Client comments C incorporated RJ Park CTC Gibson DA Hand D Minor amendments RJ Park CTC Gibson DA Hand E Minor amendments

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

List of Contents

Chapters and Appendices

1 Introduction 25 1.1 General 25 1.2 Summary Route Descriptions 25

2 Summary of stand-alone schemes 26

3 Summary of route combinations 27 3.1 Capital costs 27 3.2 Operational costs 27

4 Route overall engineering summary 29

Tables Table 2.1: Overall summary 26 Table 3.1: Total capital cost for extension scenarios 27 Table 4.1: Route summaries 29

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

1. Introduction

1.1 General

Line 1 of the proposed Nottingham Express Transit light rapid transit (LRT) system is currently under construction. A number of route extensions to this Line have been suggested. An earlier study concluded that three core corridors (to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford) merited further consideration. Since then, a further onward extension from Beeston to Chilwell has also been suggested for consideration.

Mott MacDonald were commissioned to undertake a review of the general engineering feasibility of the four route options listed above, to address particular critical issues and to develop further the alignment. This work included updating of the cost estimate and run time assessment. It also included consideration of network effects including network operational issues and cost savings arising by combining routes together. This report summarises this work.

1.2 Summary Route Descriptions

The four listed corridors consist of one or more core routes (which are not necessarily mutually exclusive) and numerous sub options. Summary descriptions of the seven core routes assessed in this report are given below. Detailed plans of the routes are contained in Volume 2 of the individual route reports.

• Beeston North (BN). This runs from Nottingham Midland Station to Beeston town centre via the Royal Ordnance development, Queens Medical Centre and Nottingham University • Beeston South (BS). This runs from Nottingham Midland Station to Beeston town centre via Riverside, Queens Drive park and ride site and the Boots site. • Chilwell (CH). This forms an extension to the Beeston options, and runs from the end of the Beeston extension to a proposed park and ride site at the A52 Stapleford Bypass. • Clifton via Queens Drive (CQD). This runs from Nottingham Midland Station to a proposed park and ride site off the A453, via Riverside, Queens Drive park and ride site and Clifton town centre. • Clifton via Wilford (CW). This runs from Nottingham Midland Station to the A453 park and ride site via Queens Walk, disused railway corridor and Clifton town centre • West Bridgford Sharphill Wood (SW). This runs from Nottingham Midland Station to the Sharphill Wood development site via Arkwright Walk and West Bridgford • West Bridgford Gamston (GT). This runs from Nottingham Midland Station to the proposed Gamston park and ride site via Arkwright Walk and West Bridgford

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

2. Summary of stand-alone schemes

The following table provides an overall summary for each of the core route options. This treats each route as a stand-alone extension.

Table 2.1: Overall summary

Option BN BS BN & BS & CW CQD GT SW CH CH optio n 1 Total length (m) 6470 7530 10010 11070 8280 8615 4340 4510 Length on street (m) 3370 3690 4880 5200 2190 5885 2770 3990 (52%) (49%) (49%) (47%) (26%) (68%) (62%) (88%) Length segregated (m) 3100 3840 5130 5870 6090 2730 1670 520 (48%) (51%) (51%) (53%) (74%) (32%) (38%) (12%) Length within City 5070 5440 5070 5440 5810 8615 1240 1240 Council (m) (78%) (72%) (51%) (49%) (70%) (100%) (29%) (27%) Length within County 1400 2090 4940 5630 2470 0 3100 3270 Council (m) (22%) (28%) (49%) (51%) (30%) (0%) (71%) (73%) Estimated peak hour run 20½ 25 29¼ 33¾ 24½ 26¾ 15¼ 16¼ time (Midland Station to mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins terminus) Average peak hour 18.9 18.1 20.5 19.9 20.3 19.3 17.0 16.6 speed (kph) Number of tram stops 9 10 13 14 14 12 8 8 (including termini) Estimated peak hour run 23 27½ 31¾ 36¼ 27 29¼ 17¾ 18¾ time (Old Market mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins Square to terminus) * Fleet size ** 5 6 7 8 6 6 4 4 Total capital cost (£m) 101.8 111.9 128.5 138.6 96.9 132.2 68.2 73.0 Capital cost per km (£m) 15.4 14.7 12.8 12.5 11.7 15.4 15.9 16.2 Annualised operating 2,790 BN + 3,560 BN/C 3,020 3,020 1,920 1,920 cost (£k) 5% to H + 10% 5% to appro 10% x appro x

* Assumes a run time from Old Market Square to Nottingham Midland Station of 2 minutes plus 25 secs dwell time at Midland Station

** Assumes 6 trams per hour in each direction. Excludes spare trams (but note that capital cost includes allowance for minimum 2 spare trams per extension)

Note: patronage levels and economic performance for each route are being assessed separately by others.

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

3. Summary of route combinations

Significant capital and operating cost savings would arise if more than one extension was constructed. These are summarised below.

3.1 Capital costs

Table 3.1: Total capital cost for extension scenarios

SW Route BN BS BN+C BS+CH CQD CW GT Option H (option 1) 101.8 BN (n/a )

BS 111.9 (n/a) 128.5 BN+C H (n/a) 138.6

BS+CH (n/a) 205.6 233.1 218.7 CQD 191.2 132.2 (28.4) (52.9) (27.6) (52.1) (n/a) 190.0 207.3 217.5 CW 179.8 96.9 (18.9) (18.8) (18.1) (18.0) (n/a) 180.6 190.8 GT 153.1 163.3 183.6 148.2 68.2 (16.9) (16.8) (16.1) (16.0) (16.8) (16.9) (n/a) 168.1 185.4 195.6 188.4 153.0 SW 157.9 73.0 (16.9) (16.8) (16.1) (16.0) (16.8) (16.9) (n/a) 261.3 BN & 256.5 CQD (45.7) (45.7) BN & 230.7 235.5 CW (36.2) (36.2) 246.9 BS & 242.1 CQD (70.2) (70.2) 245.7 BS & 240.9 CW (36.1) (36.1) BN+C 284.0 288.8 H & (44.9) (44.9) CQD BN+C 263.0 258.2 H & (35.4) (35.4) CW 274.4 BS+CH 269.6 & CQD (69.4) (69.4) BS+CH 268.4 273.2 & CW (35.3) (35.3)

NOTE: Main figures represent total capital cost for extension combinations; costs in brackets represent cost savings compared to sum of cost for stand-alone routes

3.2 Operational costs

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______Operational costs are indicated in Table 2.1. They comprise:

• Fixed Costs (ie those which are generally not related to eg length of route, service frequency) • Variable Costs (ie those which are related to eg length of route, service frequency) If more than one line is constructed then there will be economies in the Fixed Costs and Overheads; this saving would be in the order of £1m per annum if all four routes under consideration (Beeston, Chilwell, Clifton and West Bridgford) were awarded to a single concessionaire. If any two of the main routes (Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford) were constructed then the combined saving would be in the region of £400k. If the new routes are operated together with Line 1 then further reductions in Fixed Costs and Overheads together with some of the Variable Costs will be achieved.

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______

4. Route overall engineering summary

Overall, our review of the main routes has confirmed the general engineering feasibility of the routes under consideration. On engineering grounds alone, it is difficult to select preferred options and combinations of routes. Such a decision will need to be made taking into account economic/ financial performance and environmental benefits/ impacts in conjunction with engineering issues. However, we make the following general comments on each of the routes, and provide comment on specific critical issues.

Table 4.1: Route summaries

Note: references to Railtrack relates to their appropriate successor, when determined Route General comments Specific critical issues All • Nottingham Midland Station: major interface with routes Railtrack & station masterplanning study. Preliminary vertical alignment drawn up (crossing over railway and Queens Road & then crossing Crocus Street at grade) is at geometric limits – may require closure of Crocus Street at junction with Arkwright Street BN • Route serves Royal • Route adjacent to Lenton Lane will require detailed Ordnance site, QMC, discussions with Railtrack re their requirements University and • Landtake required along University Boulevard from Beeston Highfields Science Park, University playing fields & • 52% of route runs on tennis centre street. Generally this • Partial acquisition of Neville Sadler Court (Lower includes relatively Road) required. Options to avoid this include: quiet non-strategic • Via Broadgate pedestrianised area: requiring major roads – likely to have reorganisation & change in character of busy limited impacts on pedestrianised area tram journey time • Via Broadgate & Humber Road: journey time penalty reliability. However, with landtake impacts at junctions route does cross some • Via Queens Road: journey time penalty & impacts on congested junctions run time reliability. Routes via busy radial road and including Abbey would require major reorganisation/widening of Street/ Gregory Street highway with associated impacts on frontagers and Middle Street/ Station Road with risk of unreliability

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______Route General comments Specific critical issues BS • Route serves • At-grade crossing of A52 slip roads: vertical Riverside headroom is lower than the minimum required for development, Queens normal tram operation. This will require either Drive Park & Ride, significant realignment/ reconstruction of highway or Boots site and Beeston imposition of low tram operating speed due to sharp • Significant capital cost changes in gradient of overhead contact wire with savings if constructed associated safety measures to prevent unauthorised with CQD option access • 49% of route runs on • River Trent flood plain: may need to build track on street. Generally this extensive lengths of elevated viaduct to avoid impact includes relatively on flood plain quiet roads (eg • Discussion with Railtrack required re feasibility of Meadows Way), routing NET within narrow railway corridor east of although includes Beeston Station section along narrow & busy Station Road. Tram crosses congested junctions in particular Queens Road/ Station Road – risk of unreliability CH • Route serves Chilwell • Sandby Court: NET routes adjacent to Sandby Court & Stapleford park and retirement homes & doctors’ surgery. Requires ride site relocation of existing car parking and modifications • Relatively low cost to highway/ access arrangements route with no major • Highway interface: NET routes along Chilwell High structures Road which is narrow with limited visibility at priority junctions. Likely to require combination of forecourt acquisition, street closures/ one way systems, & alterations/ restrictions on frontage servicing arrangements • Open land: Careful consideration of route through open space from Cator Lane to P&R site to minimise local impact

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______Route General comments Specific critical issues CW • Route serves • Queens Walk: reorganisation required of existing Meadows, boulevard with realignment of pedestrian/ cycle route Wilford/Compton • Wilford Toll Bridge: reconstruction of bridge deck Acres residential required to accommodate NET and parallel areas, Clifton and park pedestrian/ cycle track & ride site • River Trent flood plain: potential impact on flood • Low proportion (22%) plain at Coronation Avenue to be discussed further of street running, with Environment Agency generally along • Railway embankment: Sensitive design treatment relatively quiet roads required to minimise any impacts on adjacent in Clifton estate. occupiers and to accommodate existing recreational Leads to relatively uses of corridor. Currently preferred solution high average speed & involves partial removal of existing embankment to good run time north of Wilford Lane and total removal south of reliability Wilford Lane. Landtake from Wilford trading estate required • Alternative options avoiding railway embankment route on street along Main Road/ Wilford Lane/ Ruddington Lane. These incur journey time penalty, with higher degree of journey time unreliability. • Potential park & ride site at southern end of former railway corridor, accessed off Wilford Road • Property acquisition (2 no. houses) required at entry to Clifton estate. CQD • Route serves • At-grade crossing of A52 slip roads: vertical Riverside headroom is lower than the minimum required for development, Queens normal tram operation. This will require either Drive Park & Ride significant realignment/ reconstruction of highway or and Clifton imposition of low tram operating speed due to sharp • Significant capital cost changes in gradient of overhead contact wire with savings if constructed associated safety measures to prevent unauthorised with BS option access (as BS) • Higher proportion of • Alternative option (avoiding crossing of A52 slip street running (68%) roads) crosses River Trent 400m further east. Would than CW – likely to reduce extent of structures & capital cost, but lead to increased Environment Agency may have strong concerns re journey time construction of new bridge over River Trent. Option unreliability would merit further examination/ discussion if CQD route is taken forward • Potential impacts on River Trent flood plain: may need to build track on extensive lengths of elevated viaduct

Nottingham Express Transit Extensions Mott MacDonald Stage 1 Engineering Report: Executive Summary Notts City Council/Notts County Council ______Route General comments Specific critical issues GT • Route serves • Widening of existing traffic lanes in Trent Bridge Meadows, West area: Widening required of existing Trent Bridge. Bridgford and Widening on approaches to bridge may require Gamston park & ride narrowing of sections of footway and/or strips of site land acquisition • 62% of route runs on • Arkwright Walk: reorganisation required of existing street, including along pedestrianised street with realignment of pedestrian/ busy/ congested roads cycle route (in particular London • Highway/ traffic interface: Route runs on street along Road) with little scope narrow &/or congested highways including London for tram priority. Road, Bridgford Road, Central Avenue (recently Likely to lead to high modified for pedestrian and bus use only) and Davies degree of journey time Road. Various issues including: loss of parking and unreliability strips of landtake to accommodate stops along Davies Road; reorganisation of Central Avenue highway layout; strips of landtake along Bridgford Road particularly at junctions SW • Route serves • Trent Bridge: widening of existing traffic lanes on Meadows & Sharphill Trent Bridge and approaches required. This may Wood housing require narrowing of sections of footway and/or development. strips of land acquisition Preferred option (SW • Arkwright Walk: reorganisation required of existing option 1) via Rectory pedestrianised street with realignment of pedestrian/ Road would better cycle route serve West Bridgford • Highway/traffic interface: Route runs along narrow centre than core option &/or congested highways including London Road, • High proportion of Bridgford Road and Musters Road. Will lead to street running, impacts on frontagers including: some loss of including sections parking; strips of landtake to accommodate stops and along busy/ congested at junctions roads (in particular London Road). Likely to lead to high degree of journey time unreliability

Appendix E.

ERM – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scheme Description

Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council wish to construct extensions to the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) system. NET Line 1 commenced construction in 2000.

Three pairs of route options and one further single route option have been proposed, each with a strategic route which serves key residential and commercial areas of the city. Each of the proposed routes has several “stops” and all terminate at a Park and Ride (P&R) site. The three lines where there are options are as follows:

• Beeston Options - These are referred to as Beeston North and Beeston South.

• Clifton Options - These are via Queen’s Drive P&R or via Wilford.

• West Bridgford Options - These go to either Sharphill Wood or Gamston.

The fourth line, for which there is only one option, runs from the terminus of the Beeston North and South options to Chilwell, and is referred to as the Beeston-Chilwell Extension.

The New Approach to Appraisal (NATA)

The performance of each of the options in relation to the Government’s NATA objective for the environment has been reviewed. Reference has also been made to Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-modal Studies (GOMMMS) (1).

The environment sub-objectives set out in GOMMMS, and the topics assessed, are as follows:

• Noise and Vibration; • Local Air Quality; • Greenhouse Gases; • Water Resources; • Landscape/Townscape; • Biodiversity; • Heritage; • Physical Fitness; and • Journey Ambience.

The overall aim of the appraisal is to identify where one alternative performs better or worse than the other with respect to each environmental topic in order to inform the decision making process, at the end of which one or more route options may be taken forward to a Transport and Works Act application.

The proposed NET scheme is broadly in line with the transport policies of national and regional planning guidance and the transport policies contained within the Nottinghamshire County Structure Plan.

The environmental constraints surrounding each of the pairs of route options and the single route extension are discussed below.

(1) DETR (2000) Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-modal Studies , Volumes 1 and 2, DETR.

Beeston Options

The Beeston North (BN) option runs from Nottingham Midland Station to Beeston town centre via the Royal Ordnance development, Queen’s Medical Centre and Nottingham University. The Beeston South (BS) option runs from Nottingham Midland Station to Beeston town centre via Riverside, Queen’s Drive P&R site and the Boots site. With regard to water resources, the BN route option is likely to have a potentially lesser impact than the BS option because BS passes through a greater area of flood plain and will involve the construction of a new bridge over the Beeston Canal. The BS option has fewer nature conservation constraints than the BN option which directly impacts upon two non-statutory Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs).

The BS option has potentially more planning policy constraints than the BN option although it passes fewer locations where noise impacts may occur. In terms of townscape, the BS option is less influenced by industrial uses, has lower visual amenity and is less sensitive to change than the BN route option. There is little to choose between the two options with respect to historic resources, although the BS corridor has slightly fewer listed buildings adjacent to the route.

There is no material distinction between the two options with respect to either the physical fitness or journey ambience objectives.

Overall, in terms of environmental impacts, the BS option is considered to be marginally less constrained than the BN option.

Beeston Extension to Chilwell

This route is an extension of the Beeston options to Chilwell running from the Beeston terminus in Beeston town centre to a proposed park and ride site at the A52 Stapleford Bypass. The route has several potential planning policy impacts. This extension would pass close to houses and flats in several areas and through green belt land. Three Conservation Areas are crossed by the route and may have adverse impacts. The existing level of road traffic is relatively low and the traffic noise level is expected to be typical of a quiet suburban area, except where local shops serve the community.

The route would result in the loss of some open space. It would have a slight impact on existing townscape. Sensitive siting of stops would minimise impacts upon the townscape and visual amenity, as will high quality designs for structures and features. There is an opportunity to carry out environmental improvements to the open space in the vicinity of the route. Detailed routeing should minimise vegetation loss.

There are no significant water resources or ecological issues associated with the proposed extension from Beeston to Chilwell.

Clifton Options

The Clifton via Queen’s Drive (CQD) option runs from Nottingham Midland Station to a proposed P&R site off the A453 Barton Lane, via riverside, Queen’s Drive P&R site and Clifton town centre.

The Clifton via Wilford (CW) route runs from Nottingham Midland Station to the A453 P&R site via Queen’s Walk, disused railway corridor and Clifton town centre.

Based on a simplified comparison methodology, the CQD option leads to fewer sensitive locations where noise impacts may occur. In terms of townscape impacts, the CQD option will also impact on significantly fewer sensitive receptors.

The CQD route is likely to have a greater impact on water resources than the CW route because it passes through floodplain for a greater distance and involves the construction of a new bridge over the River

Trent. Depending on the engineering solution adopted, the crossing of the A52(T) major junction may have potential impacts on the floodplain.

The CW option involves a greater loss of habitat from designated nature conservation sites, principally the Wilford Dismantled Railway SINC, and crosses green belt. Loss of the disused railway corridor may also have indirect adverse effects on the Wilwell Farm Cutting SSSI. Badger, a protected species, may also be present in the vicinity of the disused railway corridor. The CQD option also impacts directly upon non- statutory designated sites, areas which field surveys have identified as being of nature conservation interest and green belt near Clifton Bridge (A52). The new bridge over the River Trent is predicted to have significant impacts in terms of habitat loss from species rich river banks and possible indirect impacts on water vole and otter populations. Therefore, no route preference has been made with regard to the biodiversity sub-objective.

There is no material difference between the options with respect to historic resources. Also, there is no material distinction between the two options with respect to either the physical fitness or journey ambience objectives.

Overall in terms of environmental impacts, there is little to choose between the options, although CQD may be marginally less constrained, particularly in terms of noise and townscape impacts.

West Bridgford Options

The Sharphill Wood (SW) route runs from Nottingham Midland Station to the Sharphill Wood development site via West Bridgford Town Centre and Musters Road.

The Gamston (GT) route runs from Nottingham Midland Station to the proposed Gamston P&R site via West Bridgford Town Centre and Davies Road.

Both of the options pass through an Archaeological Constraints Area and hence further archaeological assessments will be required. Trent Bridge is a listed structure and will be directly affected. Old Trent Bridge which is adjacent to both routes, is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), and impacts to this feature or its setting in particular must be avoided. There is therefore no material difference between the options with respect to historic resources. The number of receptors potentially affected by noise is slightly fewer for the GT option.

The GT option is likely to have a slightly greater impact on water resources as it crosses the disused Grantham canal.

In terms of townscape impacts, there are less sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the GT route. However, this option involves a greater quantity of land-take, and therefore habitat loss, than the SW option. In terms of nature conservation the SW option is marginally less constrained.

There is no material distinction between the two options with respect to either the physical fitness or journey ambience objectives.

Overall, both routes are predicted to have significant adverse impacts on archaeological resources. Based on information to date, neither route appears to be more constrained than the other.

Summary and Conclusions

On the Beeston and Clifton corridors, Beeston South and Clifton via Queen’s Drive routes appear to have the fewest environmental constraints. This corresponds closely to the type of sensitive receptors (eg residential areas, schools and pedestrians) in close proximity to the routes and therefore particularly to noise and townscape impacts. On the basis of water resources the alternative option in each case is slightly preferred. This is usually related to a higher number of watercourse crossings. The West Bridgford routes are similar in terms of their constraints.

None of the route options can be rejected at this stage on environmental grounds, based on information available to date. The Clifton route options are considered to have significant adverse effects for biodiversity and both the West Bridgford options are considered to have significant adverse effects for historic resources. All options have associated potential environmental impacts which it is considered may be mitigated. A full environmental impact assessment will be carried out for the preferred route options, in conjunction with detailed engineering design and consultation with statutory and non-statutory organisations.

Proposal name Options description: Clifton via Queens Drive Park and Ride and Clifton via Wilford PROBLEMS OTHER OPTIONS OBJECTIVES QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENT Noise There are fewer sensitive receptors along the CQD route. No quantitative data available at present. CQD is preferred. Local air quality No significant impacts are predicted. No quantitative analysis possible at this stage. Neutral impact Greenhouse gases Traffic may reduce in the surrounding area as a result of the scheme, although any reductions in CO 2 No change N/A emissions, whilst a positive outcome, will be negligible. Landscape Not applicable Not applicable N/A Townscape The favoured option for the Clifton routes is CQD. This is because it will impact significantly fewer Not applicable CQD is preferred. landscape features. The route will also impact fewer sensitive receptors. Heritage of Historic Both options will have an impact on heritage resources, resulting in a slightly adverse impact. Sub- Not applicable Both options slight Resources options CW 1 and CW 2 pass through archaeological constraints and conservation areas and will have adverse - neither is a more significant impact on archaeological resources. preferred. Biodiversity The CW route directly affects 3 SINCs one of which will be lost almost entirely and may be important Not applicable Both options for badger, and 1 nature reserve. 1 SSSI may also be indirectly affected. The CQD route directly significant adverse - affects 1 SINC and 1 pSINC but will also involve impacts on sensitive floodplain habitat from neither is preferred. landtake and construction of the new bridge. There may be possible impacts on local water vole and otter populations. Both options are predicted to have a significant adverse impact. Water Environment CQD is likely to have a significantly greater impact on water resources than CW because it passes Not applicable CW is preferred through flood plain for a greater distance and involves the construction of a new bridge over the River Trent. Depending on the engineering solution adopted, the crossing of the A52(T) major junction may have potential impacts on the flood plain. Physical Fitness By improving public transport accessibility and reducing road traffic flows, each of the LRT options is No data available Neutral likely to have a positive effect to some degree. GOMMMS notes that impacts under this sub-objective will generally be small, unless significant opportunities for additional walking and cycling are provided as an integral part of the scheme. On this basis, each of the options is expected to have a slight beneficial impact on physical fitness. Journey Ambience Each option is expected to have a relatively high level of journey ambience and, overall, at this stage, No data available Neutral there is little to distinguish between the options under this sub-objective. GOMMMS notes that the scale of the impact should be classified as “small” where the number of travellers is less than 500 per day, “large” where more than 10,000 travellers are affected and moderate in all other cases. On this basis, each option is expected to have a moderate beneficial impact. SAFETY - ECONOMY Journey times & Vehicle op costs Cost Journey time reliability Regeneration ACCESSIBILITY Pedestrians and others Access to public transport Community severance INTEGRATION - Version of date Cost benefit analysis:

Proposal name Options description: Beeston South (BS) and Beeston North (BN) PROBLEMS OTHER OPTIONS OBJECTIVES QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENT Noise The BN route has more sensitive receptors adjacent to the alignment than BS. No quantitative data available at BS is preferred present. Local air quality No significant impacts are predicted. No quantitative analysis possible at Neutral impact this stage.

Greenhouse gases Traffic may reduce in the surrounding area as a result of the scheme, although any reductions in CO 2 No change N/A emissions, whilst a positive outcome, will be negligible. Landscape Not Applicable Not applicable N/A

Townscape The favoured option for the Beeston routes is BS. This is because it follows a route that is influenced by Not applicable BS is preferred. industrial uses, has a lower visual amenity and is less sensitive to change. The route will also have fewer sensitive visual receptors affected by the proposals. Heritage of Historic Resources Both options will have a slightly adverse impact. Along the route corridor for the BN, there are two Not applicable BS is slightly preferred. archaeological constraints areas. Biodiversity BS directly impacts upon one SINC and floodplain. The BN route directly affects two SINCs one of Not applicable BS is slightly preferred which will result in significant habitat loss. Based on information to date, BN would have slightly more significant nature conservation impacts than BS. Water Environment BS is likely to have a slightly more significant impact on water resources than the BN option because it Not applicable BN is preferred passes through a greater area of floodplain and will involve the construction of a new bridge over the Beeston Canal. Physical Fitness By improving public transport accessibility and reducing road traffic flows, each of the LRT options is No data available Neutral likely to have a positive effect to some degree. GOMMMS notes that impacts under this sub-objective will generally be small, unless significant opportunities for additional walking and cycling are provided as an integral part of the scheme. On this basis, each of the options is expected to have a slight beneficial impact on physical fitness. Journey Ambience Each option is expected to have a relatively high level of journey ambience and, overall, at this stage, No data available Neutral there is little to distinguish between the options under this sub-objective. GOMMMS notes that the scale of the impact should be classified as “small” where the number of travellers is less than 500 per day, “large” where more than 10,000 travellers are affected and moderate in all other cases. On this basis, each option is expected to have a moderate beneficial impact. SAFETY - ECONOMY Journey times & Vehicle op costs Cost Journey time reliability Regeneration ACCESSIBILITY Pedestrians and others Access to public transport Community severance INTEGRATION - Version of date Cost benefit analysis:

Proposal name Options description: West Bridgford Options: Sharphill Wood (SW) and Gamston (GT) PROBLEMS OTHER OPTIONS OBJECTIVES QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENT Noise Both routes are similar in terms of number of sensitive receptors but the Gamston route has slightly No quantitative data is available at present GT option is marginally fewer. preferred. Local air quality No significant impacts are predicted. No detailed analysis is possible at this time Neutral impact due to lack of data.

Greenhouse gases Traffic may reduce in the surrounding area as a result of the scheme, although any reductions in CO 2 No change N/A emissions, whilst a positive outcome, will be negligible. Landscape Not Applicable Not applicable N/A

Townscape The favoured option for West Bridgford is the Gamston route. This is because the proposed route has Not applicable GT option is preferred. fewer sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the route. Heritage of Historic Both options will result in significant adverse impacts where they cross Trent Bridge and may also Not applicable Both options Significant Resources adversely impact upon the setting of a SAM. No route is preferred over the other. Adverse - neither is preferred. Biodiversity The Gamston option directly impacts on the Grantham Canal SINC and involves a greater quantity of Not applicable Based on information to land take and therefore habitat loss than the Sharphill Woods option. In this respect, the Sharphill date, the SW option is Woods option is preferred. However, ecological surveys will be undertaken to more clearly define the marginally preferred. nature conservation value of the grassland that will be lost. Water Environment The Gamston option is likely to have a slightly more significant impact on water resources as it crosses Not applicable The SW option is the disused Grantham canal. marginally preferred. Physical Fitness By improving public transport accessibility and reducing road traffic flows, each of the LRT options is No data available Neutral likely to have a positive effect to some degree. GOMMMS notes that impacts under this sub-objective will generally be small, unless significant opportunities for additional walking and cycling are provided as an integral part of the scheme. On this basis, each of the options is expected to have a slight beneficial impact on physical fitness. Journey Ambience Each option is expected to have a relatively high level of journey ambience and, overall, at this stage, No data available Neutral there is little to distinguish between the options under this sub-objective. GOMMMS notes that the scale of the impact should be classified as “small” where the number of travellers is less than 500 per day, “large” where more than 10,000 travellers are affected and moderate in all other cases. On this basis, each option is expected to have a moderate beneficial impact. SAFETY - ECONOMY Journey times & Vehicle op costs Cost Journey time reliability Regeneration ACCESSIBILITY Pedestrians and others Access to public transport Community severance INTEGRATION - Version of date Cost benefit analysis:

Proposal name Options description: Beeston to Chilwell PROBLEMS OTHER OPTIONS

OBJECTIVES QUALITATI VE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENT Noise Sensitive house / flat receptors have been identified along the route. No quantitative data available at present. Negative impact Local air quality No detailed analysis is possible at this time due to lack of data. No significant impact. No quantitative analysis possible at this Neutral impact stage.

Greenhouse gases Traffic may reduce as a result of the scheme, although any reduction, whilst a positive outcome, will No change Slight positive impact be negligible. Landscape Not applicable Not applicable N/A

Townscape May cause loss of open space and some vegetation. Route runs mainly through Victorian style Not applicable Slight adverse properties. Heritage of Historic This section of the route passes through three Conservation Areas, at Cator Lane and High Road. Not applicable Slight adverse Resources These may prove to be a constraint, as any development must not be detrimental to the character and setting of these areas. Biodiversity No designated nature conservation sites are affected. This route would result in the loss of amenity Not applicable Slight adverse grassland. Based on information to date no significant impacts are predicted, although some loss of habitat will still occur. Water Environment There are no water crossings associated with this option and there are no significant areas of flood Not applicable Neutral plain. No significant impacts to water resources are predicted. Physical Fitness By improving public transport accessibility and reducing road traffic flows this LRT option is likely No data available Slight positive to have a positive effect to some degree. GOMMMS notes that impacts under this sub-objective will generally be small, unless significant opportunities for additional walking and cycling are provided as an integral part of the scheme. On this basis, this option is expected to have a slight beneficial impact on physical fitness, compared to the do-minimum situation. Journey Ambience This option is expected to have a relatively high level of journey ambience. GOMMMS notes that No data available Moderate positive the scale of the impact should be classified as “small” where the number of travellers is less than 500 per day, “large” where more than 10,000 travellers are affected and moderate in all other cases. On this basis, this option is expected to have a moderate beneficial impact, compared to the do-minimum situation. SAFETY - ECONOMY Journey times & Vehicle op costs Cost Journey time reliability Regeneration ACCESSIBILITY Pedestrians and others Access to public transport Community severance INTEGRATION - Version of date Cost benefit analysis:

Appendix F.

SUBMISSIONS FROM BCT IN RESPECT OF NET’s PROPOSED BEESTON NORTH ROUTE VIA FLETCHER ROAD, NEVILLE SADLER COURT AND LOWER ROAD

1. Social factors

The proposed route along Fletcher Road through Neville Sadler Court along Lower Road impacts greatly on the nature of the environment (in the wider sense) of the community.

Generally people are influenced in their decision as to whether to purchase a property by the location and certainly the people we have consulted have been heavily influenced by the environment in which their property is situated.

The route currently consists of two no-through roads. Many of the residents have been attracted by the fact that it is a quiet area with the only traffic consisting of other residents’ cars and bicycles using the cycle route, It is a relatively safe area for children to play out in, people with pets have chosen the area because of the reduced danger to their pets from traffic, women living alone have selected their houses because of the quiet and safe nature of the area.

We accept that many roads will have residents who object to the tram being introduced on their roads, but it must be the case that there is a higher social and personal cost to individuals in altering a road with virtually no traffic on it (and no public transport or heavy vehicles) to one with a tram traveling along it every five to six minutes in each direction for 18 hours per day. To put a tram on a route with existing traffic may have some advantage for residents and businesses along the route; the traffic may be an additional type of traffic but there may be some trade off (if NET’s projected figures are correct) reducing other types of traffic and therefore congestion. For people in the Fletcher Road, Neville Sadler Court and Lower Road area, there is no trade-off. The elderly people living at NSC have chosen to spend the later stages of their lives in a tranquil safe area. The stress they have been subjected to arising from the knowledge that the “preferred route” involves the demolition of approximately one-third of the complex is little short of shameful and is something from which some of them may never recover. They moved to NSC believing it was “a home for life”. They were not even included in the random delivery of leaflets which formed part of NET’s consultation process and learned of the proposal as a result of other residents in the area raising awareness. 47% of the flats are occupied by residents over 80 years of age and 3 1% of residents are between 70 and 79 years old. Even if the remaining flats were viable after demolition (and the Manager of Neville Sadler Court does not think they would be), or even if those residents deposed were re-housed in new flats built adjacent to the existing site, the environment would be completely different to the one they (and all other residents of FR, NSC and LR) had chosen and given the mobility and other difficulties elderly people invariable have, safety issues arise. These risks would still be present even if a way could be found round NSC.

The proposed route continues along Middle Street which includes five housing complexes for the elderly and a Day Centre for those with mental health problems, again affecting an area where there are a large number of vulnerable people.

Residents on Pelham Crescent are concerned that parts of their gardens may be subject to compulsory Purchase Orders and the loss of trees would impact upon the environment and aesthetics of the area. The statistics provided in respect of the tram show that for a double track almost the entire width of the two roads will be required. A feature of the roads is the fact that on street parking is readily available at present. Most of the properties on Fletcher Road do not have drives or garages. The front gardens on one side of Fletcher Road are very short and the tram will be in close proximity to the houses.

2. Economic factors

There is concern about the effect of the tram on house prices. It has been suggested that houses prices on tram routes actually increase in some cases. That may be true in certain circumstances. However, a comparison of house prices in the Beeston area makes it apparent that people pay a premium to live in quiet residential roads near to the facilities of Beeston town centre.

3. The consultation process

The initial leaflet delivered to randomly selected houses was vague and unhelpful. Many people who may be affected may still be unaware of the proposed route. There has been a deliberate attempt to mislead the community (see Memo) and as a result the whole consultation process is tainted.

4. Consideration of alternative routes

Some members of the community have put forward alternative routes, but these have been dismissed on the basis that there is a particular problem with each one. However the community cannot properly evaluate the alternatives without detailed information being made available which can be considered and if appropriate, challenged.

5. Hvdrogeoloeical factors, drainage and associated problems in the area

See attached

Ecology of the Flood Plain, Beeston

Hydrogeological factors, drainage and associated problems in the area of preferred routes for NET

The area of Lower Road, Neville Sadler Court, Fletcher Road and adjacent sections of Queens Road have a long history of problems with flooding and subsidence (1,2,3)

Residents have recently received a warning from the National Flood Warning Centre counseling them to take protective measures in readiness for anticipated flooding at more frequent intervals and to be more severe in nature. (4)

The River Trent, with its associated tributaries make it the core of the greatest river system in England. It drains more than 2.5 million acres of land and flows from the wettest area in England to the driest plain. The Trent is a perverse and fickle river, characterised by frequent flooding of vast areas of land. It is particularly significant that two thirds of the Trent Basin, including its major tributaries, is upstream from Nottingham. (3)

There is a long history of flooding locally (well documented -1,2,3). Reports show that once every 7 years floods can be expected which are wide enough to threaten homes. Throughout the area repeated floods have been serious enough to make local authorities and river boards construct substantial flood damage prevention schemes (notable examples being Burton-on Trent, Bulwell and Beeston Rylands) (3) Unfortunately, successful flood prevention schemes up river result in increased flood levels further down stream, so- Beeston is affected by ‘improvements’ at Burton-on -Trent.

The interaction of natural and man-made factors and the escalating effects of global warming lead to predictions of more severe and frequent flooding in the Beeston area. Building now takes account of these dangers and, for example, the new retail park on the Attenborough site of the old Chilwell depot, has been made on foundations raised 10 feet above the old level.

Existing flood banks, which have been in place for 45-50 years, have been the subject of intensive inspection. Officials from the Broxtowe Borough Council reported to residents in the Rylands that, during the most recent floods, which engulfed the wash lands at the Weir Fields, were only inches below the top of flood banks and walls and both showed signs of degeneration. Breaching of these defenses would have flooded homes over a wide area of Beeston to a depth of some 3 feet. Those houses on Lower Road, which are constructed on concrete rafts, have regularly had water under the floorboards which necessitated pumping

out. With its proximity to the Trent, many low-lying parts of Beeston (along the proposed Tram Routes) have a water table close to ground level. Even digging holes in gardens for fence posts can often result in them filling with water. Following heavy rainfall, the roundabout at Queens Road/University Boulevard/Lower Road floods. Lower Road has been frequently under water - prior to recent replacement of main sewers. Any substantial constructional work will encounter difficulties due to the high water table and can only add to pressure on water levels (5)

Geological Factors.

Lower Road, Neville Sadler Court, and Fletcher Road are built over a substrata of a 15 foot bed of peat and a clay bed of varying thickness. This forms a particularly tricky combination making the area prone to subsidence. Peat, well known for its moisture absorption and clay, which expands and contracts in response to variations in moisture levels. Construction in this area must take account of subsidence problems. Where due precautions have not been taken, properties have fallen down or been condemned. A number of houses in Lower Road were built on substantial concrete rafts, but are still affected by vibration and unusually dry summers. All houses in Fletcher Road have subsidence problems. Some 40 years ago proposals were made to join up Lower Road to Fletcher Road to provide a direct route into Beeston From University Boulevard. These proposals were abandoned when boreholes showed the grounds to be unsuitable for heavy traffic. When, subsequently, Neville Sadler Court was built, the buildings were carefully designed to spread loads and were constructed on extensive (and expensive) piles.

Sewage and Drainage Problems

New main sewers were installed in this area recently to replace the old system which had proved inadequate to cope with the extra drainage from new buildings, frequent flood overload, and resulting blockages. Construction of these sewers encountered a number of difficulties. Due to the low level of roads (Fletcher and Lower Rds.) it was difficult to provide sufficient easement to ensure a proper flow of sewage and as a result sewers are very close to the road surface. For example the sewer towards the end of Lower Rd. (facing house numbered 51) is less than a metre from the road surface. There were problems continuing the sewer beyond this point and it proved impossible to link up with the Fletcher Road branch. A complex of ancient drainage systems under Neville Sadler were impossible to track down and still do not appear on drainage maps from Seven Trent Water Board. An electrically assisted pumping system was installed. This is a delicate system requiring frequent inspection and houses numbered 80 and 82 Lower Road, still experience drain blockages which have to be cleared by Severn

Trent. During the construction of new sewers, the contractors soon found that their diggings rapidly became water logged. Constant pumping out was needed and extra loads of aggregate were used to enable work to proceed. Construction was delayed and went well over budget.

This area has special problems which impinge on any construction projects. This is a summary of some problems based on the extensive knowledge of long standing local residents, from qualified civil and construction engineers and from well researched literature from Trent Basin studies available from local universities and the National Geological Centre at Keyworth (see bibliography.)

Bibliography

1. Introduction to the history of floods and droughts in the Trent Basin. P.0.T 2. Hydrogeology of the Trent River Basin. Downing R.A., Land D.H., Allendor.R.,Lovelock P.E.R., and Bridge L.R. 3. The River Trent. NRA (National Rivers Authority.) 4. Environment Agency National Flood Warning Centre. 5. Applied Geomorphology. Verstappen G.

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

CW Route

Objections to the use of the Recreational Open Space in Wilford and Compton Acres for the proposed CW Tram Route

Authors:

The Wilford, Ruddington Lane, Silverdale and Compton Acres Action Committee:

Environment - Not Trams.

Representing the residents of Wilford, Ruddington Lane, Silverdale and Compton Acres who oppose the CW Tram Route.

Date: 15/10/2001

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Contents

Summary 1

Environmental Issues 1

Economic Issues 1 Main Report 2

Introduction 2

Environmental Issues 2

Impact on Wildlife 3

Local Amenity 3

Quality of Life 5

European Precedents 5

Impact on Ruddington Lane Playing Fields and Local 6 Parking

Economic Issues 6

Synergistic Savings 6

Transport Integration 7

Patronage 7

Economic Impact 7

Conclusions 8

Appendix I 9

Appendix II 12

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Summary

The objections to the CW Route are:

Environmental Issues

The CW Route will:

1) Have 'a major, adverse impact' on two areas of significant wildlife importance (SINC) (see Appendix 1) 2) Infringe an SSSI (see Appendix 1) 3) Destroy a local amenity enjoyed by hundreds of residents of Wilford and Compton Acres 4) Have a significant negative impact on the quality of life of several hundred homes 5) Have a major negative impact on the quality of life of approximately 150 homes that abut the Recreational Open Space 6) Be unprecedented in its location and impact when compared to other European Countries 7) Possibly result in the loss of some of the Ruddington Lane playing fields for parking or access during construction and operation of the line 8) Possibly result in increased on-street parking in the general area

Economic Issues

The CW Route:

1) Does not have any part of the route common with any other proposed route and has no potential for synergistic savings.

2) Provides less opportunity than other proposed routes for strategic integration with other potential tram routes.

3) Has limited patronage compared to the CQD Route

4) Will significantly reduce the value of approximately 75 newly built homes that are within 5-25m of the proposed track.

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Main Report

Introduction

The Environment Not Trams Committee was formed as a result of a meeting of concerned residents from Wilford, Ruddington Lane, Silverdale and Compton Acres over the proposed CW Route. The Committee has made strong and repeated representations to NET, the City Council, the County Council and Rushcliffe Council to voice their concerns and objections to this route. At a public meeting on 11 th September approximately 450 people attended and overwhelmingly voiced their objection to the CW Route.

In addition a petition was presented to the County Council on 13 th September signed by around 800 members of the local electorate objecting to the CW Route due to its environmental impact. Since then, and without canvassing action, the petition has continued to grow daily to some 1,000 signatures.

The objective of this report is to itemise those objections and urge the NET, City Council and County Council to give due regard to these very deeply felt objections. It is the view of the ENT Committee that the CQD route offers advantages over the CW Route and will not unnecessarily destroy a valuable local amenity nor blight the lives of a significant number of Nottingham residents.

Environmental Issues

Over the twenty-seven years since the railway line was closed, this area has flourished as a haven for a wide variety of birds and insects, foxes, hedgehogs, rare plants and other threatened wildlife. This has lead to it’s official designation as a “Site of Importance for Nature Conservation” (SINC). This means that the species of flora and fauna found there are significantly rare, and are of County Importance to Nottinghamshire. It is also an established nature trail much used by locals for recreation and has become an important amenity to the area.

To the North, where the trail meets the River Trent, there is a large pond surrounded by woodland and heathland, home to an even wider range of wildlife (also carrying SINC status). The Southern end leads to Willwell Farm Cutting Nature Reserve, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and of national conservation importance. Willwell Farm Cutting Nature Reserve is currently managed by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.

An even more important aspect of the Recreational Open Space (ROS) is its importance as a safe route for wildlife that connects natural habitats and helps prevent them becoming isolated islands and going into decline.

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Impact on Wildlife

The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust is opposed to the CW Route. The ENT Committee has taken the advice of the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and has been advised that the construction of the CW Route would inevitably have an impact on two SINCs and a SSSI. The NWT is of the opinion that whilst the other routes proposed do have some environmental issues none is as significant as those facing the CW Route. A letter from the NWT to the NET is appended (Appendix 1).

Local Amenity

The Recreational Open Space is an established nature trail much used by locals for recreation, and has become an important amenity to the area. Typical views of it are shown on the following page:

Many people use it as a safe place to walk, jog or ride cycles away from the danger of traffic. If the tram is put through here this amenity will be lost and more people will forced to use roadways with the inevitable and statistically documented increased risk from vehicle traffic to pedestrian and cyclist safety .

The ROS also has been a major factor in the decision by residents to live in the area. Virtually, every resident whose home abuts the ROS has been assured by Rushcliffe Council that there were no plans to use the ROS for any other purpose. It would be both unethical and dishonest for any other authority to renege on that assurance.

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Quality of Life

For those homes within 25m of the track, the introduction of the tram will have a devastating effect. The tram is 11' high, 100' long, weighs 50 tonnes and it will travel at speeds of up to 50 m.p.h. The gantry carrying the power cables will be 19' high. To claim that this will not be a major source of visual, audible and physical (vibration) pollution would simply be dishonest. Those residents who live nearby the proposed CW route will have their lives severely disrupted. There are some residents where the tram is so close that it will enable passengers to look directly into their family rooms and bedrooms. Once the mature trees on part of the route have been removed the privacy of those residents will be further eroded. According to article 8 of the Human Rights Act people have a right to respect for private family life, the CW route being so close to certain residents will deny them of their right to live peacefully and deny them their right to live a private family life.

For these people there is the added loss of the wildlife and birdlife that frequents the area. Animals such as squirrels, hedgehogs and foxes all live in the ROS but rarely venture far away. Birds such as Blue Tits and Wrens will nest on the shrubs and walls facing the ROS but not on walls facing the roads or other houses. Many people actively encourage the wildlife with food and nesting places, and feel that they are making their contribution to conservation. These animals will be permanently driven away by the tram.

For those living further away from the track, the visual pollution of the gantry will remain and the simple pleasure of walking along a footpath without the disturbance of passing traffic will be lost. The nature trail provides a much- needed antidote to the ever-present noise from the A52 that everyone in this area has to endure. The City Council has been able to do precious little to alleviate the noise from the A52; the least it can do is to leave us what little open space we have.

European Precedents

As part of its justification for the Cinderhill Spur on Line One, the NET tabled to the House of Commons and the House of Lords a photograph of two houses close to a single tram track in Karlsrhur, Germany. It was not clear from the information provided if either of these houses were owner occupied homes or rented apartments. Nor was it clear if any compensation was paid to the owners. In any event, using an abnormal situation relating to just two dwellings to justify a similar action against over 100 homes is not credible.

The ENT conducted an evaluation (Oct 5 th - 8th 2001) of tram routes in Braunschweig (Brunswick) in Northern Germany, a town of similar size to Nottingham. No examples of trams passing through privately owned housing

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

estates or close to private homes could be found. With very minor exceptions trams were routed along the public highway.

This Committee maintains that the CW route represents a clear deviation from good practice in the rest of Europe and is probably without precedence.

Impact on Ruddington Lane Playing Fields and Local Parking

The ENT Committee have very real concerns that the construction phase of the CW Route and the creation of one or more stations will create a demand for more land either to accommodate the station or for subsequent parking. We are concerned that the pressure to appropriate part of the Ruddington Lane playing fields will be irresistible. No faith can be placed in claims from the NET to the opposite, as we can be no more certain of their assurances than we were of those from Rushcliffe Council. Also, NET have reneged on assurances regarding Line One - for example the bridge over the River Leen is not now to be lowered by 1.5 metres, despite previous assurances that it would be.

Economic Issues

Synergistic Savings

The CW Route is entirely a stand-alone route. It does not share any aspect of its infrastructure with any other proposed route. In contrast, the CQD Route shares almost 3km of track with the BS Route. This reduces the environmental impact and mitigates the overall cost.

The NET has given a verbal estimate that the CQD Route will cost about £130m as a stand-alone route. Of this, £12m will be for a new crossing of the River Trent; we believe there are several options to utilise the Clifton Bridge without reducing the traffic area of the bridge and without crossing Queens Drive. These options would reduce the cost of a crossing by 75%. We believe these options should be fully explored before a decision is made.

Transport Integration

The CW Route does not lend itself to connection to any other of the proposed corridors. This line would remain a single line linking Clifton with the City and is therefore less effective than other options in contributing to an integrated transport system for Nottingham.

Patronage

NET has said that a merit of the CW Route is the higher number of residential properties it would serve in comparison to CQD. However, the CW route serves no valid public transport benefits because there are so few stopping points

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

available along the route. Additionally, the current provision of public transport (buses) in the Compton Acres area has recently been greatly reduced –

presumably as a reflection of low passenger volumes. Clearly, any modelling of forecast tram patronage for Route CW would be seriously flawed if it simplistically assumed a certain patronage per household and did not fully reflect these considerations.

NET have said that a key objective is simply to transport people from Clifton to the City Centre. However, anyone wishing to get to Lenton Industrial Estate would have to catch a second tram out of the City. At peak times the line would run at full capacity in one direction and be empty on the return. The CQD Route would provide access from Clifton (or the City Centre) to a wider range of useful transport-to-work and shopping needs destinations, thereby relieving congestion on the A453, and encouraging through traffic outwards from the City.

The attached letter (Appendix II), from Miller Birch (developers of the Royal Ordinance site on Queens Drive) together with an extract from the Nottingham Evening Post, indicate a clear preference for the CQD Route to support the possible creation of 5000 jobs.

Economic Impact

In our opinion it is naive and dishonest to suggest that any home within 50m of the CW Route track along the ROS, is not going to be adversely affected in value by the loss of the ROS amenity. For those within 25m the impact will be enormous. It is our estimate that approximately 150 homes will be devalued by tens of thousands of pounds each. It is blatantly unreasonable and unfair that one small group should subsidise this project to the value of several million pounds.

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Conclusions

It is the opinion of this Committee that the CQD Route represents the best option for the people of Nottingham because:

• It does not destroy a significant wildlife habitat • It services the Lenton Industrial Estate and a redeveloped ROF site, adding to its overall viability • It has synergistic savings in infrastructure and environmental impact when combined with the Beeston South Route. It is our opinion that several possible routes exist for the CQD corridor that would make this an economic and environmentally acceptable route.

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Appendix I

Letter from Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust to the NET:

NETwork Extension NET Project Team Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5BR

6/9/01

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re Proposed Extensions to the NET

The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) wish to register our views on the consultation for the proposed new routes of the NET. We are concerned that the consultation appears to give little detail of where the precise routes are intended to go, and this has made it hard for us to be able to provide accurate comments on the impacts of the proposals. We have attempted to interpret the information within the consultation leaflet as accurately as possible, but our comments at this stage may need to be amended if it becomes clear at a later stage that the route will have an impact we have not been able to identify now.

It is important to state that the NWT are not opposed to the development of additional tram routes in the City - indeed we welcome further provision of public transport facilities as a positive step towards sustainable development. However, it is important to ensure that at every stage of the development and planning of this project the potential for other adverse environmental impacts are also considered. A likely form of such environmental harm resulting from this scheme would be as the result of direct loss or damage to known sites of wildlife interest during construction.

Such an event appears possible to us from the available information at a number of sites along the route. We have provided such details as we can below.

1.) Clifton via Wilford Of greatest concern is the Clifton via Wilford route. As this crosses the River Trent it enters Iremonger Pond, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) designated for its good marginal and aquatic vegetation, and zoological interest. The route continues down Wilford Disused Railway SINC, a valuable wildlife corridor, with a mosaic of scattered trees, scrub and grassland. Then the route appears to cut across the northern part of the NWT reserve, Wilwell Farm Cutting, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Local Nature Reserve (LNR). The route through the two SINC's will have a major adverse impact on the conservation interest of the sites, and we do not feel that it is possible to provide adequate mitigation alongside this route. The later stage of the route, through the NWT reserve, will also have an adverse effect on the conservation interest of the site resulting from direct land-loss. The impacts here though are potentially more far reaching as the route could change the hydrology of the area, leading to changes of condition of habitat within the SSSI. The extent and

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

nature of this impact is hard to quantify at present, but we object in the strongest terms to any proposal which would result in an adverse effect on the SSSI.

Beeston South The possible impact on this route would be at the point it crosses the Canal. While there are existing bridges across the canal, it appears that the proposed route will go elsewhere and will therefore require a new bridge to be built. If the route will use existing bridges which need strengthening, or entirely new bridges, there is potential for adverse effects on water voles, which have been recorded in the canal. Water voles are a protected species and a material consideration in planning matters. Issues relating to them must be dealt with in advance of determining a planning application, not left to be dealt with by condition as has often been the case hitherto. Existing bridges may also support bat roosts, which are also protected.

West Bridgford (Gamston) The eastern end of this route appears to cross the Grantham Canal, a SINC, with the possibility of water voles being present. Our comments above apply to this site also.

Beeston North This route runs along the south side of Lenton Triangle, SINC, noted for its marsh and grassland habitats. While it is possible that the route it will adopt here is on the existing track, any plans to widen the track bed to create additional lines resulting in loss of SINC habitat would be unacceptable to the NWT. The route also crosses the River Leen, a major wildlife corridor through the city. In places this is a valuable stronghold for the water vole. Much of the river is in a degraded state, but there is again a possibility that there could be conservation interest conflicting with a new route. This issue will need to be addressed at as early a stage as possible.

Once again I wish to stress that the purpose of this letter it to raise some broad themes where we feel there is the greatest potential for adverse impact on nature conservation interest arising from the development. It is not possible to provide detailed comments at this stage due to the lack of clarity in the indicative maps of future routes.

In summary, our chief concern is with the Clifton via Wilford route, as it will have major unacceptable direct adverse impacts on two SINCs, and the potential for substantial indirect impacts on Wilwell Farm Cutting SSSI. Other routes cause concern as they have potential for more restricted impacts on nature conservation interest at specific points but we are unable to determine the extent to which this is an issue or where this will be.

The NWT are anxious to avoid any damage to the SSSI, and other wildlife sites or protected species habitat, and are be keen to meet with the NET representatives at as early a stage as possible to ensure that routes selected avoid unnecessary conflicts. We look forward to hearing from you soon with assurances that the impacts we have identified are being considered, and accommodated in your plans.

Yours sincerely

Sven Rufus Conservation Officer

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

Appendix II

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)

. . Wilford and. Compton Acres Action Committee . . Environment - Not Trams (ENT)