Responses to Objections

The Nottingham Express Transit System Order

Evidence on behalf of the Promoters: Objections Response NET.P8/A

CONTENTS Pages

1.

Introduction

2-8

2.

The principles of the scheme

9 - 33

3.

General construction issues

33 - 37

4.

General issues about NET Phase Two operation

37 - 43

5.

Other general issues

43 - 55

6.

Issues about the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route

55 - 68

7.

Issues about the Clifton via Wilford route

68 - 77

8.

Issues about listed buildings and conservations areas

77 - 78

9.

Declaration

78 - 79

1.

Introduction

1.1

This Proof of Evidence [NET.P8/A] is a joint response prepared by the NET Promoters’ witnesses to the majority of the generic issues raised by objectors. It has been based on Appendix C to the NET Promoters’ Statement of Case [NET.A26], but updated and expanded as necessary, e.g. to include those new generic points raised in objectors’ Statements of Case. Some generic issues are, however, covered instead in the NET Promoters’ witnesses’ individual proofs of evidence where it was considered more appropriate to do so given the context, e.g. Callum Gibson’s proof of evidence in relation to engineering issues.

1.2

This Proof of Evidence does not include responses to all specific issues raised by objectors; as such issues have been and are continuing to be responded to by correspondence and meetings with the objectors concerned. At the start of the public inquiry the NET Promoters will provide to the Inspector a list of all those objectors with whom the NET Promoters are still in discussion and/or negotiating, and a series of files containing under numbered tabs the NET Promoters’ written responses to all other objectors (letters, notes of meetings, emails, etc) or, in the case of those objectors who have formally withdrawn, the relevant withdrawal letter.

1.3

The NET Promoters propose to fill in the missing gaps in these files (i.e. add material behind the relevant numbered tabs, which will have been left empty) one week before the public inquiry’s close, containing their response to all other objectors other than those who have appeared at the public inquiry or, in the case of those objections formally withdrawn during the public inquiry, the relevant withdrawal letter. (The NET Promoters’ response to those objectors appearing at the public inquiry will normally have been in the form of rebuttal statements, which will also have responded where relevant to the objector’s statement of case and proofs of evidence and attach relevant letters, meeting notes, etc. In some cases it should not be necessary to prepare any form of rebuttal statement to those objectors who appear at the public inquiry based solely on their original objection, as the Inspector will already have the NET Promoters’ response in the set of files submitted on Day 1 of the public inquiry, and there may well be nothing further to say.)

1.4

The responses to the generic issues raised by objectors are split into seven sections in this Proof of Evidence, as follows: •

The principles of the scheme.

•

General construction issues.

•

General issues about NET Phase Two operation.

•

Other general issues.

•

Issues about the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route.

•

Issues about the Clifton via Wilford route.

•

Issues about listed buildings and conservations areas.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

2

1.5

Table 1 below breaks each of those seven sections down into detailed issues and indicates, in relation to each such issue, which of the NET Promoters’ witnesses is responsible for the evidence given and who is therefore liable to cross-examination on it. Where more than one witness is indicated in respect of a particular issue, each witness puts forward the evidence in relation to his area of expertise only.

Table 1:

Generic Objection Issue

Promoters’ Witness Responsible

2.

The principles of the scheme

2.1

Is there a need for NET Phase Two?

2.2

Is NET Phase Two part of an integrated transport Chris Deas strategy?

2.3

Is NET Line One a successful basis for NET Chris Deas and Phase Two? David Carter

2.4

Is the tram subsidised and is it operating at a Chris Deas loss?

2.5

What benefits does the scheme bring to areas Chris Deas, outside of the city centre?

David Carter and Dominic Walley

2.6

Is the scheme aimed at commuters from outside Chris Deas and Nottingham who would use the Park and Ride David Carter sites?

2.7

Will people use the Park and Ride sites? Is Chris Deas and sufficient park and ride capacity proposed?

David Carter

2.8

Why not provide the proposed Park and Ride Chris Deas and sites but with a bus service instead of NET Phase David Carter Two?

2.9

Rail services should be improved instead of Chris Deas and introducing NET Phase Two David Carter

Chris Deas

2.10 How much will NET Phase Two cost and how do Chris Deas, you know?

David Carter and

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

3

Callum Gibson 2.11 Is the scheme value for money?

Chris Deas and David Carter

2.12 Where will the local funding come from?

Chris Deas

2.13 Can the money identified for NET Phase Two be Chris Deas used for other purposes?

2.14 Are existing bus services an adequate alternative Chris Deas and to NET Phase Two for the future?

David Carter 2.15 Could improving bus services and infrastructure Chris Deas, meet the objectives of NET Phase Two? David Carter and Callum Gibson 2.16 Are there any other realistic solutions?

Chris Deas, David Carter and Callum Gibson

2.17 What main alternative routes were considered?

Chris Deas, David Carter, Callum Gibson and Ian Gilder

2.18 Why was the route to Attenborough not taken Chris Deas, forward?

David Carter, Callum Gibson and Ian Gilder 2.19 Do the benefits of NET Phase Two Chris Deas outweigh/justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs?

3.

General construction issues

3.1

How will construction works be managed?

Callum Gibson

3.2

How long will the works take?

Callum Gibson

3.3

What time of day will the works be carried out?

Callum Gibson

3.4

How will noise and vibration be controlled during Steve Mitchell construction? and Callum Gibson

3.5

How will dust and dirt be controlled during Callum Gibson

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

4

construction?

3.6

How will traffic be managed during construction?

3.7

How will access construction?

3.8

How will parking be affected?

3.9

How will footpaths construction?

4.

General issues about NET Phase Two operation

4.1

What will be the done to address noise and Steve Mitchell vibration during operation?

4.2

How will visual intrusion addressed during operation?

4.3

Will the scheme make a positive contribution to Ian Gilder climate change?

4.4

How will light pollution be controlled?

Callum Gibson and Ian Guilder

4.5

How will traffic be affected by tram operations?

Graham Woodbury and Callum Gibson

4.6

How will parking close to tram stops be Graham controlled?

Woodbury and Callum Gibson

4.7

Are trams safe?

Callum Gibson

4.8

How has public security been addressed?

Callum Gibson

4.9

Are there any health risks associated with Callum Gibson electric systems?

4.10

Will NET be properly maintained?

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

be

maintained

be

Graham Woodbury and Callum Gibson

during Graham Woodbury and Callum Gibson Graham Woodbury and Callum Gibson

affected

and

during Callum Gibson and Graham Woodbury

privacy

be Callum Gibson and Ian Gilder

Callum Gibson

5

4.11

How will fares be set?

Chris Deas

4.12

What will the tram timetable be?

Chris Deas and David Carter

4.13 Will there be through services between NET Line Chris Deas One and NET Phase Two?

5.

Other general issues

5.1

How will NET affect property values? compensation available?

5.2

What has been the impact on businesses along Chris Deas and NET Line One? David Carter

5.3

Public consultation and land referencing

Chris Deas

5.4

The Environmental Statement

Ian Gilder

5.5

How were tram stop locations chosen?

Chris Deas, David Carter and Callum Gibson

5.6

Impact on trees

Ian Gilder

5.7

Impact on Open Space

Ian Gilder

5.8

Impact on ecological habitats

Ian Gilder

5.9

Ground conditions/subsidence

Callum Gibson

5.10

Has flood risk been taken into account?

Callum Gibson

5.11

Overhead lines and poles

Callum Gibson

5.12

How will the streetscape be designed?

Callum Gibson and Ian Gilder

6.

Issues about the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route

6.1

Lenton (Abbey Street / Gregory Street)

6.2

Route through the University of Nottingham’s All except

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

Is Chris Deas

All except Dominic Walley

6

campus

Dominic Walley

6.3

University Boulevard - Impact on trees

Ian Gilder

6.4

Beeston (Lower Road and Fletcher Road)

All except Dominic Walley

6.5

Neville Sadler Court

All except Dominic Walley

6.6

Beeston Town Centre

All except Steve Mitchell and Dominic Walley

6.7

Beeston and Chilwell traffic

Graham Woodbury and Callum Gibson

6.8

Chilwell Road / High Road

All except Dominic Walley

6.9

Castle College to Cator Lane

All except Dominic Walley

6.10

Cator Lane to Inham Road

All except Dominic Walley

6.11

Toton Lane Park and Ride site

All

7.

Issues about the Clifton via Wilford route

7.1

Queen’s Walk

All except Dominic Walley

7.2

Wilford Village - Toll Bridge area

All except Dominic Walley

7.3

Wilford Village

All except Dominic Walley

7.4

Wilford Lane - Traffic

Graham Woodbury and Callum Gibson

7.5

Wilford Lane – Tram stop and maintenance All except access Dominic Walley

7.6

Former Railway Embankment

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

All except

7

Dominic Walley

1.6

7.7

Replacement Open Space south of Silverdale

Ian Gilder

7.8

Clifton – Parking and bus services

Graham Woodbury, Callum Gibson and David Carter

7.9

Clifton Park and Ride site

All

8.

Issues about listed buildings and conservations areas

8.1

Listed Building Consent 1 – Nottingham Railway Ian Gilder and Station Callum Gibson

8.2

Conservation Area Consents 1, 3, 4 and 7 – Ian Gilder and Station Conservation Area Callum Gibson

8.3

Conservation Area Consent 2 – 1A Arkwright Ian Gilder and Street - Station Conservation Area Callum Gibson

8.4

Listed Building Consent 2 – Wilford Toll Bridge

8.5

Listed Building Consent 3, and Conservation Ian Gilder and Area Consents 5 and 6 - Traffic management Callum Gibson works in Beeston

Ian Gilder and Callum Gibson

Below is a list of the other Proofs of Evidence being put forward by the NET Promoters’ to the public inquiry along with the name of the responsible witness.

•

Project Strategy, Planning, Development and Delivery - Chris Deas [NET.P1/A to NET.P1/C]

•

Engineering – Callum Gibson [NET.P2/A to NET.P2/C]

•

Forecasting and Appraisal - David Carter [NET.P3/A and NET.P3/C]

•

Employment Impact - Dominic Walley [NET.P4/A to NET.P4/C]

•

Transport Assessment - Graham Woodbury [NET.P5/A to NET.P5/C]

•

Planning, Urban Design, Environment and Heritage - Ian Gilder [NET.P6 to NET.P6/C]

•

Noise and Vibration - Steve Mitchell [NET.P7/A to NET.P7/C]

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

8

2.

The principles of the scheme

2.1

Is there a need for NET Phase Two?

2.1.1

Many objectors have questioned the principle of extending NET, suggesting that current transport provision is functioning adequately.

Whilst Nottingham’s public transport is currently recognised as “award winning” it is not realistic to maintain a short-term perspective. In order to understand the need for NET Phase Two it is crucial to recognise the key issues facing Nottingham as a conurbation.

2.1.2

Nottingham as a City has a particular and important status in national and regional terms. Since 2001 Nottingham has been one of the eight “Core Cities” 1 , recognised by the Government as the most important drivers of the national economy outside London. In the 2006 Local Government White Paper (Strong and Prosperous Communities, 26 October 2006) the Government reiterated the importance of cities, as both key to economic growth and to ensuring that all have an opportunity to benefit from growth.

These twin objectives also feature heavily in the Regional Economic Strategy [NET.C19], and as the most populous urban area in the East Midlands, Nottingham has a clear role to play in their achievement.

2.1.3

The City benefits from one of the highest GDPs per capita of cities in the UK. The City Centre in particular is an economic success, with 60,000 jobs, and has undergone significant development in recent years. The existing NET Line One system has been a central element to supporting the transformation and growth of the City Centre. The Broadmarsh and Southside Regeneration Zone developments will provide a further impetus for growth.

2.1.4

Nottingham has been ranked among the five top shopping centres in the country for three successive years, and attracts an annual spend of nearly £1.3 billion. Local property agents report 400 retailers waiting to move in.

The City also features two of the country’s most popular universities, a thriving nightlife and a fast changing cityscape in which many millions of pounds are currently being invested.

2.1.5

Job growth has increased recently, and growth across Greater Nottingham is projected to continue in line with the UK average. The area remains a key employment centre in the East Midlands region. The City is an important employment destination, and more than half of jobs based there are taken by people living outside the City. Whilst this has helped the economy it has also created additional travel pressures across the conurbation.

2.1.6

As well as its importance in economic terms regionally, Nottingham’s regional centre status demands that the City offers good access and an attractive gateway to other areas within the region, most notably the other

1

alongside Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

9

key centres of Derby and Leicester and between regions. NET Line One, integrated effectively with other transport services, has been a key element in providing this access from north of the city and its interchange with Nottingham Railway Station.

2.1.7

Nottingham has been identified as a Growth Point where significant housing growth and the development of sustainable communities is planned. It is proposed that the Growth Point would represent an increase, between 2006 and 2021, of over 7,500 homes (close to 25%) over what would be planned in any case. This increase will inevitably drive further demand for travel and associated pressures on available transport infrastructure and services. In terms of the Growth Point, the 3 Cities (Nottingham, Leicester and Derby) and 3 Counties (Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire) are collaborating to prepare a joint Programme of Development for submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in October 2007. DCLG expects high quality transport solutions. NET Phase Two has the potential to support the overall Growth Point objectives – linking new housing sites to existing communities and opportunities and reducing overall traffic impacts of new development in terms of capacity, congestion and pollution.

2.1.8

Though exhibiting economic success and vitality, Nottingham, in common with many big cities, also has some significant regeneration issues to address.

2.1.9

Despite Nottingham’s economic successes, not all have benefited. Many residents in communities in the inner city and outer estates remain disconnected from the opportunities that have been created in the City Centre. Nottingham is the 7th most deprived district in England according to the 2004 Indices of Deprivation. Many residents remain out of work; 20% of adults are claiming at least one working age benefit. Many others are in low skilled, low paid jobs which may be threatened as the economy changes and becomes more knowledge-intensive. The Regional Economic Strategy sees it as the responsibility of all partners to improve the life chances of current and future residents, and it makes economic good sense too. A bigger and better-skilled workforce will help businesses grow to their full potential.

2.1.10 Some of the City’s most deprived areas lie to the south of the City Centre.

The Meadows area is within the three percent of most deprived wards in England. Clifton estate is within the eight percent most deprived. These areas have high rates of economic inactivity and low levels of car ownership. Parts of Beeston and west Chilwell are also in the lowest quartile of deprived wards. NET Phase Two also has the potential to improve linkages with deprived communities along the NET Line One corridor.

2.1.11 Three key regeneration zones that aim to be a focus for new investment have been established:

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

10

•

The Southside regeneration zone includes the proposed Broadmarsh Shopping Centre development and extending into The Meadows estate.

The 39 hectare Southside regeneration zone is to be transformed from an area with many vacant buildings into an area of mixed land use; Nottingham Railway Station and development of the NET interchange is central to the area and provides the gateway from the zone to the City Centre.

•

The Eastside regeneration zone consists of 56 hectares of land, 37 hectares of which is intended for mixed-use development. Central to the zone is the £900 million Island scheme – Nottingham’s biggest office development. Nottingham Railway Station marks the western boundary of the zone and the gateway to the City Centre.

•

The Waterside regeneration zone comprises 100 hectares of land and buildings along the River Trent and Nottingham Canal, with the first phase of building 128 luxury eco-friendly apartments already underway.

The regeneration zone could create over 5,000 jobs and attract £1.4 billion private sector investment to create a landmark development area.

2.1.12 These zones are under performing areas located between the prosperous City Centre and more disadvantaged inner city areas. At present these areas are physically and perceptually disconnected from both the City Centre and surrounding communities. Masterplans have been drawn up that seek to: •

maximise the redevelopment potential of previously used employment sites taking advantage of their location in close proximity to the economic growth of the expanding City Centre;

•

provide homes and jobs in sustainable locations particularly accessible to residents of the adjacent inner city areas that often currently suffer the highest levels of deprivation;

•

achieve effective regeneration of traffic dominated environments and address deficiencies in terms of public transport, walking and cycling links as part of a comprehensive package of planning and transport interventions; and

•

significantly enhance the urban realm and extend the environmental quality into areas currently exhibiting poor quality in this respect.

2.1.13 The provision of public transport infrastructure and services of high quality, reliability and capacity will be critical to ensuring that deprived communities and regeneration areas are accessible and attractive to residents and investors.

2.1.14 As outlined in 2.1.2, Nottingham is one of the eight Core Cities in the country. The success of Nottingham as a place to live and work is placing increasing pressure on the transport network. If recent high levels of investment continue, further strong employment growth is forecast. This,

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

11

together with social and demographic changes within the Greater Nottingham conurbation, means that substantial increase in the number of households is also expected. In common with most other successful cities, Nottingham already suffers from severe traffic congestion, particularly at peak periods on main routes into the city and along the ring road. The congestion which costs the economy ÂŁ160m a year according to a East Midlands Development Agency report [NET.C24] is a challenge that the conurbation needs to address now if it is to continue to grow as a vibrant and attractive area to live, work and visit in the future.

2.1.15

Development of a high quality sustainable public transport system is therefore essential to ensure that high levels of traffic congestion do not stifle economic vitality in the city and wider region. Public transport can play its part in delivering the transport capacity needed to meet future economic, environmental and social challenges, provided its alignment/route is kept clear of congestion. NET Phase Two being largely segregated will be of fundamental importance in delivering this impact.

2.1.16 NET Phase Two is a key element in the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) [NET.C22] - a plan produced in accordance with statutory requirements and in full consultation with the Councils, businesses and the public. The LTP identifies seven key objectives. NET is strongly aligned to four of the seven objectives (congestion, accessibility, air quality, and regeneration) and supports the achievement of a further two (safety, and quality of life). With the prospect of long-term growth in traffic it is essential that measures are taken now to alter travel behaviour and to facilitate a cultural change towards more sustainable alternatives, to minimise rising car use. The combination of high capacity with low impact on street space, particularly in the tightly constrained City Centre, makes NET Phase Two essential to provide the step change to meet these requirements.

2.1.17

One of the key objectives of NET Phase Two is the provision of a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys. This will help to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including the A453 and A52, which have been identified as essential in the government commissioned multi modal studies. Drivers changing travel behaviour as a result of the introduction of NET Phase Two would have a significant impact on the expected growth in car usage, by walking to get to NET tram stops, by interchanging from existing bus services or feeder bus routes, or by driving to use park and ride sites. For example, NET Phase Two is expected to reduce the growth of peak hour car journeys to and from all central area locations by one third between 2006 and 2021 to only 9%.

Also in the busy south and south-west segments of the city outside the ring road between the A453 and A609, NET Phase Two is expected to reduce the increase in peak hour vehicle kilometres during the period 2006 to 2021 from over 3% to less than 1%. The A453 and A52 routes are crucial to maintaining the accessibility of Nottingham to its national and regional markets via the M1 motorway and were specifically identified as suffering from recurrent delays in the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA)

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

12

report [NET.C24]. These two principal routes into the conurbation from the M1 would be served by the NET Phase Two routes, including accessible park and ride sites at Clifton and Toton Lane.

2.1.18

Whilst traffic growth would be limited to some extent by the effects of congestion, economic growth and regeneration would be seriously constrained. It is most important that the transport network has the capacity to maintain the economic vitality of the Greater Nottingham area. Another key objective of NET Phase Two is to create a significant increase in the capacity of the public transport network that would enable increasing numbers of people to access employment and facilities in the region, so avoiding travel by car with its consequent impacts on congestion and the environment.

2.1.19 NET Line One currently carries 10 million passengers per annum and has contributed to a growth in public transport usage in Nottingham of 8% over 5 years, which is in stark contrast with most other UK cities. The wider network that would be developed with NET Phase Two would further enhance public transport usage and the contribution that sustainable transport modes can make to maintaining the economic vitality of Greater Nottingham.

With the full network operating, well over 20 million passengers per annum are expected to travel on the NET system.

2.1.20 NET Line One has demonstrated that trams can attract people from cars, with around 30% of users having changed from car or using park and ride sites, and the NET Phase Two routes, with the associated park and ride facilities, represent an essential component of the wider integrated transport strategy for Greater Nottingham to meet local transport needs and broader conurbation demands.

2.1.21 Further objectives of NET Phase Two include improving accessibility and assisting in reducing social exclusion. “Accessibility� is the extent to which a wide range of places and opportunities can be accessed within a reasonable time. NET Line One has already shown it can deliver many accessibility benefits, including much easier access to tram stops and trams, high levels of journey time reliability and linking key travel destinations. The low floor trams and design of the system make it particularly easy to use by people with disabilities, the mobility impaired, the elderly and parents with young children. In providing a cross-city network linking key employment, health and education sites, both for residents living on the NET Phase Two routes and those served by NET Line One, the extended NET system would offer enhanced journey opportunities and improved community participation.

2.1.22 The wider NET network will support new commercial and residential developments. NET is regarded by developers and their investors as an asset and they are keen for tram stops to be located in close proximity to their developments. The use of NET images to promote development opportunities along the proposed routes of NET Phase Two, such as at the ng2 business park, shows this. The strong linking of land use and transport

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

13

planning, in concentrating developments around high capacity, and high quality public transport facilities will provide for sustainable economic growth. Other examples of this strategy can be seen at sites served by NET Phase Two including Highfields Science and Technology Park and Beeston Town Centre.

2.2

Is NET Phase Two part of an integrated transport strategy?

2.2.1

NET Phase Two is a key component of the local and regional strategies for land use planning and economic development and is consistent with transport policies at national, regional, county and local level. In particular the proposals are fully consistent with the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) [NET.C22], the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands [NET.C20] and the City of Nottingham [NET.C28], Broxtowe [NET.C35] and Rushcliffe [NET.C34] Local Plans.

2.2.2

The transport strategy for Greater Nottingham is well established, having been developed through public participation over many years, and is focussed on improving access to the City Centre and surrounding district centres by developing greater transport choice and capacity. In particular the transport strategy proposes investment in public transport to meet future transport needs, supported by demand management measures, such as actions that cut down the use of cars.

2.2.3

As one of the key elements in the LTP, NET Phase Two contributes significantly to key policy objectives including reducing congestion, improving accessibility, supporting regeneration and maintaining economic growth in Nottingham and surrounding areas. The NET network is considered to be a fundamental element of the LTP because of the considerable change in public transport use it is expected to achieve.

2.2.4

Improving public transport provision is an important part of the Nottingham’s transport strategy which will be achieved in part by greater integration of tram and bus services and through a bus network development strategy. In this respect, the Government commissioned M1 and A453 multi-modal studies also concluded that NET Phase Two would play an important role in reducing traffic flows into Nottingham city centre. It would relieve pressure on the strategic road network, with particular benefits for the A453 and A52 routes. As mentioned in 2.1 above these roads are crucial to maintaining the accessibility of Nottingham to its national and regional markets via the M1 and have been specifically identified as suffering from recurrent delays in the above mentioned EMDA report [NET.C24].

2.2.5

The new NET Phase Two park and ride sites at Toton Lane and Clifton, with a capacity of 2400 spaces, are an important part of the overall transport strategy. In particular, the NET Phase Two sites will assist in managing traffic flows in the busy south and west corridors of the A52 and A453 which provide access to the M1 and will form part of the network of sites across Greater Nottingham, serving both local communities and the strategic road network. The NET park and ride sites would also enable longer distance

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

14

car commuters and those travelling in the off-peak periods to use a more sustainable and environmentally friendly form of transport into the heart of the City and beyond (without the need to change trams) and to key centres such as the University of Nottingham and Queen’s Medical Centre, where parking is limited. Bus feeder services would be developed including to the Beeston Rylands area (serving in particular Boots) to enhance provision for outer areas and less accessible estates, whilst also improving general access to the district centres, as has been the case on NET Line One with the Hucknall Connect service that links the Hucknall estates to the town centre, and also serves NET. 2.3

Is NET Line One a successful basis for NET Phase Two?

2.3.1

NET Line One is a success. It has been successfully delivered and people have adapted to the changed environment due to its introduction. Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, on 10th November 2004 [NET.C18/1], Sir David Rowlands, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport acknowledged Nottingham “got everything just about right… with proper park and ride provision, vehicles that work, well integrated with the local bus system, and so on….a success by any standards.” He went on to suggest he “cannot see any reason in principle why the Nottingham system should not be expanded.”

2.3.2

In its first year of operation (2004/5) NET Line One carried 8.5 million passengers; this increased to over 10 million last year; more than 30,000 trips per weekday on average. This has resulted in significant shift to public transport with around 30% of passengers estimated as having transferred directly from their car or using the 3,000 plus park and ride spaces served

by NET. It was always intended that a substantial number of users would be existing bus users, freeing up bus infrastructure for other parts of the conurbation.

2.3.3

The growth in public transport usage following the introduction of NET Line One has more than offset the transfer of bus users to the tram and there has been an increase in public transport trips in the Nottingham conurbation rising from 71.7 million in 2000/1 to 77.6 million in 2005/6. This is in stark contrast to a national decline in public transport usage of 5% outside London since 2000/1.

2.3.4

Operating performance on NET Line One has been of a consistently high standard with system reliability and punctuality figures at 99% against the performance management system targets. A customer satisfaction survey in 2006 indicated that 93% were satisfied with the service provided, and 98% said they would recommend the service to others.

2.3.5

A survey of mobility impaired users on NET Line One showed that for these groups, the system, in offering a reliable, fully low floor and high quality transport system, has increased accessibility. People in the community who previously struggled with transport facilities can now travel around the city

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

15

easily and independently, giving rise to wider benefits that come with increased community participation.

2.3.6

Concerns have been expressed that NET Line One has reduced accessibility because its stops are typically further apart than bus stops and that bus services have been lost. The tram stops on NET Line One (and those proposed for NET Phase Two) have been located so as to be convenient and safe to use, and experience from NET Line One and elsewhere is that people will walk further to access a reliable system such as NET than they would to a bus stop. In addition, and as mentioned in section 2.3.5 above, NET Line One has improved accessibility for mobility impaired users. When NET Line One came into operation several parallel bus routes were maintained but reduced in terms of frequency and some bus services in Hyson Green were reduced. However, services in other areas close to the line, such as in Basford and Highbury Vale, have been enhanced to meet demand and overall public transport usage in the corridor has increased by approximately 20% in the morning peak period. A balance does have to be struck between the extra patronage gained from additional tram stops along the route and the increased journey time and operating costs that would result from the longer journey times together with the consequent reduced attraction of NET for passengers.

2.3.7

Some objectors have claimed that other UK tram systems are not a success. The opposite is true. Usage has risen on the majority of UK tram systems since opening with over 70 million passengers per annum travelling on the five main tram systems (excluding Docklands Light Railway and Tyne and Wear which are effectively Metro systems). Significant growth has occurred recently on Croydon Tramlink with the system supporting the enhancement of Croydon as a retail destination though providing direct access to the new Centrale shopping centre. Usage on Sheffield’s Supertram has increased dramatically since its early years, again assisting in enhancing access to the city centre.

2.3.8

All of the UK systems have provided accessibility benefits to many user groups, especially those travelling with prams and pushchairs or heavy luggage. Although the numbers of wheelchair users in society as a whole is small, especially on public transport, there have been real benefits to some, with opportunities for independent travel that did not exist or was very difficult before the arrival of light rail systems.

2.3.9

It is accepted that in some cases the ‘press’ for light rail has not always been positive, with some shortfalls in expected patronage and financing issues affecting some, such as Croydon Tramlink. Nevertheless the systems are carrying high passenger volumes and offering significant benefits for many users; journey time, reliability, accessibility and quality improvements.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

16

2.4

Is the tram subsidised and is it operating at a loss?

2.4.1

Some objectors have asserted that travellers on NET Line One receive a subsidy of £2.47 per journey. This is simply not the case, as the operating costs of NET Line One are fully met by fares. The majority of the funding for the construction of NET Line One came from bank loans, taken out by Arrow Light Rail Ltd (Arrow), the company that holds the 30.5 year concession for NET Line One. Under the terms of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract a monthly “availability payment” is made by the NET Promoters to the NET Line One operator, based on the performance of the system. This is assessed against a number of factors, including reliability, punctuality and cleanliness – if the performance of the system has not met the set criteria, the availability payment is not paid in full. These payments are then used by Arrow to repay the capital investment in NET Line One they have already made. The payments are therefore helping to pay off a capital sum, rather like a mortgage, and are made for the infrastructure, similar to public expenditure on roads. They do not subsidise the operation of NET Line One and there is no subsidy for tickets on NET (other than for concessionary fares, as for buses). It is Government policy not to subsidise public transport operations and that schemes such as NET Line One should meet their recurring cost of operations through fares paid by users. The current operation of NET Line One and the economic appraisal for NET Phase Two are fully consistent with that policy.

2.4.2

Some objectors have also commented that NET Line One operates at a loss. NET Line One is not making a loss and Arrow has reported an operating profit each year since the system opened. Standard accounting policies, however, determine that assets must be written off equally over the life of the concession which means that in the early years of the concession the position after depreciation shows a notional loss; however, depreciation is purely an accounting matter and does not affect the strong cash or operational performance of the business.

2.5

What benefits does the scheme bring to areas outside of the City Centre?

2.5.1

Some objectors have mentioned that NET only benefits the City Centre.

This perception ignores the many benefits NET offers to local communities along its routes and also its potential to free up resources for the rebalancing of the transport network as a whole. NET Phase Two has not been developed in isolation; it is a key part of the Greater Nottingham transport strategy.

2.5.2

NET Phase Two has approximately 17km of new route and two new park and ride sites (2400 spaces) and, as part of an integrated transport strategy, is designed to provide a step change in public transport capacity in Greater Nottingham and an attractive alternative to the car for many journeys.

Nottingham already suffers severe traffic congestion on parts of its strategic road network. Trams have demonstrated their ability to attract people from cars and NET Phase Two, with the associated park and ride facilities,

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

17

represents an essential component to meet not only local transport needs in the city centre, but also broader conurbation demands.

2.5.3

Although the NET network is focused on the City Centre, NET Phase Two offers improved access to and from substantial residential areas, such as Clifton, Wilford / West Bridgford, Beeston and Chilwell, and to key attractions away from the City Centre. For example valuable links into Beeston will be provided from the Toton Lane Park and Ride site and Inham Nook, as well as improved accessibility to the Queen’s Medical Centre (QMC) and employment at Highfields Science and Technology Park and the ng2 business park. Tram stops are located near the University of Nottingham campus, Castle College, two new large schools at Wilford and adjacent to Nottingham South and Wilford Industrial Estate (off Ruddington Lane).

2.5.4

Additional benefits would also arise for the communities not directly served

by NET Phase Two and those who can avoid congestion on the radial routes into Nottingham by using the NET-based park and ride at Clifton and Toton Lane. Others in Nottingham and those accessing the city via the rail network will benefit from a direct fixed link access to the regional health facilities at QMC and the University of Nottingham.

2.5.5

Residents on NET Line One would also be served by the extension of the NET system, through cross-city services and linkages to key employment sites, the ng2 business park and other development sites, local services, education and training facilities and QMC.

2.5.6

Investment in NET from central government, supported locally, would act as a catalyst for improvements in the public realm and other environmental improvements. Opportunities to transform for the better a number of neighbourhoods along the route, such as within the Meadows area, Chilwell Road / High Road and both Beeston and Clifton town centres would open up to wider catchments. An upsurge in development activity adjoining the NET Line One route has been observed and regeneration benefits are envisaged along the route of NET Phase Two.

2.5.7

Regeneration would also be stimulated by the confidence given to business and developments that a high-quality transport system offers. By bringing in significant government funding, NET Phase Two would unlock development potential and support regeneration across the city pulling in further private sector funding into the Greater Nottingham area. Impetus would be given to both central area and outer development sites, as can be seen with the use of NET images in promoting development outside the City Centre, such as at the ng2 business park.

2.6

Is the scheme aimed at commuters from outside Nottingham who would use the Park and Ride sites?

2.6.1

In contrast to the objectors who believe NET Phase Two will only benefit the City Centre, other objectors have commented that NET Phase Two has

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

18

been designed solely to take commuters from outside Nottingham off the road in order to reduce congestion. Although providing appropriate facilities to encourage commuters to use public transport is a key objective of NET Phase Two, it is also aimed at providing high quality, frequent and reliable public transport for other groups, particularly residents living along the routes, enabling access to key locations such as the town centres of Beeston and Clifton, the QMC and Nottingham as well as the wider public transport network. This is reinforced by the predicted usage figures for NET Phase Two, which highlight that people using the park and ride sites would only account for only around 15% of the total users.

2.6.2

Access into the City Centre and district centres outside the peak times is very important in maintaining vitality and quality of life for residents and visitors alike. This is borne out by the demand on NET Line One where usage is strong throughout the day, not just in peak periods. NET Line One service levels have increased a number of times since opening reflecting the demand for travel outside the peak periods, particularly for shopping journeys. Demand on Saturdays on NET Line One is particularly strong, with the system providing access to the main shopping areas and contributing to the City’s position as one of the UK’s five top retail centres.

2.6.3

Although the service would be attractive to park and ride users, the very high frequency and high capacity of trams would provide plenty of space for people wishing to board the trams further along the route. By encouraging commuters to switch to public transport the benefits of economic activity are retained in both the City and district centres, while reducing demand on the road network, improving traffic flows for residents and others.

2.7

Will people use the Park and Ride sites? Is sufficient park and ride capacity proposed?

2.7.1

With trams operating every 7.5 minutes throughout the day (0700 to 1900 hours) the public would have a frequent service. The park and ride sites at the ends of each NET Phase Two route would help to reduce commuter traffic into the city, but would also provide travellers with the opportunity to travel outside the peak periods. Commuters and non-commuters use park and ride facilities for a number of reasons: to avoid central area parking charges, because finding a space in the central area is difficult or inconvenient, to avoid congestion when getting into the city or because of the attractiveness of the service on offer. All of these factors are characteristics of the existing park and ride sites in Nottingham which are extremely well used throughout the day, and offer good interchange with feeder bus services from surrounding areas.

2.7.2

The history of park and ride in Nottingham goes back to the mid 1970s when the Forest site, now served by NET Line One, first opened. Park and ride has been well used in the City since, with the development of one of the largest network of sites in the UK. NET Line One added capacity to the provision of sites around Nottingham in 2004 and proposals exist for a further site at Gamston. As such there are currently over 4500 spaces

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

19

available, served by tram and bus services. NET Phase Two would add 2400 more spaces, increasing the total to around 7000 spaces and contributing to around 5 million park and ride journeys per annum by 2016.

2.7.3

The proposed NET Phase Two park and ride sites at Toton Lane and Clifton are an important part of the overall transport strategy to manage traffic flows, particularly in the busy south-west corridors of the A52 and A453 which connect the city to the M1. Although these routes are also served by the Queens Drive Park and Ride site, much of the congestion occurs in and around Derby Road, Beeston and Clifton, reducing the potential benefit to users of park and ride at Queens Drive. The 1400 spaces at Toton Lane would provide direct access to the City Centre, but also allow travellers easier access to Beeston town centre, the University of Nottingham and Queen’s Medical Centre, further assisting in managing parking at these constrained key destinations.

2.8

Why not provide the proposed Park and Ride sites but with a bus service instead of NET Phase Two?

2.8.1

It has been suggested by some objectors that the proposed park and ride sites could be built without the need for a tram system if they were served by a conventional bus service.

2.8.2

Bus based park and ride solutions have been used elsewhere in Nottingham and will continue to be considered for future needs. Bus based Park and Ride sites at Toton Lane and Clifton would be affected by the buses needing to make long journeys on increasingly congested roads and this would result in reduced reliability and increased journey times compared with the NET Phase Two tram proposals. On the A52 and A453 corridors full bus lane provision is not possible and buses would inevitably get caught up in traffic jams, leading to a less attractive service to users. Also, buses from any new park and ride site would be bespoke with dedicated services running at high frequencies. For potential sites at Clifton and Toton Lane, such bus based services would require a very high number of buses to provide the high frequency and reliable service required for park and ride, with consequent high operating costs. As such, a bus based Park and Ride solution is considered to be inefficient and unattractive compared with a NET based option.

2.9

Rail services should be improved instead of introducing NET Phase Two

2.9.1

Although increased use of the national rail network would support the objectives of the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan [NET.C22], there is little opportunity for rail to offer the same benefits as NET Phase Two. Not only does the location of Nottingham Railway Station offer poorer accessibility to central Nottingham than either bus or tram, but low rail frequencies in the Nottingham-Beeston area and the location of and access to Beeston Station mean that national rail services cannot meet the same wider objectives as extending NET. The strength of the rail network is in

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

20

serving regional and national travel demands. Similarly, the East Midlands Parkway station which is due to open in late 2008 would not meet the same objectives as NET, as it would focus on providing access for long-distance rail services, rather than being a high frequency park and ride service into Nottingham Railway Station.

2.10

How much will NET Phase Two cost and how do you know?

2.10.1 Many objectors have commented either that costs are uncertain or that insufficient detail has been given about the costs of NET Phase Two. The NET Promoters recognise the importance of containing costs within budget.

For NET Line One the project cost to the public sector did not go over budget, and the NET Promoters are satisfied that the same would be true of NET Phase Two. Although some objectors make much of apparent cost increases during the development of NET Phase Two, some early costings (including the often referred to and misleading sum of £77m) were done for the purposes of options appraisal and comparison and did not include all common costs such as tram vehicles. Later increases have taken into account changes following consultation and market conditions. The NET Promoters consider the cost estimates for NET Phase Two to be robust.

2.10.2 These cost estimates were subjected to external scrutiny prior to the Secretary of State granting Programme Entry Approval in October 2006 [NET.B6] and include appropriate contingency allowances. This scrutiny was rigorous and substantially more detailed than the process that NET Line One was subject to. The scheme approved by the Secretary of State also takes into account early termination of the NET Line One contract and an additional contingency allowance, known as ‘optimism bias’. In other words, the costs approved by the Secretary of State already take into account the possibility of going over-budget.

2.10.3 For NET Phase Two, the cost estimates have been evaluated against the experience of NET Line One and also with knowledge of cost issues from tram schemes in other cities which have not progressed. For example, the reasons why some other schemes have not been realised may include cost increases in the construction industry and perceived risks in developing tram networks. A better understanding of these issues, and many others which inform cost estimates, has been essential in developing robust cost estimates that the NET Promoters believe the project can be delivered to.

The estimates include an allowance for industry inflation and were calculated in the knowledge of the possible impacts of the Olympics.

2.10.4 Taking all these factors into account, the Secretary of State agreed a scheme cost ceiling of £482 million (expressed as a 2005 present value), against which the Government’s funding contribution would be based.

2.10.5 The format for information provided on costs within the Transport and Works Act (TWA) application is standard for schemes of this nature, and was presented in accordance with the requirements of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

21

[NET.D4] (“the Application Rules”). The Application Rules do not require detailed financial analysis to accompany the application documents precisely because funding is the subject of a separate procedure. The Programme Entry Approval given by the Secretary of State was the first stage in this procedure, and if the Order is made, the NET Promoters would have to persuade the Secretary of State that the financial case remains strong enough to move to the next stage, known as Conditional Approval, which would allow the NET Promoters to negotiate with potential concessionaires. Following this negotiation, the financial case would have to be approved again, before Full Approval is granted and construction can begin.

20.10.6 Even though the funding approval process is separate from the TWA process, much of the financial information that was submitted to the Secretary of State in order to obtain Programme Entry Approval process has since been published with the NET Promoters’ Statement of Case [NET.A26]. It is therefore available to inform the TWA public inquiry. Again, this is standard for TWA schemes.

2.11

Is the scheme value for money?

2.11.1 In assessing the application of NET Phase Two for Programme Entry Approval (PEA) the Secretary of State considered in detail the economic value for money of the proposals. The decision to grant NET Phase Two PEA and award scheme funding was based on an appraisal of the scheme, identifying the costs of developing and operating the scheme compared with the benefits once the scheme has opened. With benefit to cost ratios in excess of 2.0 (i.e. with the benefits worth at least £2 for every £1 invested), NET Phase Two is placed in the ‘high’ value for money category.

2.11.2 The scheme has been appraised in full accordance with the guidance laid down by Government for major public transport schemes. The guidance requires that a scheme must demonstrate good value for money when assessed against the following five objectives: •

Environment

•

Safety

•

Economy

•

Accessibility

•

Integration

Overall the scheme performs well against the five objectives and the full range of potential impacts of NET Phase Two has been considered during development of the scheme, building on the feedback received during consultation. Changes to the scheme design, both in terms of expected short-term impacts and the longer-term effects on both the local population and economy, have been considered. Whilst the assessment for NET

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

22

Phase Two has identified some localised adverse impacts, the longer term benefits to city and surrounding areas in meeting the wider objectives of the scheme were considered by decision makers, both locally and nationally, to offer a strong case for investment in extending NET. 2.12

Where will the local funding come from?

2.12.1 Although central government pays for some national and local transport schemes, including small schemes that it funds through grant via the Local Transport Plan, it does not pay for the entire costs of larger local schemes, such as NET Phase Two, though it would still contribute around 75% of the funding required. It is a Department for Transport requirement that a local funding contribution is made to supplement this majority central government contribution. This is normal for all major schemes being promoted by local authorities.

2.12.2 On the basis of Programme Entry Approval, this local funding requirement for NET Phase Two would be 25% of the project costs and would be split between the City (80%) and County (20%) Councils. The two councils are already making a contribution through the funding of the next stages of project development and they are also making provisions to meet the remaining local funding needs.

2.12.3 The current preferred option to meet the majority of the funding requirements of the City Council is to introduce a workplace parking levy (WPL). The WPL proposals were subject to widespread public consultation in summer/early autumn 2007 with a public examination of the proposals having taken place in early October 2007. The City Council is also considering a range of other funding sources, including reserves, capital receipts from asset sales, contributions secured from local developers through planning agreements, local authority growth business incentive funds, prudential barrowing and potential future changes to the business rating system. The County Council is also considering the application of these funding sources, where available, together with revenue from its Revenue Support Grant and Council Tax. The final combination of funding sources will be subject to formal approval by the Councils. The Councils would have to prove the availability of all such funding sources before final approvals are made to proceed with the scheme, later on in the process.

2.13

Can the money identified for NET Phase Two be used for other purposes?

2.13.1 There is a common misconception that the money made available from central government could be used for other purposes. This is not the case as the money is ring fenced for the scheme and therefore not available for alternative uses in the local area.

2.13.2 NET Phase Two would be funded largely with money from central government which would not otherwise be available to the local area. Once allocated by government to transport, the money is not available for non-

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

23

transport uses and once allocated to a particular scheme it cannot be used for other schemes. The government funding allocation has been made on the grounds that extending NET offers a value for money use for the funds available. In addition, the scheme builds on the investment already made in NET Line One and would enable the NET Promoters to adapt their spending on other transport options to improve services across the wider area.

Furthermore, as no other scheme contributes towards as many of the objectives of the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan [NET.C22], no other scheme would be likely to qualify for funding from central government.

2.13.3. As mentioned in section 2.12.3 above, the local contribution to NET Phase Two is likely to be found largely from the introduction of WPL within the City boundary. The Transport Act 2000 requires the proceeds from any such local road congestion scheme to be spent only on measures supporting local transport planning objectives. Therefore, it would not be possible to re-route any local funding obtained from the WPL into other non-transport schemes.

2.14

Are existing bus services an adequate alternative to NET Phase Two for the future?

2.14.1 Many objectors felt that the existing bus services were satisfactory and that NET Phase Two was not necessary. The tram proposals, aim to enhance public transport and to encourage further usage and satisfy the future needs of Greater Nottingham, including meeting the challenges of maintaining and enhancing economic growth.

2.14.2. Congestion on some key routes at peak times is a problem. With rising traffic levels in the future, congestion will continue to grow. Much work has been done to give buses priority on the main routes throughout Greater Nottingham, but with limited additional opportunity for further priority measures the reliability and journey times of buses will inevitably suffer as congestion grows. Unless buses have much greater total separation from other road traffic they would not provide the long term answer to growing traffic congestion. By contrast, the tram would be able to offer a more reliable and quicker journey on key routes into the city centre by utilising long sections segregated from other traffic. Approximately 60% of NET Phase Two would be segregated from other traffic, which is a high level of separation. Segregated tram routes are far more effective than bus lanes as they can only be used by trams with no other traffic able to enter them (other than emergency services, in some instances). Where the tram replaces well-used local bus services, then bus passengers would benefit from the better service that the trams would bring.

2.14.3 Buses would however continue to play a key role in meeting the transport needs of the Greater Nottingham conurbation, and in many areas they would continue to be the most appropriate method of transport. A particularly important role would be to operate feeder services into NET from surrounding residential areas and to key employers, such as Boots.

Experience on NET Line One shows buses still operate viable services

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

24

along the core route and feeder services have evolved, and continue to evolve, as part of an integrated, consolidated bus network. The Hucknall Connect Service links the Hucknall Estates with the town centre, but also serves NET with through tickets available. A collaborative approach by bus operators could also relieve capacity constraints for buses in the conurbation, enabling other parts of the conurbation to benefit from increased levels of service.

2.14.4 In developing the proposals to combat increasing traffic congestion and to plan for the transport needs of the future, tram and bus services must work together to build a better public transport service for the area. Following the introduction of the tram, bus operators would continue to operate services in the NET Phase Two corridors, although it is too early to say how these services might differ from current services. Existing bus stops would be retained, if slightly relocated in places. Future routes could be similar to those currently operating or they could be adapted to the changing circumstances and serve as feeder buses into the tram network. This would allow the strengths of both buses and trams to be realised. Local buses can take advantage of their flexibility by penetrating into the heart of residential communities where traffic is light and they would not get caught up in congestion. They can then feed the tram service, which can offer a more reliable and quicker journey into the city centre and beyond.

2.14.5. Improving public transport provision across the whole city is constrained by highway and, particularly, central area bus stop capacity. Parts of the City Centre bus route (the ‘loop’) have over 200 buses per hour and bus stop provision in the City Centre is already at capacity. Nottingham does not have a substantial inner ring road system for an urban area of its size and the City Centre is compact with a lack of alternative routings for bus services and stop locations. The City Centre is struggling to cope and NET Phase Two would use existing infrastructure within the centre, allowing valuable City Centre road space and bus stop capacity to be released that can be re-allocated to enhance bus frequencies and reliability to other parts of the city. Integrated ticketing, feeder buses and link bus services would increase accessibility beyond the NET area, bringing benefits to the wider community.

2.14.6 The bus network is supported by a voluntary partnership between the County and City Councils and the commercial bus operators; set out in the Greater Nottingham Bus Strategy. This recognises the need to continue to promote quality bus (and tram) services in an integrated public transport system. The two Councils are also committed to consultation with bus operators, bus users, neighbouring District Councils and other interested parties on bus–related issues.

2.14.7 Nottingham is served by two principal bus operators, Trent Barton and Nottingham City Transport (and subsidiaries), and each serves the NET Phase Two areas. The operators have responded in a measured manner to NET Line One and are likely to do so for the network extensions for the benefit of travelers throughout Greater Nottingham. The two companies are

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

25

winners of industry awards, reflecting their standards of service and innovations introduced to the network in recent years, including working with NET on service and ticketing integration.

2.14.8 It has been suggested by some that trams would draw users from bus services.

It was always anticipated that a significant proportion of passengers on NET would be former bus users; however some 30% of NET Line One passengers are former car users or use the park and ride provision. The transfer of passengers to NET would be an incentive for bus operators to service new markets on new routes within the area. Unlike any other Core City, public transport has grown in Nottingham by 8% (20002005), suggesting that the network is getting stronger and that overall convenience has not been adversely affected.

2.15

Could improving bus services and infrastructure meet the objectives of NET Phase Two?

2.15.1 In developing the NET Phase Two proposals a number of improvements to transport services were considered as alternatives to NET. These included assessing the contribution that improved bus and rail services could make to meeting the longer term economic and transport objectives of the Greater Nottingham area. Several bus based solutions were examined including a low cost on-street bus based alternative (utilising existing corridors) and considering additional bus priority measures with changes to the operating patterns of bus services; and high quality bus alternatives involving creating segregated sections of route similar to NET. 2.15.2 Low cost bus improvements deliver only modest benefits that are much lower than NET Phase Two and do not address many key traffic problems, or offer long-term solutions in maintaining economic growth. The expansion of bus services in this way is also constrained by the congestion on roads, particularly on key radial routes and bus stop capacity in the central area.

City Centre capacity is one of the key problems that NET addresses by using existing NET Line One infrastructure and providing additional public transport capacity without impacting on existing bus routes and infrastructure.

2.15.3 In developing the NET proposals, a number of other options were considered for improving transport facilities in the busy south and west corridors of Nottingham. This assessment has allowed the Councils to determine that NET offers the best way of meeting the long-term transport needs of the conurbation and offers the best value for money for its local contribution.

2.15.4 Central government, in providing the majority of funding for the project, is also very interested in ensuring that schemes offer suitable returns in terms of delivery against both local and national objectives and that these cannot be delivered by lower cost solutions or alternative technologies. For a number of other schemes, central government has rejected the proposals and insisted that lower cost solutions are considered further. In contrast, in

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

26

granting NET Phase Two programme entry approval, the Department for Transport identified NET Phase Two as the best value for money when compared with other alternatives.

2.15.5 In demonstrating the performance of these alternatives a high quality bus option has been assessed. To provide a level of service as near as possible to that expected for NET Phase Two, options were considered based on providing a guided busway network using an ‘ftr’ type vehicle currently operating in York, though in practice other modern bus-based systems could also be used. This assumed that the new system would utilise all or part of the segregated routes planned for NET Phase Two, apart from in the City Centre, where it would operate around the bus ‘loop’ rather than connecting over Nottingham Railway Station into NET Line One on a new bridge. Appraisals of the high quality bus option suggested poorer performance in a number of areas compared to NET, including economics and wider benefits and in ease of construction.

2.15.6 A single NET tram can carry as many people as three conventional buses, and as a consequence it can be given a much greater level of priority at traffic lights with less impact on other traffic. To provide a suitable network of high quality bus services and make best use of the infrastructure up to 20 bus journeys per hour would need to operate to broadly meet the capacity of NET Phase Two. This would cause difficulties in the City Centre with the requirement to use the existing circuitous and congested bus ‘loop’ with associated increased journey times and difficulties with providing suitable bus stop facilities in the City Centre. The limited bus stop capacity on some key roads in the City Centre would result in poor provision for the new service or the need to reduce existing levels of bus services on other corridors or relocate bus stops further out of the city. Outside of the City Centre, the very high frequencies would impact on the reliability of the service, as the bus alternative could not be guaranteed full priority crossing major junctions.

2.15.7 There could also be difficulty in justifying parts of the route, such as demolition of properties and use of sensitive environments, given that the overall benefits of the bus alternative are lower. The sections of route where the impact is the greatest are also the most essential parts of the proposals where significant journey time and reliability benefits can be realised; any difficulties in providing alignments in these areas would significantly compromise the benefits of the alternative bus based scheme.

2.15.8 Therefore, there is a significant risk that these alterative bus options could not be delivered or would fail to generate the reliability and wider transport benefits currently offered by NET due to the need to manage scarce transport capacity in the centre of Nottingham and in other locations along the two proposed routes.

2.15.9 However, were these problems to be overcome, then in economic terms, a high quality bus alternative, could deliver high levels of benefits at a cost lower than for NET Phase Two. But, importantly, the size of these benefits

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

27

and the support offered to long-term objectives in Greater Nottingham would be much lower than those associated with NET Phase Two. Indeed, there would be lower benefit to cost ratios than NET Phase Two and a reduced contribution against other government objectives, so the high quality bus alternatives would be unable to meet either national or local objectives as effectively as NET Phase Two. 2.16

Are there any other realistic solutions?

2.16.1 Before deciding to promote a tram system for Greater Nottingham a number of alternative transport systems were assessed.

Most were either impractical for meeting the short or longer-term needs of Greater Nottingham, such as ultra light rail, or were too costly and environmentally intrusive, such as underground or Metro-type systems which can only be justified in the very biggest cities or elevated monorails or other similar systems which are highly visually intrusive and would be inappropriate to the urban environment in Nottingham.

2.16.2 A number of innovative guided-bus based systems, some powered by overhead wires like trolleybuses, have been developed elsewhere in Europe with limited operation in some cities starting within the last few years.

These options, which include optical or wire guidance, have many similarities with existing guided bus technology that have been deployed in the UK, though using a different guidance system. On segregated routes these systems would require full road construction rather than the ballasted track suitable for trams and could require overhead wires. Such options have effectively been considered in the assessment of the High Quality Bus Alternative to NET. In the UK, this technology has not yet been used and its introduction would be associated with an increased implementation and delivery risk.

2.16.3 Other developments in transport include fuel cell technology which has been trialled in a small fleet of buses operating a mainly tourist route in London, but may well be expanded elsewhere in the capital. Such vehicles are a welcome addition to the efforts to reduce pollution and may very well have a future role in Greater Nottingham. However, this vehicle would not by itself address the congestion and transport capacity issues driving the need for NET Phase Two which demand the development of improved services in the busy south-west corridors involving the provision of new infrastructure.

2.16.4. A mixture of tram and guided bus systems can only be justified in the largest cities where separate networks can co-exist, often serving wholly different areas. In a conurbation the size of Greater Nottingham the needs of integration and economics dictate public transport provision is best built on the existing modes of rail, bus and tram with new routes utilising the same technology as NET Line One to allow for through journeys.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

28

2.17

What main alternative routes were considered?

2.17.1 A number of objectors have questioned the choice of the route and why other routes were not taken forward. The selection of the NET Phase Two routes by the County and City Councils was only taken after a rigorous assessment of a wide range of alternative options along the Chilwell/Beeston and Clifton corridors and elsewhere in the conurbation including through extensive consultation. Localised options within Beeston and the Wilford area were also considered. The key issues generally considered in comparing these alternatives included operational capability, (e.g. journey time and reliability), usage, costs, integration with other transport modes, development and regeneration potential, engineering impact, environmental impact and public acceptability. Clearly each route option cannot serve all destinations and buses would continue to play a key role in servicing the overall needs of the conurbation. The main options considered, and reason why alternatives were not taken forward, are summarised below: 2.17.2 There were three main alternative routes: (i) Beeston/Chilwell options [NET.B2/6] – these were referred to as Beeston North (subsequently known as Beeston via QMC) and Beeston South. A further single option operating from the terminus of the Beeston North and South options to Chilwell (Beeston – Chilwell extension) was also considered; (ii) Clifton Options [NET.B2/7] – these were via Queens Drive park and ride or via Wilford; and (iii) West Bridgford options [NET.B2/8] – these were either to Sharphill Wood or Gamston. (i)

Beeston/Chilwell Options

2.17.3 The Beeston via QMC option operated from Nottingham Station to Beeston town centre via the former Royal Ordnance factory site (ng2), QMC and the University of Nottingham. The Beeston South option was from Nottingham Station to Beeston town centre via Riverside, Queen’s Drive park and ride site and the Boots site. The Chilwell option was routed along Chilwell Road and through substantial residential areas before terminating at a park and ride site adjacent to the A52.

2.17.4 The assessment of the route options concluded that: •

All route options were considered feasible in engineering terms.

•

The Beeston via QMC route with the Chilwell extension would bring most positive economic benefits to the area and the key economic criteria indicate that the route was viable when tested against Government criteria;

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

29

•

The route via QMC was 18 percent faster, and would attract 25 percent more patronage than the route via Boots;

•

The options of terminating at Beeston or operating to Chilwell via Boots fell substantially below the required viability levels; and

•

The Chilwell extension performed particularly well due to the residential catchment population and proposed park and ride site.

2.17.5 Public consultation returns indicated a clear preference for the Beeston via QMC route, due to being more accessible to more people, more direct and serving the QMC and University. There were high levels of adverse comment relating to the Chilwell extension, which focused on key local issues.

2.17.6 A number of localised route alternatives within the two corridors to Beeston were also considered. The main options on the Beeston via QMC route included alternatives into Beeston town centre. These routes included via: •

Queens Road/ Station Road;

•

Queens Road/ Humber Road/ Middle Street/ Station Road, and

•

Broadgate/Humber Road Street/Station Road.

and

Regent

Road

gyratory/Middle

2.17.7 While these alternatives were slightly preferable on environmental grounds to the selected route, all were longer and would have more unreliable journey times and had lower economic benefits.

2.17.8 Based primarily on the clear economic performance advantage, and possible mitigation measures to reduce localised environmental impacts, the route to Beeston and Chilwell via QMC was taken forward.

(ii) Clifton Options 2.17.9

The Clifton via Queen’s Drive (CQD) option considered a route from Nottingham Station to a proposed park and ride site off the A453 Nottingham Road, via Riverside, Queen’s Drive park and ride site and Clifton district centre.

2.17.10 The Clifton via Wilford (CW) route was from Nottingham Station to the A453 park and ride site via Queen’s Walk, the Wilford former railway corridor and Clifton district centre.

2.17.11 The assessment of the options concluded that: •

Both route options were feasible in engineering terms;

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

30

•

The CW route would attract substantial patronage and have a positive economic benefit on the conurbation and could attract Government funding; and

•

The CQD route was 13% slower, would attract 15% less patronage, was significantly more expensive and fell substantially below the required levels to meet Government funding criteria.

2.17.12 Public consultation returns indicated a clear preference for the CQD route.

This preference reflected the dissatisfaction with the CW route from the Wilford and Compton Acres area.

2.17.13 A number of localised alignment alternatives within the two corridors were considered. The main options on the Clifton via Wilford route included alternatives between Wilford Toll Bridge and the A52 Clifton Boulevard, including via: •

Coronation Avenue, the former railway line, Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane;

•

Main Road and Ruddington Lane.

2.17.14 The alternative routes were significantly slower and costlier than the core route and had lower economic benefits.

2.17.15 An alternative route to Clifton via Trent Bridge was also considered. This would have run via Arkwright Walk, Trent Bridge, Clifton Lane, the disused railway embankment and Clifton estate. This option was discounted in favour of the CW core route. The reasons for this included the operational and reliability implications of the extent of on street running on major roads (over 70% on street). The projected economic performance did not match that of the CW core route.

2.17.16 On the basis of its extremely competitive journey times, high levels of segregation from road traffic and the prospect of a very reliable operation and potential to attract Government funding, the CW route was taken forward. (iii) West Bridgford Options 2.17.17 Two route options were considered as follows: •

The Sharphill Wood route was via the Meadows, Trent Bridge and Musters Road to the proposed development site at Sharphill.

•

The Gamston route was via the Meadows, Trent Bridge, West Bridgford Town Centre and Davies Road to a proposed park and ride site at Gamston adjacent to the A52.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

31

2.17.18 A full assessment of the route options was undertaken, however, neither route was economically viable when tested against Government funding criteria, and the routes were therefore not taken forward.

2.18

Why was the route to Attenborough not taken forward?

2.18.1 In addition to the main options considered by the County Council and the City Council, a further option for part of the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route was considered. This option went between Beeston town centre and a park and ride site at Stapleford Lane, via Attenborough with a series of suboptions between Middle Street and Chilwell Olympia and a common section to the park and ride site. The options considered were: •

Option A: Chilwell Olympia via Station Road/ Queens Road West;

•

Option B: Chilwell Olympia via Chilwell Road/ Depot Site/ Queens Road West;

•

Option C: Chilwell Olympia via Chilwell Road/ High Road; and

•

Common Section: Chilwell Olympia to a park and ride site at Stapleford Lane, via Attenborough.

2.18.2 The overall assessment concluded: •

All options would have a significantly slower journey time than the proposed route (primarily due to greater route length) which is likely to increase during peak periods due to the extent of on-street running and the associated potential for congestion.

•

All options would provide less reliability than the proposed route, with up to 26% less segregated running and the crossing of up to eight more junctions. In addition all options run along the extremely busy strategic road (A6005 Queens Road) which experiences significant congestion at peak times. This compares with the proposed route which has minimal interaction with the strategic road network except at the proposed park and ride site.

•

The capital cost for all options would be significantly higher than the proposed route due to increased length and the extent of on-street running.

•

The usage levels of option A would be significantly lower than the proposed route primarily due to the poor penetration of Beeston town centre. The remaining options have similar usage levels to the proposed route.

2.18.3 All route options were considered feasible in engineering terms but have local land impacts, particularly on Stapleford Lane which would require significant regrading, and would also be likely to attract local opposition.

The route options were predicted to have fewer adverse noise, biodiversity and townscape impacts that the proposed route.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

32

2.18.4 Overall the higher costs and increased journey time of all the options together with the relative poor economic performance would make all the options poor value for money in economic terms. As a consequence the proposed route was taken forward.

2.19

Do the benefits of NET Phase Two outweigh/justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs?

2.19.1

A general claim made by many objectors is that the benefits NET Phase Two would bring do not justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs. However, the overall assessment of NET Phase Two, as considered by Government using a wide set of criteria, shows that the scheme is highly beneficial, with clear socio-economic benefits which, when considered against the costs of the scheme, offer ‘high’ value for money (see section 2.11.1). The NET Promoters recognise that there will be local impacts/costs and have sought to minimise and mitigate any adverse impacts in developing the proposals.

2.19.2 The main purpose of the public inquiry is to enable an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the extent to which the public benefits arising from the scheme justify any impacts/costs. The proofs of evidence submitted by the NET Promoters’ witnesses go into detail on the specific benefits and impacts to demonstrate that they do just that (see section 1.6).

3.

General construction issues

3.1

How will construction works be managed?

3.1.1

The construction of NET Phase Two will be undertaken in accordance with a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). The CoCP will prescribe standards of construction practice imposed on the contractor to ensure that the works are undertaken in so far as is practicable, in a responsible and sympathetic manner and minimise any adverse impacts on the local environment and community. A draft of the CoCP has been agreed with the local authorities and is included within the Environmental Statement [NET.A15]. The CoCP will be finalised before construction starts.

3.1.2

Once finalised, adherence to the CoCP will be a requirement of the contract for the construction of NET Phase Two. The CoCP sets out the requirements for a range of issues, including: •

Liaison and provision of information to the public

•

Minimising impacts on the existing highway, including footpaths and cycleways

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

33

•

Protection of the water environment

•

Control of noise and vibration

•

Control of working hours

•

Control of dust and pollution

•

Disposal of waste and contaminated materials

•

Protection of the existing ecology, historic buildings and archaeology

•

Working practices at construction sites

3.2

How long will the works take?

3.2.1

It is anticipated that overall the construction and commissioning of NET Phase Two would take about 3 years to complete. This includes the testing of the tram system and the training of staff immediately prior to the opening of the service to the public.

3.2.2

The works will be phased and completed in sections along the route, thereby minimising the duration of any local disruption. The duration of the works in any specific location would be dependent on the particular construction activities required (structures, highway works etc.) and any constraints defined within the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (see section 3.1) or by statutory bodies, such as the Highway Authority. In any case, the duration of construction activity in any one location would be significantly less than the overall construction period. There will be close public liaison and intensive public communication of information, as required by the CoCP and as was the case during the construction of NET Line One.

3.2.3

There are construction techniques currently being developed for on street sections of tramway, which use prefabricated elements and offer very significant time savings over standard track construction. These could be of particular benefit in some areas, such as along Chilwell Road and High Road (Beeston/Chilwell). These methods have recently been used on tram systems in Europe and will be considered at the detailed design stage for NET Phase Two, as a means to speed up construction.

3.2.4

A detailed construction programme, and therefore the actual timing of the works for a particular area, will be decided after a main contractor has been appointed. The programme will reflect any previously identified timetable constraints.

3.3

What time of day will the works be carried out?

3.3.1

Under the Code of Construction Practice (see section 3.1), the normal hours of working would be 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturday.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

34

3.4

How will noise and vibration be controlled during construction?

3.4.1

The construction works will be regulated by the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which sets out requirements to ensure that adequate noise and vibration measures are adopted during the construction phase and through the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP, see section 3.1).

3.4.2

The draft CoCP requires the appointed contractor to comply with a number of specific requirements including: •

To liaise and consult with the local authority with regard to permissible levels of noise and to seek the authority’s consent to carry out the works

•

To carry out the works in accordance with practical noise control measures aimed as minimising noise emission on site (as set out in the CoCP and as may be agreed with the local authority)

•

To carry out monitoring to ensure that works do not exceed specified noise limits

•

Where monitoring identifies that noise limits may be exceeded, to install appropriate mitigation measures

•

To comply with the local authority’s reasonable requirements in order to control vibration levels arising from the works and to ensure vibration limits do not exceed dose values specified in British Standard (BS) BS6427:1992 Guide to evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings; and

•

To ensure vibration levels specified in the draft CoCP are not exceeded in order to protect buildings from structural damage

3.4.3

Without prejudice to these specific requirements, the contractor would be under a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise disturbance from noise and to comply with the recommendations of BS5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites.

3.5

How will dust and dirt be controlled during construction?

3.5.1

The draft CoCP (see section 3.1) sets out requirements for mitigation measures to minimise dust and dirt during the construction of NET Phase Two. These include: •

hard surfacing heavily-used areas, which shall be kept clean through regular brushing and water spraying;

•

sheeting completely the sides and tops of all vehicles carrying spoil and other dusty materials;

•

controlling dust released from cutting or grinding of materials on site;

•

watering unpaved surfaces and roads; and

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

35

•

the provision of wheel washing facilities including, where practicable, mechanical wheel spinners.

3.5.2

In addition, the contractor would be under a general duty to take all reasonably practicable measures to avoid creating a dust nuisance during both demolition and construction works.

3.6

How will traffic be managed during construction?

3.6.1

Where construction activities are carried out within or immediately next to the highway, it is most likely that temporary traffic management measures would be necessary. These measures would be used to maintain traffic flow and minimise any adverse impacts on, and ensure the safety of, pedestrians, road users and construction workers. The Highway Authority would be consulted over the method, phasing and timing of temporary traffic management measures.

3.6.2

In some locations temporary restrictions on the use of the highway may be necessary to ensure a safe working environment and to most effectively expedite the works. For example, temporary highway closures could restrict through traffic movements or vehicular access over the affected section of road other than for construction traffic, though pedestrian access would still be retained to adjacent buildings. Direct vehicular access to the properties on the closed section may be feasible through arrangements with the contractor. During such closures servicing would also be through arrangements with the contractor.

3.6.3

Local residents, businesses and the emergency services will be consulted on possible approaches to implementing the works and managing traffic prior to the approach to construction being finalised. Once a construction method and timetable has been agreed with the highway authority, the CoCP (see section 3.1) requires the contractor to give appropriate prior notification to allow nearby residents and businesses to plan for such occasions.

3.7

How will access be maintained during construction?

3.7.1

The CoCP (see section 3.1) will require that the contractor must take all reasonable precautions to minimise any disturbance to properties adjacent to any works. Pedestrian access to occupied premises fronting the proposed route would be maintained at all time during the construction works.

However, some restrictions on vehicular access, including temporary removal or relocation of on-street parking and temporary closures of access to some off-street parking areas may be necessary.

3.7.2

Prior to commencing such works, there would be liaison with the affected parties to discuss alternative access arrangements. Closures would be kept to the minimum. In some instances alternative temporary accesses may be feasible and would be provided.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

36

3.8

How will parking be affected?

3.8.1

In locations where as a result of the tramway and associated works there is a requirement for parking to be removed, the scheme proposals include replacement parking, both on and off street. Wherever feasible, this permanent replacement parking would be implemented prior to removal of the existing facility. During the construction phase there may be some temporary loss of on-street parking resulting from the construction activities and associated traffic management measures. These temporary parking restrictions may extend beyond the immediate area of works to maintain traffic flows and access and ensure the safety of road users. Overall, works would be phased such that construction would be implemented and completed in sections along the route, thereby minimising the duration of any local disruption.

3.8.2

Temporary parking restrictions would need to be agreed with the Highway Authority and appropriate prior notification would be given to allow residents and businesses to plan for such occasions.

3.9

How will footpaths be affected during construction?

3.9.1

To aid the construction of the scheme, some public footpaths may need to be closed to ensure a safe working environment and space along the works.

During such closures alternative footpath routes would be identified and appropriately signed.

3.9.2

In addition to meeting the requirements of the CoCP (see section 3.1), the contractor would need to consult with the relevant Highway Authority regarding any temporary footpath closures. Closures would need to be agreed with that authority, with appropriate prior notification for such closures given to allow nearby residents to plan for such occasions.

4.

General issues about NET Phase Two operation

4.1

What will be done to minimise noise and vibration during operation?

4.1.1

The mitigation proposed in the Environmental Statement [NET.A13 to A18] complies with the limits set out in all regulations and planning guidance regarding noise and vibration (e.g. The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 [NET.D9]). Design and maintenance standards for the trams and the tracks have been set to ensure that noise and vibration levels associated with the system are minimised. If noise levels from an operating tram system exceed the qualifying levels stated in the above Regulations, mitigation measures such as secondary glazing will be offered or introduced.

4.1.2

Over and above these commitments, a draft Noise and Vibration policy [NET.A15] was approved by the City and County Councils for NET Phase Two in 2004. The draft policy [NET.P7/B] has recently been updated and commits the Councils to mitigating noise impacts as far as practicable by

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

37

careful design – for example procuring an appropriate track system and providing noise barriers where practicable – so as minimise noise and vibration levels. As a result of this policy NET Phase Two includes provision for extensive lengths of noise barriers at various off street locations. The draft policy sets ambitious noise targets at levels considerably lower than those in the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations.

4.1.3

NET Line One noise issues have been associated with the location of points / crossings and complex geometry (including tight bends and curves). The NET Promoters have learned lessons from the NET Line One experience.

Similar arrangements or design features will be avoided on NET Phase Two.

4.2

How will visual intrusion and privacy be addressed during operation?

4.2.1

Where the tramway and other associated works (including footpaths) are proposed to operate in residential areas, particular care has been taken to minimise overlooking into private properties, including back gardens. This has included lowering the embankment to the south of Wilford Lane as well as proposals for suitable replacement fences and other boundary treatments where required – some of which would also act as noise barriers.

In many locations planting and trees are proposed to screen views and to aid security.

4.3

Will the scheme make a positive contribution to climate change?

4.3.1

A number of objectors have asked whether NET Phase Two would make any contribution towards combating climate change and have sought information on power sources and emissions. Others point out that some emissions would occur during the construction phase before the long term benefits of NET are realised.

4.3.2

Climate change issues and the contribution of NET Phase Two to greenhouse gasses were considered as part of the environmental impact assessment undertaken to inform the NET Phase Two Environmental Statement [NET.A13 to A18]. The Environmental Statement followed the methodology recommended in the Department of Transport’s Transport Assessment Guidance and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The Environmental Statement concluded that whilst CO2 emissions in Nottingham would inevitably rise as a result of traffic growth, the anticipated transfer from car to tram and traffic rerouting associated with the direct impacts of NET on highway capacity should reduce CO2 growth by 4,012 tonnes per year. Operating the tram itself would not directly create CO2, but indirect emissions would occur at the source of the electricity generation.

Based on existing NET Line One power requirements, it is estimated NET Phase Two would have an annual power consumption of around 7 MWh, including electricity requirements for vehicles, stops, depot power and other ancillary purposes. Based on the current average ‘power-mix’ from UK generated electricity, this would equate to about 3000 tonnes of CO2

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

38

emissions per year. The reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of NET Phase Two is therefore likely to be in the region of 1000 tonnes per year.

4.3.3

This contribution towards combating climate change could improve over time as policy is tending towards increased use of renewable and other ‘cleaner’ sources of power reducing the CO2 emissions of generated electricity at source.

4.3.4

It is acknowledged that there will be some additional impact during construction, such as from exhaust from contractors’ vehicles and machinery and removal of vegetation during excavations, but over time these are likely to be compensated by the operating benefits and by replacement planting.

4.4

How will light pollution be controlled?

4.4.1

The lighting used would be designed to be effective and appropriate to each location along the NET system. Locations such as tram stops would be well lit to maximise security and provide a comfortable environment. Elsewhere off-street, except for safety reasons, there would be little or no lighting. Light pollution would be minimised through the selection and design of light fixtures that are low intensity, well directed and that minimise light spill.

These requirements are especially important in locations close to residential properties or where the route runs through green corridors or conservation areas.

4.5

How will traffic be affected by tram operations?

4.5.1

Junction capacity assessments have been undertaken for each junction, other than minor ones, along NET Phase Two in consultation with the relevant Highway Authority to ensure the introduction of NET Phase Two has no significant material impact on traffic flow. Overall, the frequency of trams (every 7.5 minutes in each direction during most of the day) is unlikely to cause difficulty for other traffic and it is expected that traffic delay during the operation of the system would be minimal. When running in traffic, the tram is just another long vehicle. The tram would share space with other traffic and therefore does not prevent other traffic movements.

4.5.2

In some instances within shared running sections, other road traffic would have to wait behind the tram when it is at a tram stop but trams would only stop for relatively short periods and the resulting occasional delay to traffic is likely to be of a similar duration to that of a conventional pedestrian crossing.

4.5.3

The powers sought under the Order include traffic regulation measures such as parking restrictions and banned turns. These are necessary for the safe and effective operation of the tram and the surrounding highway network.

This would affect to some extent existing traffic routeing and manoeuvring as well as some parking and servicing arrangements. The development of NET Phase Two, including traffic regulation measures, has taken detailed

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

39

account of the existing situation and sought to provide suitable measures to replace any facilities lost, such as replacement of on street parking and servicing provision.

4.6

How will parking close to tram stops be controlled?

4.6.1

Where parking problems arise due to the operation of NET Phase Two, suitable action, such as introducing residents parking schemes, would be taken where appropriate. Any proposals would be considered in full consultation with local residents.

4.7

Are trams safe?

4.7.1

Public safety considerations are taken very seriously. Available evidence, based on NET Line One and similar schemes elsewhere, suggests that trams are among the safest forms of transport. This is in part because tram vehicles follow a predictable path and are clearly visible to other road and pedestrians. The system would not be allowed to operate until Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) are satisfied that it is safely designed and implemented taking account of its local environment.

4.7.2

Appropriate maximum operating speeds for the tram would be determined by the Highway Authority and HMRI, based on local conditions and circumstances. Trams would strictly observe these pre-set speed limits and would often run well below these levels.

4.7.3

The tram would operate on a ‘line of sight’ basis whereby the vehicle would be driven to suit the prevailing conditions. Where the situation requires it, the tram drivers would slow down and stop to avoid problems. Tram drivers would receive a high level of initial training and regular on the job assessment. Modern trams have an efficient triple braking system which is very effective in emergency situations.

4.7.4

When running on-street, standard safety features would be utilised such as controlled crossing points and sufficient width of footways. When running off street near footpaths, cycleways, crossing points and recreational areas, appropriate measures would be used, including signing, barriers, fencing to regulate or deter users from entering the tram corridor, as well as provision of alternative routes alongside or near the tram corridor.

4.7.5

In semi-rural areas and other open areas, low knee rail fences (approximately one foot high) would be used to mark the boundary between the tramway and the adjacent area. This type of fencing informally but definitely separates people from trams, without compromising the open aspects of the area or making people using pathways and cycle routes feel they are hemmed in by an imposing barrier.

4.7.6

Public safety is taken very seriously especially in relation to children near the tram lines. In this respect children would be provided with information

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

40

about trams by way of incorporation into safety education programmes, as happened on NET Line One. 4.7.7

The safety of cyclists has been considered from the earliest design stage and the proposals include facilities for cyclists. The presence of the tramway and trams has been considered from the perspective of a cyclist and, where feasible, risks have been mitigated; dedicated facilities and on street lanes for cyclists are an integral part of proposals and in busy locations signalised crossing facilities would be provided for cyclists.

4.7.8

Existing adjacent routes used by cyclists would be resurfaced or realigned, and where possible enhanced. Cycle routes would tie in with existing routes, where appropriate and achievable. Cycle paths would be two way in some areas, where space allows. Where cyclists have to share the carriageway with trams and other traffic, increased lane widths with the rails offset from the kerb would be adopted to provide a safer corridor and avoid cycles running on the rails. Although the presence of tram rails in the road may present a small increased risk (of skidding) for cyclists, the highway and tram alignment would seek to reduce this risk by removing shallow angled crossings of the tracks.

4.8

How has public security been addressed?

4.8.1

Public security and the resulting level of comfort and personal safety, is seen as a key issue in attracting and retaining customers on the system. As on NET Line One, the tram vehicles and tram stops would be equipped with CCTV and an emergency call system linked to a central control centre. In addition, the likely use of on-board conductors for fare collection (as on NET Line One) would be a further security element present on the trams themselves.

4.8.2

The location and layout of the proposed tram stops and surrounding areas would be designed to encourage a feeling of personal security for all users.

This would include open accessible areas, with appropriate levels of lighting and fixed street furniture. This is particularly important for tram stops located outside the normal street environment. Careful consideration would be given to such tram stops particularly regarding access routes and the local urban design. The police would continue to be consulted and provide input on security issues during design development.

4.9

Are there any health risks associated with electrical systems?

4.9.1

Some concerns have been raised about the impact on human health of the very low frequency magnetic fields created by the trams overhead electric lines. There is no known evidence of this and it has not been an operational concern on NET Line One. Nevertheless, NET Phase Two would comply fully with the relevant standards for electrification of a tramway powered by overhead lines at 750V DC.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

41

4.10

Will NET be properly maintained?

4.10.1 To provide the quality and safety of the system, a rigorous maintenance regime is required during the operational life of the tram system, for the servicing, cleaning and minor repair of the tram infrastructure, including the vehicles, stops and track. This will be set out in the contract for the construction and operation of the tram system and regulated by performance requirements and payment arrangements.

The regular maintenance of the tram vehicles would be undertaken within the expanded existing NET Line One depot, located on Wilkinson Street, Basford. Whilst a contractor would be appointed to manage and implement the routine maintenance works, areas within the public highway, with the exception of the tram stops and other specialist equipment such as overhead line and support poles, would be the responsibility of the local Highway Authority.

4.10.2 The NET infrastructure would be designed for the operational life of the system – for example, structures including bridges and viaducts would typically be designed for a 120 year life. During the life of a tram system, major works may be necessary for more substantial repairs or maintenance.

The detailed design and construction of NET Phase Two would be undertaken with minimisation of such works in mind, and would take account of measures to assist in undertaking the maintenance works and minimising impacts arising from the works. Measures that would be adopted to achieve this goal include the advance removal of statutory undertakers’ (e.g. telecommunications, water or gas providers) apparatus from beneath the track and selection of track form taking into account likely maintenance requirements. For issues that cannot be eliminated, such as the occasional re-ballasting of the segregated track sections, the works would necessitate some disruption of the tram service or occasionally involve works outside of the trams normal operating hours. In either case, advance notifications would be given to those within close proximity of the works and, as appropriate, a temporary replacement bus service provided.

4.11

How will fares be set?

4.11.1 Fare levels for NET Phase Two are not being determined at this stage. It is expected they would be set on the same basis as NET Line One, where fares are at or similar to bus fares and, as noted in 2.4 above, the intention would be for the fare income to cover the operating costs. Discussions would take place with bus and train operators with the intention of agreeing through ticketing.

4.12

What will the tram timetable be?

4.12.1 It is expected that trams would operate every 7.5 minutes in each direction during most of the day, with services every 15 or 20 minutes in the early morning, evening and on Sundays. During the week, services would start at the Clifton and Toton Lane park and ride sites at 0600 hours, and finish at 2400 hours. This would mean that trams leave the depot at Wilkinson Street starting from about 0520 hours and finishing at about 0050 hours.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

42

4.13

Will there be through services between NET Line One and NET Phase Two?

4.13.1 Contrary to comments made by some objectors, NET Phase Two services would be fully integrated with those currently operating on NET Line One with ‘through’ routes linking the NET Phase Two routes with NET Line One. So, for example, Clifton services may travel through the City Centre and on to Phoenix Park with Chilwell services operating through to Hucknall without the need to change trams at Nottingham Railway Station.

5.

Other general issues

5.1

How will NET affect property values? Is compensation available?

5.1.1

The best available evidence is that overall, after construction, residential property values are likely to be higher in locations where a new tramway or other public transport system is provided when compared with similar locations where public transport is less attractive.

5.1.2

Where property needs to be acquired for NET Phase Two construction; the NET Promoters will fully comply with the framework of statute and case law known as the “compensation code”, which sets out the entitlement to compensation for compulsory purchase. If a property or some land is acquired for the project the owners will be fully compensated at the market value, both for the value of the land acquired and for the impacts of NET Phase Two on the remaining property.

In some circumstances, compensation may also be awarded because of the impact of NET Phase Two even if no land or property is acquired.

5.1.3

Claims for compensation are dealt with by the Lands Tribunal, not the public inquiry, and affected property owners can get more information and guidance about compulsory purchase and compensation from the Department for Communities and Local Government (Tel: 0870 1226 236) The following booklets are available: •

Booklet 1 – Compulsory Purchase Procedure

•

Booklet 2 – Compensation to Business Owners and Occupiers

•

Booklet 3 – Compensation to Agricultural Owners and Occupiers

•

Booklet 4 – Compensation to Residential Owners and Occupiers

•

Booklet 5 – Mitigation Works

Affected property owners are advised to seek independent professional advice on this issue.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

43

5.2

What has been the impact on business along NET Line One?

5.2.1

It is generally understood that good transport links help economic development, particularly if integrated with other development initiatives or policies. Along NET Line One extensive development has taken place, for example in the Lace Market, where a number of developments are happening adjacent to the local tram stop. These include a landmark £25m building called the Pod which is approaching completion and the site board includes a picture of the tram stop. The developer of another scheme in the area, known as the Cutting Edge, stated: “There is a stop right outside so there are more people milling around the area. If we hadn’t got the tram I’m not sure we would have done the (Edge) scheme. It gives it visibility, makes it easy to get to”.

David Hargreaves, Fisher Hargreaves Proctor (Nottingham Evening Post, Commercial Property 7th December 2004)

5.2.2

At the Hucknall terminus, a Tesco superstore has opened close to the tram stop, and along with new homes that have already been built, plans have been submitted for a 700 home extension to the town adjacent to the tram stop. Other developments are also in the pipeline.

5.2.3

In Hyson Green, it was recognised that there would be some impacts on businesses during the construction phase, and a financial assistance package supported a number of businesses during this time. It is understood that some businesses have struggled to recover from the construction, but overall the shopping area appears to be healthy, with reduced numbers of businesses closing and an increase in planning applications since NET Line One opened. A similar financial assistance package is being developed for small to medium businesses in the Chilwell Road / High Road area who might suffer from a short-term loss of trade.

Public Consultation on the draft Financial Assistance Package (FAP) was undertaken by the County Council in 2004 and the current draft FAP was distributed to businesses and traders in the Chilwell Road/High Road area in late September 2007.

5.3

Public consultation and land referencing

5.3.1

Some objectors have claimed that the consultation undertaken on NET Phase Two has been inadequate and the feedback received has not been taken into account. This is surprising and the NET Promoters contend that this is not the case.

5.3.2

A substantial amount of consultation has taken place, at each stage in the development of the project and is summarised in the Statement on Consultation [NET.A3]. Consultation on possible new routes commenced in early 2001 with an initial leaflet, ‘A Tram Network for Nottingham’ [NET.B2], explaining that the City and County Councils were developing potential route options to extend NET Line One which was under construction at that

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

44

time.

Approximately, 17,000 leaflets were distributed across the conurbation. The leaflet named various places in Greater Nottingham that the routes could go to and feedback was sought on the options. Based on the feedback received a further leaflet was distributed in early summer 2001 [NET.B2/2], outlining seven possible route options, including two each for Beeston and Clifton (and West Bridgford) with an extension of the Beeston route to Chilwell. The ‘Have Your Say’ consultation [NET.B2/6 to NET.B2/9] undertaken in late 2001 /early 2002 sought views at a more detailed level, for example alternative route options to Beeston (via QMC or Boots) and sub options through Beeston, plus whether and how the Beeston route should continue into Chilwell. The Clifton options were via Wilford or Queen’s Drive and included sub-options through Wilford and Clifton.

Approximately 70,000 brochures were distributed.

5.3.3

Following the ‘Have your Say’ consultation on route options and after the proposed routes had been selected by the City and County Councils, an independent representative opinion poll of 1,000 residents, living within a reasonable distance of each of the proposed routes, was undertaken by NOP Social and Political in summer 2002 [NET.B2/32 and NET.B2/33], seeking views on the NET extension proposals. The headline results were: Clifton via Wilford •

Three quarters of people asked felt that public transport needs to be improved

•

Three people to every one approved of the route

•

Four people to every one approved of the re-opening of old railway routes for public transport

Chilwell via QMC and Beeston

5.3.4

•

Three quarters of people asked felt that public transport needs to be improved

•

Nearly two to every one approved of the route

•

Three quarters of people asked supported the idea of a locally funded financial assistance package for businesses on Chilwell Road/High Road.

Since the ‘Have Your Say’ consultation, more detailed consultations on the proposals have taken place at the local level where impacts from the scheme are considered to be most significant, but the wider audience has been kept informed on the project through the NET Express leaflet [NET.B2/24, NET.B2/28, NET.B2/29 and NET.B2/31], newspaper articles and wider City and County communications such as Arrow and County News.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

45

5.3.5

Comments made during each consultation stage have been taken into account in all options analysis, and have been reported to Members at City and County Council meetings as a part of the decision making process.

Changes have been made to the scheme as a result of consultation feedback - see below for details: Clifton route: •

Reintroduction of a footpath along the centre of Queens Walk in the Meadows following concerns about security of side paths;

•

Revised access arrangements for Nottingham Moderns Rugby Club in Wilford;

•

Revised layout at Coronation Avenue in Wilford to avoid the tramway being elevated close to residential properties;

•

Use of the former railway embankment to screen properties on Vernon Avenue in Wilford;

•

Operating alongside the railway embankment between Vernon Avenue and Wilford Lane in Wilford, primarily to minimise ecological impact;

•

Relocation of the Compton Acres tram stop to minimise impact on an adjacent residential property;

•

Changes to the Ruddington Lane crossing to minimise visual impact on adjacent properties;

•

Park and Ride proposal close to Wilwell Cutting SSSI not pursued;

•

Changes to the layout of parking bays and tree provision in Clifton following comments from residents.

Chilwell route: •

Provision of cycle facilities behind the Meadows Way tram stop in the Meadows;

•

A revised location for the ng2 tram stop which better serves the business park and minimises land impacts;

•

Revised alignment to avoid impact on the Kings Meadow Nature Reserve in the area of Lenton Lane area;

•

Modification to a proposed junction on University Boulevard to include a right turn facility into Highfields Sports Club, providing a high level of accessibility;

•

Revision of the alignment of the tramway along University Boulevard to

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

46

move the tracks further away from the high quality hockey pitch within Highfields Sports Club; •

Alterations to the layout (and associated land take) of one of the off street car parks proposed off Chilwell Road in Beeston.

•

Introduction of a new tramstop at Chilwell Road/High Road in Beeston;

•

Introduction of a new tramstop at Cator Lane in Chilwell;

•

Changes to the alignment of the tramway at Sandby Court in Chilwell to avoid passing through the elderly persons’ complex.

5.3.6

Area wide consultation on transport strategy, including NET, has also taken place through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. In terms of the LTP 2006/07–2010/11 [NET.C22], consultation with residents was undertaken by way of leaflet mail outs and public events. Feedback received confirmed consensus that NET Phase Two, along with the A453 improvements, the Station Masterplan and the Ring Road major scheme, are vital to the development of Nottingham.

5.3.7

In addition to the consultation outlined in the Statement of Consultation [NET.A3] and summarised above, the NET Promoters have endeavoured to conduct on-going dialogue with affected and interested parties and have offered/held a number of meetings with individual groups as well as public exhibitions and events. A group opposing the proposals for the extension to Clifton via Wilford, ENT have claimed that the NET Promoters “have repeatedly refused requests from ENT to organise any public consultation meetings”. The NET Promoters have not refused to engage with the public or ENT, but their experience has been that large public meetings have proved an unproductive forum for constructive exchange and therefore have not been widely utilised in more recent years. Nevertheless, the NET Promoters have participated in public meetings along the proposed route, including a meeting held in Compton Acres on 4th July 2007, which was arranged by ENT.

5.3.8

In addition to the changes set out in section 5.3.5 above, since the TWAO application was submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, changes have been be made to the proposals in direct response to issues raised by residents/businesses/schools interested and affected parties. Such changes include: •

moving the proposed tram stop (and tram turn back facility) from the southern side to the northern side of Wilford Lane (on the Clifton via Wilford route). This change has occurred mainly in response to concerns raised by residents living in the St Austell Drive/Compton Acres area (see sections 7.5 and 7.6);

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

47

5.3.9

•

withdrawal of the Conservation Area Consent application with respect to 1A Arkwright Street. (adjacent to Nottingham Station) (see section 8.3); and

•

provision for a footpath adjacent to the tramway between Inham Road (Chilwell) and the Toton Lane Park and Ride site. Part of the footpath would run through the proposed open space adjacent to Teesdale Court and Inham Road/Field Lane.

•

Withdrawal of the proposal to acquire the Argos store and three other properties in Beeston town centre.

The arrangements for public access to the TWAO application documentation has been in full accordance with the statutory requirements as was a six week period for objections/representations/expressions of support. In addition the NET Promoters went beyond the formal requirements by updating the NET website to include not only the TWAO application documentation but also the NET Promoters Statement of Case and supporting documents and, on an on-going basis, the Statements of Case submitted by objectors and supporters.

5.3.10 Some objectors have claimed that the land referencing exercise carried out by the NET Promoters and their agents, LandAspects was in some way inadequate, with some claims that it was unethical or even illegal. In fact, the exercise carried out by the NET Promoters and LandAspects followed standard procedures for TWA projects of this nature, with additional efforts made to ensure that those whose property might be affected by the construction of NET Phase Two, even though none of it was to be acquired, were also identified and notified. This is a new requirement of the Application Rules [NET.D4], which came into force in September 2006.

5.3.11 Details of the referencing and notification exercise are set out in inquiry document NET.A25 and can be summarised as follows. LandAspects were retained to: •

identify all those affected by the proposed TWA Order, including landowners, tenants and occupiers of land subject to compulsory purchase, all those with private rights over such land, various statutory bodies and organisations, all those whose properties front onto part of a street in which equipment is to be placed, and all those who might have a claim under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (which gives a right to compensation for the impacts of works carried out under compulsory powers, even though no land has been acquired);

•

compile a book of reference as required by rule 10 of the Application Rules;

•

prepare ownership plans and notices and then serving these on affected parties, in accordance with the Application Rules;

•

set up and maintain site notices along the route of the tram; and

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

48

•

create, manage and maintain a database of land ownership information to support the exercise.

5.3.12

The land referencing exercise started with the use of publicly available sources, such as the Land Registry and the electoral roll, to compile initial information about land ownership. Contrary to claims made by some objectors, these sources were not used as a final resource, but as the starting point for the exercise. LandAspects then used this information to contact the reputed owners of the land along the proposed routes, either face-to-face, or by leaving questionnaires at affected properties. Contrary to claims made by some objectors, those carrying out the interviews were permanent employees of LandAspects, not students. Again, contrary to the claims of objectors, there was no element of compulsion involved: people were free not to reply to the questionnaires. When complaints were made about the content of the questionnaires, these were revised by the NET Promoters to exclude questions that were no longer relevant following the entry into force of the Application Rules. However, the claims that the questionnaires were illegal or unnecessarily intrusive are false: the NET Promoters were required to make diligent inquiry about land ownership, and the questions were intended to elicit that information. In particular, the claim that the questionnaires asked for financial information was also false: they asked for the identity of mortgage providers, as these bodies are entitled to notice of TWA applications, but did not ask for details of the mortgage. This exercise is standard practice for a TWA application. It is also untrue to claim, as some objectors have, that the referencing exercise unnecessarily included many properties that were not on the route of NET Phase Two (and therefore made people worry that their property would be subject to compulsory purchase when this was not in fact the case). The reality is that approximately 2,700 properties were referenced, resulting in 6,363 notices being served.

5.3.13

Once LandAspects had used the information garnered from this exercise they compiled a draft Book of Reference, then wrote to the identified parties, asking them to confirm that their identified interests were correct. Again, this is standard practice for a TWA application, and is particularly valuable in picking up changes to land ownership since the original exercise was carried out, or where questionnaires were not replied to. However, neither LandAspects nor the NET Promoters could require people to return the confirmation schedules, or to make any corrections that were necessary.

Consequently, a number of errors have been noted by objectors in response to the notices that they subsequently received of the TWA application. (In many cases, the same objectors either refused to return the confirmation schedules or did so without correcting the alleged errors.)

Nevertheless, the referencing and confirmation exercise carried out as set out above and in document NET.A25 constituted “diligent inquiry” for the purposes of rule 10 of the Application Rules.

5.3.14 It has also been claimed that the referencing and confirmation exercise constituted a breach of the data protection principles. This is not the case, as was confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its letter of

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

49

24th July 2007 to LandAspects in response to a complaint made by two residents along the route of the Chilwell extension.

5.3.15 It has also been claimed that the NET Promoters made no effort to replace the street notices that were occasionally removed or damaged. This is false, and document NET.A25 contains a table setting out when all the street notices were checked and, as necessary, replaced.

5.4

The Environmental Statement

5.4.1

Some objectors have suggested that the Environmental Statement [NET.A13 to A18] is inadequate.

A substantial number of others complained that it is too extensive. The Environmental Statement reports the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which was undertaken for NET Phase Two. The EIA is a process that begins at an early stage in the planning and design of a new development, and is conducted alongside the development, taking account of changes whenever possible. The environmental impacts of construction and operation were assessed, and measures which would be used to mitigate potential adverse impacts are identified.

The Environmental Statement describes the environmental impacts and, where appropriate, the measures intended to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. It includes comprehensive chapters relating to specialist issues such as noise and vibration, townscape, archaeology and ecology.

5.4.2

The requirements to be met by the Environmental Statement are set out in the Application Rules [NET.D4]. These include: •

A description of NET Phase Two, including in particular a description of the physical characteristics of the works, the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases, and an estimate of expected residues and emissions resulting from the operational phase;

•

An outline of the main alternatives to NET Phase Two and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the proposed scheme, taking into account the environmental effects;

•

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by NET Phase Two;

•

A description of the likely significant effects of NET Phase Two on the environment, including direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, negative and positive effects, and the description of the forecasting methods used to assess these effects;

•

A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy any significant adverse environmental effects; and

•

A non technical summary of the above information.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

50

5.4.3

The Environmental Statement fully meets these requirements. It is a comprehensive document consisting of 4 volumes and a non-technical summary. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Volume 1 provide a description of the project and address the alternatives to the scheme. The potential impacts and proposed mitigation for potential adverse environmental effects is identified within chapters 5 to 20. Baseline and additional supporting environmental data is provided throughout the Environmental Statement.

The results of noise, open space, ecology and air quality surveys are presented in the annexes, which are contained in Volume 2.

A comprehensive arboricutural survey is presented within Volume 2, Part 2, Figures and Plans in Volume 3, and the Urban and Landscape Design Statement forms Volume 4. Throughout the EIA process there has been consultation with various interested parties, including statutory consultees.

This consultation has been ongoing since the scoping process was undertaken in 2000 and a summary of this is included within the Environmental Statement.

5.5

How were tram stop locations chosen?

5.5.1

The tramstops proposed for NET Phase Two have been located so as to be convenient and safe to use. In determining the number and frequency of tram stops on any route, a balance needs to be struck between providing adequate access to the tram and the impacts on the overall journey time associated with the stops. For a route with many tram stops there would be greater public access and potential catchment area, but the resulting lengthening of the journey time would then detract from the attractiveness of the system. Conversely, with too few tram stops there would be a more rapid service, but with lower patronage due the reduced access.

5.5.2

The NET Phase Two scheme has been developed on the basis of linking the local suburban areas and district centres (Beeston, Chilwell and Clifton) and other regional centres (University of Nottingham and Queens Medical Centre) with the city centre and beyond via NET Line One, and therefore tram stops are proposed at these locations. To facilitate integration with other forms of transport, interchanges (stops) are proposed with the national railway network (Nottingham Railway Station) and local buses (Beeston bus station and possibly other locations to be determined with bus operators e.g.

Clifton Centre). In addition park and ride sites would be created on the main highway approaches to the city at the route termini (Clifton and Toton Lane).

Other intermediate stops have been located to suit likely origins and destinations for travellers, including community centres and major retail, commercial and residential areas. The location and positioning of these stops has taken account of responses from public consultation feedback.

5.6

Impact on trees

5.6.1

Tree lined boulevards and green spaces are part of the character of Nottingham. The proposals for NET Phase Two try to protect the quality and character of individual trees, avenues and woodland areas where

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

51

possible and significant efforts have been made to reduce adverse impacts on trees which surround the route.

5.6.2

From the start of planning the proposals the NET Promoters have worked closely with a team of environmental and landscape professionals to draw up quality standards for areas where trees are affected. Arboricultural surveys, by tree specialists, have recorded the location, age and quality of every tree that might be affected by the NET Phase Two proposals and the information has been used to influence the design of the scheme.

5.6.3

The most recent arboricultural survey undertaken in 2007, included in Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement [NET.A16], has updated where extra protection during construction works would be required for mature or sensitive individual trees; where careful removal of current hard surfaces and installation of new paving may harm tree roots; and where trees can simply be pruned back to allow them to coexist with the tram infrastructure.

As far as possible trees identified as being in good health would be kept.

Where tree loss has been unavoidable mitigation measures have been included.

5.7

Impact on Open Space

5.7.1

Overall, NET Phase Two results in the loss of approximately 6.4 hectares of green space to which the public has access. This is principally informal open space and, while this would reduce provision locally, the design has sought to minimise this, and the remaining land in these locations would have replacement planting and other improvements to maximise its landscape and wildlife. Some of this loss is compensated by two substantial new areas of open space and provision of new habitats, proposed at Silverdale and Inham Road, with an area in total of around 4.2 hectares.

These would be accessible to local residents and are considered suitable replacements for the areas of open space lost. The only formal recreational facilities to be affected are the Coronation Sports Club (in Wilford) which has already moved as part of the redevelopment of the Becket School and a children’s play area at Inham Nook (Chilwell), which would be moved to a new location, a short distance away within the existing open space.

5.7.2

Around Silverdale Walk, the opportunity is being taken to create a new open space around the tram route east of Fairham Brook and generate a quality wildlife reserve featuring various habitats, including wet grassland, native woodland, scrub, grassland and scrapes (where areas of subsoil are left to colonise naturally). The space would be accessible on the NET Phase Two Clifton via Wilford route and, in addition to providing habitat, it would act as a leisure resource for the whole area, and be an open, landscaped area with a network of paths.

5.7.3

Open space would also be created at Inham Road, on the Chilwell route.

This open space would also be a green leisure resource for the whole area with a network of paths for pedestrians and cyclists, and a large, central

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

52

grassy area for sport; behind a broad buffer of vegetation which screens the tramway.

5.8

Impact on ecological habitats

5.8.1

Impacts predicted to arise from loss of habitat due to permanent works would be mitigated so far as possible through creation of compensation habitat and ecologically sensitive landscaping proposals. Areas of native woodland plants, wildflowers and rough grass are proposed throughout rural and sub-urban areas of the routes. Native plant species, similar to those existing, would be used to maximise benefits to wild animals. Any works affecting protected species would be carried out in consultation with Natural England.

5.9

Ground conditions/subsidence

5.9.1

The tramway proposals include major engineering works such as major new structures and would generally require removal of existing ground below the proposed track level and replacement with suitable material to provide a base with sufficient strength to support the track, trams and other traffic.

Considerable preliminary work has already been carried out to investigate the type and strength of the existing ground along the route, and further work would continue to be undertaken throughout the detailed design and construction of the project. In addition to addressing the need to provide a stable track, the design would also fully take into account the need to avoid adverse impacts from ground works on adjacent buildings. This could involve incorporating a range of special measures in the design and construction methodology, including removal or in situ strengthening of particularly soft or compressible material as well as additional foundation support to the track or bridges and other structures. The forms of design and construction which would be considered have generally been proven on similar tram or highway type schemes.

5.9.2

The Code of Construction Practice (see section 3.1, [NET.A15]) will require the contractor to identify adjacent buildings which could be at risk from ground movement and to undertake surveys before, during and after construction for signs of movement and structural damage and take appropriate action.

5.10

Has flood risk been taken into account?

5.10.1 Consideration of flood risk has been an integral part of the design development of NET Phase Two. Two areas associated with flooding risk are relevant to the proposals. These are interface with rivers, other watercourses, flood plains and existing drainage systems; and the drainage system for the tramway itself.

5.10.2 NET Phase Two proposals would cross several watercourses and rivers, and both the River Trent and Fairham Brook floodplains. The tramway design in these areas would meet the requirements of the Environment

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

53

Agency for minimum height above river levels and for replacement of any flood storage volume lost. Existing flood defences, which are to be relocated as part of the tramway works, would be reconstructed to the requirements of the Environment Agency and would provide as a minimum the same level of protection as the existing defences. Overall this would result in no adverse effect on flooding behaviour. The design would take into account the lessons learned from recent flooding events.

5.10.3 The tramway and associated works such as park and ride sites would include appropriate drainage. These would be designed to accommodate a suitable level of flow, and would discharge to various points including existing sewers and watercourses. The means of discharge would also be subject to the approval of the Environment Agency and local authorities, and would include measures (such as attenuation tanks) to reduce the peak out flow to acceptable levels.

5.11

Overhead lines and poles

5.11.1 The NET trams would be powered through an overhead line electrification (OLE) system, comprising a contact wire supported by poles or fixings to adjacent buildings (subject to height and structural suitability). Although building fixings are the preferred solution as they reduce intrusion and minimise street furniture, the semi-rural and suburban setting for much of NET Phase Two would mean that poles are required in most areas. The spacing of poles depends on the layout of the tracks and the type of OLE system. For example, on straight sections of the NET Line One, poles are positioned at approximately 40 to 50 metre intervals. The spacing is altered on curves and corners: the tighter the bend, the closer together the support poles would be. The number of poles and associated contact wires required would be kept to minimum and poles would be painted in a colour which would best help blend them into the local environment.

5.11.2 The final positioning of OLE poles would also take account of other elements of the streetscape such as bus stops, traffic signs, pedestrian crossings, location of existing and proposed trees and to suit local circumstances including maintaining appropriate footway widths and vehicular / pedestrian access to adjacent premises. In some instances it may be necessary to locate the poles immediately adjacent to buildings fronting onto the tramway, though these would be positioned to maintain specific clearances from any areas of public access, including doors, windows and balconies or cellars.

5.12

How will the streetscape be designed?

5.12.1 The route alignments for NET Phase Two have been developed as far as possible to avoid significant negative impacts on townscape and visual amenity. However, the development of such a major scheme would inevitably have some impacts on the townscape and its views. To ensure that the scheme is designed to the highest standards, an Urban and Landscape Design Statement has been prepared (Volume 4 of the

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

54

Environmental Statement). This sets out the overall design principles that would be applied during development of the scheme and illustrates how the works would be integrated into the existing rural and urban landscape.

5.12.2 An important facet of the character of Nottingham is its built heritage. The proposals for NET Phase Two would affect certain important structures, such as Wilford Toll Bridge and Nottingham Railway Station (which become working parts of the tram route); and structures which are indirectly affected, such as Lenton Priory and buildings on the University of Nottingham’s campus. Where protected buildings and structures are affected, the proposals seek to retain historic features, and be sympathetic to settings and context.

The built heritage of Nottingham makes a tangible architectural contribution to the public realm, and the proposals aim to treat this with the sensitivity and respect it deserves.

5.12.3 Generally, the integrated urban renewal and regeneration that the scheme would bring, together with tree planting and revitalisation of streetscapes would help promote an overall change to the townscape, adding new interest and landmarks to the area. There is the opportunity for quality landscape design, including the provision of high quality hard landscaping, street furniture, structures, signage, lighting, and the provision of facilities for disabled people, which would contribute positively to environmental regeneration and streetscape enhancements. These enhancements would lift the image of areas currently perceived as being of low quality.

6.

Issues about the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route The following section covers route specific issues raised by objectors. It is not a description of the route. The current Nottingham Local Plan [NET.C28] and the Broxtowe Local Plan [NET.C35] include policies which safeguard the extension of the NET system along the proposed route through Nottingham, Beeston and Chilwell, including the park and ride site.

The safeguarding policies protect the extension of the NET system from development proposals that would conflict with it.

6.1

Lenton (Abbey Street / Gregory Street)

6. 1

The scheme limits at the White Hart junction (Abbey Street / Gregory Street / Abbey Bridge) have been questioned by some objectors. It is an extremely busy junction with no formal crossing facilities and it has long been a policy and safety enhancement aim of Nottingham City Council to improve the situation for pedestrians at the junction. Additional land available at the junction and on its approaches is restricted, particularly by the proximity of Lenton Priory Park, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Having considered a number of design options and reviewed them with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) and the Highway Authority, it was concluded that to accommodate the tram, road vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists safely and provide adequate traffic capacity at this important junction, it would be necessary to widen Abbey Street on the approach to the junction. To avoid impacting on Lenton Priory Park, the

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

55

widening can only be achieved by acquiring a small number of commercial and residential properties along Abbey Street and Gregory Street and acquiring small areas of land from the White Hart public house and adjacent former petrol station. A building forming part of Deborah Services Limited is also required. However, the proposals enable significant improvements to pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities at this busy junction, in addition to accommodating NET. 6.2

Route through the University of Nottingham’s campus

6.2.1

A few objectors have expressed concern about the route through the University of Nottingham’s campus and the associated need to acquire land from residential properties, mainly situated on Greenfield Street. Some objectors feel that the route should run to the front, rather than rear of the University Arts Centre on East Drive. A route to the front of the Arts Centre was the other option under consideration when public consultation was undertaken in 2003.

6.2.2

Following that consultation exercise, a variety of factors, including tram operation and reliability, land take, community impacts such as noise/vibration and privacy and costs were considered in detail in order to determine the route alignment of NET Phase Two through the campus. The NET Promoters consider that the proposed route offers the best solution in terms of the long term operation and maintenance of the system and can be introduced in a manner sympathetic to the local environment. The findings of the additional work undertaken were reported to the City and County Councils at meetings held on 22nd February [NET.B1/25 and NET.B1/26] and 5th March 2007 [NET.B1/27 and NET.B1/28], at which the proposed route was approved and the alternative route option currently being proposed by objectors was rejected. In refining the proposals, the route has been amended from that which formed the basis of earlier public consultation, to reduce the amount of land required from residential properties by moving the route approximately five metres closer to the University Arts Centre, thereby reducing the impact on the affected properties. Gardens will remain and the existing boundary wall at the back of the properties would be replaced in matching materials. In addition specialist track form would be introduced in the area behind the University Arts Centre and a noise barrier provided to minimise noise and vibration impacts. Tree planting in rear gardens subject to agreement with the property owners, would also be introduced to provide an additional visual screen.

6.3

University Boulevard - Impact on trees

6.3.1

University Boulevard is an attractive tree lined avenue, consisting of mainly lime and beech trees. It is an important feature in the Nottingham landscape. A detailed arboricultural survey has been undertaken to assess the location and quality of all the trees along the Boulevard. This has been used in developing the tram alignment, and the design has sought to minimise loss or impacts on trees.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

56

6.3.2

Unfortunately at some locations, the loss of mature trees is unavoidable. In mitigation, additional trees would be planted elsewhere on the Boulevard and existing gaps would be planted with appropriate species to reinforce the tree lined character of the road and ensure that integrity of the Boulevard is maintained.

6.4

Beeston (Lower Road and Fletcher Road)

6.4.1

A number of issues have been raised about the use of Lower Road and Fletcher Road, including parking and vehicle access, land take, noise, ground investigations and subsidence, flooding, cycling and safety.

6.4.2

Measures would be introduced to keep Lower Road and Fletcher Road closed for through traffic (except cycles). Vehicle access onto Lower Road from University Boulevard would be prohibited, with access via Albert Road as is currently the case. Vehicles exiting Lower Road would do so via Albert Road or via the eastern end of Lower Road which would be restricted to northbound only, with u-turns facilitated by the closely located Broadgate/Woodside Road roundabout.

6.4.3

Parking survey results have been used to determine the number of parking bays proposed. It is considered that all reasonable parking needs have been catered for by the proposals, although, there is scope for further changes at the detailed design stage. If necessary, to ensure residents can use the spaces provided, residents parking schemes could be considered.

6.4.4

Where a parking bay is proposed through which residents access their private drives, road markings would be used within the bay to alert people to the presence of a driveway and deter people from parking in a way which would block it.

6.4.5

Problems are not anticipated for cars turning round, with turning heads proposed on Lower Road and Fletcher Road. The tram proposals would not affect the existing access arrangements for emergency vehicles and appropriate arrangements for refuse collection would be developed based on experience of similar locations on NET Line One.

6.4.6

The need for a small amount of land take from properties on Fletcher Road and Lower Road has been identified. This will be necessary to ensure that sufficient land is available to provide the shared highway/tramway, parking bays and footways. During detailed design every effort would be made to minimise this impact.

6.4.7

Cyclists would run on street along Lower Road and Fletcher Road, as a segregated route would have impact on properties. These roads would continue to be lightly trafficked and the removal of on-street parking into parking bays would facilitate a safe cycle route. Following discussions with PEDALS (local cycling group), signing an alternative cycle route via Salisbury Street would also be possible. The pedestrian footpath around

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

57

Neville Sadler Court would be closed and replaced with a path alongside the tramway.

6.4.8

Even with trams running at approximately every 7.5 minutes in each direction during the majority of the day, there would only be a very small increase in the number of vehicles along Fletcher Road and Lower Road.

Trams are driven by ‘line of sight’, like any other road vehicles, and so tram speeds would be low, reflecting the residential nature of the area, allowing the tram driver to react by slowing or stopping as necessary. By formalising the parking through off-street bays, the carriageway itself would be clear of obstructions, with improved visibility.

6.4.9

It is recognised that the introduction of NET Phase Two would increase noise levels in Lower Road and Fletcher Road. In accordance with the updated draft Noise and Vibration Policy for NET Phase Two [NET.P7/B], both vehicle and track design will seek to minimise the impact. (Noise barriers are not considered appropriate). No properties on Lower Road and Fletcher Road are expected to experience noise levels which would exceed the qualifying levels set down in the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 [NET.D9]. The draft Noise and Vibration Policy was updated recently following consultation with local community representatives, to improve the level of protection provided, including details on noise and vibration monitoring to enforce good levels of maintenance to avoid levels increasing with time.

6.4.10 Ground investigation has been undertaken and the extent and depth of the peat bed under Lower Road and Fletcher Road has been identified. It will be possible to alter the highway construction to accommodate the tramway.

The tramway is likely to be either: •

supported on a raft foundation. This would involve excavation to a suitable depth to construct the standard on-street track, which may need to be supported by an additional concrete slab structure.

•

an independent structure. This would involve installation of piles supported on the underlying rock, which would then be used to support the on-street track (in effect, a buried viaduct).

6.4.11 The contractor will be required by the Code of Construction Practice (see section 3.1, [NET.A15]) to identify which buildings could be at risk from ground movement and to undertake surveys before, during and after construction for any signs of movement or structural damage and take any appropriate action.

6.4.12

Discussions are taking place with Severn Trent about the NET Phase Two proposals. The existing flooding is understood to be caused by a local drainage issue. It will be a requirement that the detailed design and construction of NET Phase Two have no significant adverse impact on flooding risk. The construction and associated works to underground

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

58

drainage apparatus may also bring opportunities to undertake additional works to the drainage system at the same time.

6.5

Neville Sadler Court

6.5.1

The NET Promoters recognise the significant impact of the NET Phase Two proposals at Neville Sadler Court and discussions have been held with the owners. The NET Promoters, with the cooperation and agreement of the owners, are keen to enable the part of Neville Sadler Court that requires demolition to accommodate the tramway to be replaced by substitute accommodation comprising at least the same number of flats of an enhanced standard, offering modern facilities and easier access to the buildings for people living in them. The proposed replacement flats and car parking would all be located to the north of the tramway, thereby keeping the tram away from the main circulation area of the court. The redevelopment would require the acquisition of one adjacent residential property. Whilst the building and tramway works are taking place every effort will be made to minimise upheaval and inconvenience to residents.

6.5.2

The NET Phase Two proposals do not include for any development of the residual land to the south of the tramway. Any future proposals for that land would have to conform to local planning policy and any application would be subject to approval by Broxtowe Borough Council, as the local planning authority.

6.6

Beeston Town Centre

6.6.1

Although bringing about a change, with some demolition of existing buildings, the NET Phase Two proposals provide a real stimulus to revitalise and regenerate Beeston Town Centre. In partnership with the NET Promoters, Nottingham Regeneration Limited/Greater Nottingham Partnership, Broxtowe Borough Council has commissioned a Masterplan for the town centre – the Beeston Town Centre Plan - which seeks to establish a strategic planning framework for the future development of the town centre. Public consultation on the proposals in the draft Beeston Town Centre Plan took place in summer 2007.

6.6.2

The Square Shopping Centre is critical to the proposals included in the draft Beeston Town Centre Plan, which identifies significant potential for the redevelopment of the block between Middle Street and the Square, including the multi-storey car park (which is only partially affected by the NET proposals in that a small proportion of spaces would be lost) and current bus station. The draft Beeston Town Centre Plan includes a strategy for re-providing car parking facilities within the central area.

Around The Square itself, there are a number of development options, and one of the main aspirations of the draft Beeston Town Centre Plan is to see a much enhanced public area which is opened out to encompass views of the adjacent Conservation Area.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

59

6.6.3

If implemented alongside NET Phase Two, the Beeston Town Centre Plan would contribute positively to the local streetscape, with enhanced public realm making the town centre more inviting. NET Phase Two offers excellent accessibility with a tram stop located in the centre of the shopping area. Tram and bus services would operate through the new square offering good interchange opportunities.

6.7

Beeston and Chilwell traffic

6.7.1

Detailed assessments of traffic flows in the Beeston area, including the development of a computerised traffic model for the town centre, has been undertaken. This has identified that a significant proportion of traffic is destined for areas beyond Beeston and is using the Chilwell Road and the centre of Beeston as an alternative to the A6005 Queens Road. This assessment has also considered the most appropriate way to introduce NET Phase Two onto the local highway network.

6.7.2

As a result, it is proposed to introduce a package of traffic management measures, which include alterations on Queens Road to improve junction capacity at Station Road and Meadow Lane to enable an appropriate level of traffic to divert from Chilwell Road which will accommodate the tram route, especially in the morning and evening peak periods. This would give trams (operating every 7.5 minutes in each direction for most of the day) a reliable journey time on Chilwell Road but, with no significant impact on travel times for remaining traffic along the tram route and on Queens Road.

Minor delays to traffic could occur when the tram is at the Chilwell Road tram stop, although, this would only be for a relatively short period.

6.7.3

The Middle Street / Station Road junction is to be widened as part of the adjacent Tesco development and the assessments have taken into account traffic generated by the proposed Tesco store. Further improvements to the junction, would be required as part of NET Phase Two to provide priority for inbound trams.

6.7.4

The proposed alterations to the Middle Street / Devonshire Avenue / Chilwell Road junction include a banned right turn from Middle Street into Devonshire Avenue / Chilwell Road. Concerns have been expressed about the traffic impact that this could have on the road network, in particular on Chilwell Road and Imperial Road for trams and other vehicles. The highway assessment work has shown that there would be significant benefit to the free flow of traffic along Middle Street if the right turn into Devonshire Avenue and Chilwell Road is prohibited. The proposed arrangements allow formal pedestrian crossing facilities to be incorporated into the new signalised junction. However, if the right turn was to be allowed then a separate lane would have to be provided and time allocated to this right turn within the traffic signals so that vehicles could make the manoeuvre safely.

This would mean taking time from other approaches to the junction, which would increase delays significantly for all other road users.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

60

6.7.5

Alternative access routes to Devonshire Avenue are via Chilwell Road / Imperial Road, or via Station Road / Wollaton Road and Park Street.

Improvements proposed to the Middle Street / Station Road junction should improve flows on Station Road, encouraging its usage for access to Devonshire Avenue. However, it is also considered that the introduction of junction improvements on the wider network including (Queens Road at its junction with Station Road and Meadow Lane), would also encourage the use of appropriate alternative routes and divert a sufficient level of traffic from the tram route, in particular from Chilwell Road / High Road, especially in the morning and evening peak periods. These measures would allow traffic along the tram route to be freer flowing and minimise difficulties at junctions, such as Chilwell Road / Imperial Road. This has been confirmed by the detailed traffic modelling of this section of route, which has taken account of the diversion of the traffic which currently turns right into Devonshire Avenue.

6.8

Chilwell Road / High Road

6.8.1

Chilwell Road / High Road is a relatively busy location, lined on both sides by commercial and residential properties and where current parking and servicing requirements conflict with moving traffic. With the tramway running on street with other traffic through this area, provision has to be made to accommodate off-street loading/servicing facilities, (particularly on the north side), footways of appropriate width and tram stops. The resulting track geometry and highway design have required that some property demolition is needed to produce a feasible solution. The aim has been to maximise the retention of shop frontages while accommodating parking/loading facilities and the tram stop.

6.8.2

Traffic issues for the Chilwell Road / High Road area are covered in section 6.7. There are several key design issues to be addressed for this section of the route. These include parking and servicing, and alignment and layout issues including providing a high quality accessible tram stop in a central location.

6.8.3

In order to understand the parking and servicing requirements along Chilwell Road / High Road an extensive investigation was carried out. As a result and to meet the identified parking and servicing requirements three lay-bys serving the western, central and eastern sections of Chilwell Road / High Road, an off street car park to the rear of Chilwell Methodist Church and a car park in the central area behind the Chilwell Road tram stop are proposed.

6.8.4

The proposals for Chilwell Road / High Road area have been carefully designed to help maintain and strengthen the prospects of the retail and commercial area and to enhance its attractiveness to residents and shoppers. The proposals include:•

Extensive environmental improvements, such as high quality paving, tree and shrub planting.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

61

•

A new paved amenity area, providing a focal point for the area and improving the environment for pedestrians.

This would include a Chilwell Road tram stop in the central area to encourage people to visit the retail area/other community facilities and a tram stop adjacent to Castle College.

•

A potential new commercial development site at Ellis Grove.

•

The provision of two new off street car parks, parking bays on side roads and loading bays for businesses of Chilwell Road / High Road, to sufficiently cater for parking and loading needs and to help all traffic move more freely through the area.

6.8.5

The construction phase will be challenging in the Chilwell Road / High Road area but great care will be taken to minimise disturbance when works are taking place (see section 3.2.3). The NET Promoters will endeavour to ensure that access to shops for customers and loading/unloading activities is maintained throughout the period of the works. Conditions during construction may be difficult for local businesses. Therefore the County Council intend to introduce a financial assistance package in order to support businesses in the Chilwell Road / High Road area during the construction phase of the project. Public Consultation on the draft Financial Assistance Package (FAP) was undertaken by the County Council in 2004 and the current draft FAP was distributed to businesses and traders in the Chilwell Road/High Road area in late September 2007. Valuable lessons have been learned from NET Line One and as a result the NET Promoters will seek to maintain strict controls on construction in this sensitive area.

Careful management of the works, together with good communications with local residents and businesses in advance is proposed.

6.8.6

Overall it is considered that once implemented the proposals would maintain and enhance the viability of Chilwell Road as a retail centre, creating a safer and more pedestrian friendly environment, increasing accessibility and bringing long term benefits to the area.

6.9

Castle College to Cator Lane

6.9.1

The off-street route section from High Road through Chilwell generally uses a corridor originally left free of development to provide space for a road scheme. The road scheme was subsequently abandoned, and the land has been partially developed and used for leisure purposes. Along this section the route runs between the rear garden of houses on Lime Grove Avenue, Gwenbrook Avenue, Brookland Drive, Cator Lane; and the side of Castle College on High Road.

6.9.2

The route alignment has been influenced by a number of factors, in particular:•

Location and layout of the new junction on High Road, which is required in order to safely take the tramway off street. Moving this

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

62

junction eastwards would result in the need for additional property acquisition on High Road. •

Tram stop position and location. The most appropriate location for this tram stop is considered to be on Castle College's grounds parallel to the college building.

•

To minimise impacts (such as overlooking and noise) on local residents, allotments and businesses; and to provide space for privacy and noise issues to be dealt with. In particular, the alignment has been set so that Richmond Court and its grounds are broadly unaffected.

6.9.3

It is considered important to have two tram stops along the Chilwell Road / High Road area in order to adequately serve the shopping area and cater for residents and people working and studying in the area. In addition, the proposed tram stop in front of Castle College would provide high levels of accessibility for people to the west and south of the tram route. However, as noted above, the constraints imposed by the tram stop layout/location and new junction on High Road, and the presence of Richmond Court effectively set limits on the alignment between these points. Further constraints are imposed by track design and the performance of the tram vehicle itself. In particular, this limits the location and tightness of the radius of the track immediately to the west of the proposed tram stop.

6.9.4

For these reasons, it is necessary for the tramway to utilise parts of some private gardens and requires the demolition of two properties and some outbuildings. This area has been planted in parts by the owners of the adjacent residential houses, and naturally colonised in other places by trees and plants; some of which would be removed to accommodate the tramway and a realigned culverted watercourse. An arboricultural survey has been undertaken (Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement [NET.A16]), and efforts have been made to avoid impact on trees identified as being in good health. Where adverse impacts have been unavoidable the loss of vegetation and amenity would be compensated for along the NET corridor through planting new trees and creating areas of public space. In addition, the NET Promoters would, with the permission of the affected owners, seek to replace some of the vegetation lost by replacement planting in back gardens.

6.9.5

The proposed route utilises a variety of fences and boundary treatments, appropriate to the situation. In this area a hedgerow of native shrubs would be used to integrate with the existing vegetation and proposed areas of native woodland planting. In some sections, noise barriers would be introduced to mitigate the impact of the tram. In other places, chain-link fencing at the foot of rear gardens can be supplemented with planting.

6.9.6

In keeping with the character of the semi-rural area the tram tracks in this area would be on broken stone ballast material which has an informal look and has the added benefit of being noise absorbent.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

63

6.9.7

In terms of the potential for wheel squeal, experience on NET Line One and elsewhere indicates that wheel squeal is unlikely on all but the tightest bends and can be avoided on bends greater than about 20-25 metres by careful track design and high standards of installation followed by good maintenance. Early on in the operation of NET Line One there were examples of wheel squeal on tight bends.

However, following the introduction of wheel vibration damping systems on all trams, wheel squeal was removed. No bends with radius of lower than 20 metres is proposed for NET Phase Two and the Castle College / Lime Grove Avenue bend would have a radius of 29 metres on the Lime Grove Avenue side.

6.9.8

In the immediate vicinity of Richmond Court, the tramway has been aligned to minimise the impact on the residential home. The tramway would be located beyond the main rear garden to Richmond Court and behind the row of established conifers that form the existing boundary; therefore retaining an effective screen. In addition a noise barrier approximately 2 metres high is proposed adjacent to Richmond Court. The existing culverted watercourse which already passes beneath the rear garden may need to be diverted or amended to accommodate the tramway in this area.

To enable these works to be undertaken and to allow for future maintenance, permanent access rights in the garden area are therefore included in the order.

6.9.9

An alternative route via Cator Lane was considered and consulted on in the early stages of the project development, but was rejected in favour of the proposed route for the following reasons:

6.10

•

Increase tram journey times.

•

Increased capital costs.

•

Parking and access difficulties on Cator Lane which could only be properly addressed through acquisition of land from front gardens to provide servicing lay-bys.

•

The lack of separation from other traffic which would impact on reliability.

Cator Lane to Inham Road

6.10.1 The route of the tramway along the corridor, which runs from Cator Lane in the east to Inham Road in the west is safeguarded in the Broxtowe Local Plan [NET.C35]. This route was once intended for use as a road. The tramway alignment along this section has been carefully designed to minimise the impact of the scheme and preserve and enhance as far as practicable many of the existing features. The proposals include the provision of four tram stops in order to maximise access for local residents to the tram system. The tram stops are proposed at: •

Cator Lane near to Greenwood Court;

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

64

•

Bramote Lane near to Sandby Court;

•

Eskdale Drive near to two schools (Alderman Pounder and Eskdale)

•

Inham Road, by the proposed replacement public open space.

6.10.2 The creation of a new footpath and cycleway north of the tramway between Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane would provide a suitable link to the tram stops and would allow people to walk and cycle the full length of the open corridor without having to cross the tramway.

6.10.3 In keeping with the open nature of the area, the tram tracks would be placed on stone ballast material which has an informal look, yet deters pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from using the tramway and has the added advantage of being noise absorbent.

6.10.4 The corridor includes an existing watercourse which is part culverted. The proposals include the further culverting of a section of the watercourse to the immediate west of Bramcote Lane. The culvert would be appropriately sized to accommodate the level of water flow. There is an existing drainage problem which causes flooding at Cator Lane immediately to the south of the proposed tramway crossing of the road. It would be a requirement that the detailed design and construction of NET Phase Two have no significant adverse impact on flooding behaviour. The construction of NET Phase Two and any associated works to underground drainage apparatus may also bring opportunities to undertake additional works to this drainage system at the same time. Discussions are ongoing with the Environment Agency and Severn Trent about the NET proposals.

6.10.5 The alignment of the tramway through this corridor seeks to minimise impact on the local landscape, including trees.

The most recent arboricultural survey (Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement [NET/A16]) undertaken in 2007 recorded the age and health of every tree along NET Phase Two. All efforts have been made to keep trees which are in good health. However it would not be possible to retain all trees and replacement planting is therefore proposed.

6.10.6 NET Phase Two proposes crossing points opposite Eskdale School and Alderman Pounder School (the latter is immediately next to the proposed tram stop). The proposed knee high and post and rail fencing would act as a barrier between the tramway and the adjacent open land to prevent people from accidentally straying onto the tramway. Nonetheless, pedestrians should show a similar level of caution when walking by the tramlines as alongside a road, even though tramways are safer than roads for pedestrians. Tram speeds would be carefully assessed relative to the surrounding environment and speeds along the open corridor would be low, (not exceeding 30 mph) allowing the driver to react to any encroachment on the tramway by slowing down or stopping as necessary.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

65

6.10.7 In the area between Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane, the mature trees along the southern boundary and the paths that run through the area are considered to be important features of the corridor. These are the elements which the design of the scheme has retained and enhanced, where possible. It is recognised that the use of the open corridor to play games would be restricted to some extent. However, there are alternative areas in the locality which can be used for such purposes and the tramway would be kept as far to the north as possible to retain as much of the open corridor as possible.

6.10.8 It is not anticipated that the tramway crossing of Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane would cause any significant disruption to traffic. The tram only requires the road traffic to be halted for approximately 20 seconds as dictated by the minimum crossing time required for the pedestrian crossing facility provided alongside the NET crossing. With a peak frequency of eight trams per hour in each direction the traffic lights would only be called approximately once every three to four minutes for the tram. Traffic levels on these roads are not high enough for this to create any significant tailbacks. Signs would be provided giving motorists advanced warning that they are approaching a new signalised junction.

6.10.9 It is not anticipated that traffic levels would increase on Bramcote Avenue following the introduction of NET Phase Two. Traffic impacts have been assessed as part of the development of NET Phase Two and, although driving habits may well alter, only modest changes in traffic levels are anticipated in the Bramcote Avenue area.

6.10.10 Between Bramcote Lane and the crook of Eskdale Drive the space available for NET Phase Two narrows slightly. Again, improving path ways, creating facilities for cyclists and the retention of existing trees are key to the design.

Some low quality trees and scrub would be lost in the area where the Bramcote Lane tram stop is proposed. The position of the tram stop is required to allow the tramway to cross Bramcote Lane at an angle and swing away from the Sandby Court buildings, providing space for a buffer of vegetation and a tall boundary fence (approximately 2 metres high) beside the tramway to help maintain privacy.

6.10.11 The tramway would run to the south of Sandby Court (between the southern block and the houses/apartments currently being constructed on the site of the former petrol station), away from the main circulation area of the complex and the entrance to the adjacent Valley Surgery. Meetings have been held with residents, and further discussions will take place with affected parties, particularly during the construction phase to ensure that disruption is minimised as far as possible.

6.10.12 The space available is limited and it is recognised that there would be a significantly changed environment for the residents of the flats at Sandby Court which will back onto the tramway. Noise impacts will be significant for the residents on the upper floors. A noise barrier and adjacent planting is proposed. The barrier will also aid privacy.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

66

6.10.13 The proposals should not impact on the parking at Sandby Court at any stage, and access to Bramcote Lane will be retained throughout the construction phase, including access for emergency vehicles and taxis.

There would be a temporary loss of parking spaces at the Valley Surgery, but the car park would be reinstated, with the same number of spaces following the completion of the works, 6.10.14 As the route runs parallel to Eskdale Drive it moves closer to the road and requires the removal of several trees which are in good condition. However, the proposed location for the tramway allows the creation of a buffer of new trees to shield the open corridor to the north from the tramway and vehicular traffic, thereby minimising the visual impact of the tramway. The proposals also require the play area to be moved a short distance northwards, next to the tennis courts. This also has the benefit of moving the play area away from Eskdale Road. Other recreational activities, such as informal games of football and walking the dog, would still be possible on the open areas to the immediate north of the tramway and road.

6.10.15 After passing Ghost House Lane, the space available narrows once more.

In this area the primary objective of the design is to retain a buffer of vegetation and trees, in order to maintain a visual barrier for houses which back onto the tramway.

6.10.16 To mitigate for the loss of open space along the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route, the fields beyond Inham Road would become a large area of public open space with facilities for leisure, and provide the opportunity to create a nature reserve featuring various habitats: native woodland, wildflowers and scrapes as before (where plants are left to colonise naturally on less fertile soils).

6.11

Toton Lane Park and Ride site

6.11.1 Assessments of traffic levels now and in the future on Toton Lane have indicated that the new access to the park and ride site can be accommodated without significantly worsening traffic conditions on this busy road. These assessments take account of traffic levels increasing on this road in the next few years. The new park and ride site would not have a significant impact on the nearby Bardills roundabout on the A52, which was recently the subject of an improvement scheme, as most users of the park and ride would be existing travellers who divert to the tram rather than continuing their journey by car.

6.11.2 The tram alignment and park and ride site are located on Green Belt land, but planning policy guidance provides that park and ride is not necessarily inappropriate if non-Green Belt alternatives are considered first and that a number of criteria are satisfied. There are no suitable locations outside the Green Belt for this park and ride site. In policy term, it is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the site will not compromise the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of the inclusion of the land in

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

67

the Green Belt. Importantly, the inclusion of the park and ride site within the Green Belt does not reduce the protection of adjacent Green Belt land against future development. Broxtowe Borough Council (the local planning authority) have confirmed acceptance of the proposed site through the local plan process.

7.

Issues about the Clifton via Wilford route The following section covers route specific issues raised by objectors. It is not a full description of the route. The current Nottingham Local Plan [NET.C28] and the Rushcliffe Non Statutory Replacement Local Plan [NET.C34] include policies which safeguard the extension of the NET system along the proposed route through Nottingham and in the Borough of Rushcliffe. The policies protect the NET extension from development proposals that would conflict with it.

7.1

Queen’s Walk

7.1.1

Queen’s Walk is an important feature in Nottingham. It is currently a pedestrian and cycle route from Wilford and parts of the Meadows into the City Centre, framed by an attractive single and double tree-lined avenue (mainly lime trees). The aim of the design along Queen’s Walk would be to retain as many of the existing trees as possible, using careful construction methods, and replace any trees that would be lost.

7.1.2

The southern section of Queen’s Walk (south of Kirkewhite Walk) has two avenues of trees - inner and outer rows of similarly sized trees. There is a strong possibility that the inner row of trees may need to be removed on this section, as the roots may be significantly damaged by the tram construction.

This view is based on visual assessment of the type, size and condition of the trees. At the construction stage it would be a requirement that the contractor reassess the impact on trees by obtaining specialist arboricultural advice when the roots are exposed, with the aim of minimising the number of trees to be removed. Where tree loss cannot be avoided, new trees would be planted to re-establish a double row along this section. Although there would be a short-term adverse impact, the removal and replacement process would give rise to a long-term benefit for the amenity of the area, as the trees on Queen’s Walk are all of a similar age, and so the existing avenue will deteriorate with age in time, and the avenue as a whole is susceptible to disease. A more diverse row of trees would help long-term viability.

7.1.3

On the northern section (between Kirkewhite Walk and Meadows Way), where there is currently one row of trees, potential tree loss is expected to be minimal. However, the intention is that additional tree planting would also take place along this section of Queen’s Walk to create a second row of trees, providing a double avenue to match the southern section.

Replacement and additional trees are likely to be lime trees. It is recognised that it would take a number of years for replacement trees to reach the stature of existing trees. The planting would help filter views to residential

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

68

properties. As a minimum, one new tree would be planted for each tree that had to be removed.

7.1.4

In addition to existing footpaths on either side of Queens Walk, a footpath and separate cycleway would be provided in the centre alongside the tramway. It is not considered that this would cause additional impacts on retained and proposed trees. The surfacing used along Queens Walk would create an alternative pedestrianised environment and reduce the visual impact of the tramway. The footpath and cycleway would have a porous bound gravel surface which allows water and gasses to penetrate into the soil. These paths would sit on top of the ground, to minimise root disturbance during construction.

7.2

Wilford Village - Toll Bridge Area

7.2.1

Wilford Toll Bridge would be closed for pedestrians and cyclists for a period of up to six months during the construction phase to enable the bridge deck to be replaced and strengthened. It is recognised that this would be a loss with alternative crossings of the River Trent some distance away. For children travelling to and from school, discussions have been held with representatives of the local schools and alternative transport will be provided during the closure period.

7.2.2

From Wilford Toll Bridge the tramway would operate along Main Road before turning east and operating to the north of Coronation Avenue. This section of Main Road would be closed to traffic. Access would be provided to Nottingham Moderns Rugby Club for maintenance, special events and emergency vehicles and separate discussions are taking place with the club. This area is currently used for recreational and school parking and a replacement car park (approximately 25 spaces) is proposed adjacent to the Ferry Inn Public House. Measures would be taken if necessary at the operational stage to deter park and ride usage of the proposed car park and adjacent streets.

7.2.3

A number of alignment options to avoid running alongside Coronation Avenue were investigated. However these would involve considerable new structures across the river, the Iremonger Pond SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) and the flood storage area, with their supports impacting on the free flow of the river, particularly when it is in flood. This makes the options not viable on the grounds of environmental impact, impact on flooding and cost. One proposal, for providing a new bridge link to the existing stub end of the railway embankment, has the added disadvantage of requiring a tram stop at a high level with long access ramps.

7.2.4

The proposed floodwall along Coronation Avenue would be designed to perform at least as well as the existing embankment and small excavations from the end of the old railway embankment would replace any loss of flood storage area. The position of the tram tracks and floodwall has been proposed on the basis of a balance between visual impact, protection of the

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

69

pond and flood requirements. Consultation with the Environment Agency has been constructive and the final designs for the Coronation Avenue and Main Road flood prevention aspects would have to be approved by the Environment Agency to ensure that there is no detriment to the existing situation.

7.3

Wilford Village

7.3.1

The Wilford Village tram stop on Main Road is located to serve passengers from the village, staff, parents and children going to the nearby schools and visitors to the riverside and recreational activities. If a commuter parking problem occurred in the areas adjacent to the tram stop the City Council would consider the introduction of a residents parking scheme if requested by residents.

7.3.2

An alternative tram stop location near Bader Road has been proposed by some objectors. It is doubtful that an extra stop can be justified for the expected balance of patronage and, as an alternative to the proposed Main Road tram stop, this site would be behind the embankment where it may be considered to be too isolated, with concerns for passenger safety and feelings of security, particularly in the evenings, both at the stop and when walking to and from it through the allotments and under the embankment bridge.

7.4

Wilford Lane - Traffic

7.4.1

The Highway Authority (Nottinghamshire County Council) does not believe the Wilford Lane crossing would have any significant impact on overall traffic delay. Junction capacity modelling has been undertaken of this junction, which has allowed for the linkage with the new Compton Acres junction and for the additional traffic generated due to the school development to the north accessed from this junction. This has shown that when NET Phase Two opens the junction would operate within capacity.

7.5

Wilford Lane - Tram stop and maintenance access

7.5.1

A significant number of objectors were opposed to the Wilford Lane tram stop being located to the south of Wilford Lane and suggested that it should be to the north of the road instead. As the residential and school development proposals at Gresham Park will change the balance of potential passenger demand for the tram stop, the NET Promoters agree that it would be better to move the tram stop to the north side of the road and have revised the proposals to make this change.

7.5.2

The maintenance area shown by Wilford Lane is not intended to be used for vehicle storage or for works to be carried out at this location. The facility is intended as a means of access required here very infrequently to enable a tamping machine (a rail vehicle undertaking periodic maintenance of the long stretch of ballasted track) to gain access to the embankment. The tamping machine is not suitable for on street running and therefore would

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

70

not be able to come along the tram tracks through the city centre. Unlike the situation on NET Line One, where there is direct access from the Wilkinson Street depot, for the section of ballasted track on the embankment the tamping machine would come on the back of a road vehicle and gain access to the north of Wilford Lane. This is away from the main residential area properties so minimising impacts. The area would be gated, fenced and surfaced and would also provide access to the electrical sub station.

7.6

Former Railway Embankment

7.6.1

The proposals in this area have been designed with the aim of minimising disturbance to the people living next to the tramway. Along this stretch of the route the plans also aim to reintroduce (following construction) the valuable linear aspect of the wildlife corridor, and to recreate, as much as possible, the existing amenity.

7.6.2

To this end, large areas of the embankment would be re-graded to accommodate the tramway. From just north of Wilford Lane to the Compton Acres tram stop the embankment is to be removed. This would not only have the benefit of reducing noise and visual impacts, but would create the opportunity to generate habitats which sustain existing plant communities.

Lowering the embankment would maximise the available area for replacement planting and nature conservation and the provision of a replacement footpath.

7.6.3

Following comments received, the NET promoters have changed the proposals so that the tram cross-over that was originally proposed to be adjacent to Heathervale/St Austell Drive would instead be at a location north of Wilford Lane away from residential properties. A proposal to reopen a footpath link between the embankment and Heathervale was incorrectly shown on the Urban and Landscape Design drawings (Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement [NET.A18]) and the NET Promoters confirm that the link will not be reopened as part of NET Phase Two.

7.6.4

It is recognised that the embankment has a significant nature conservation value during construction and the proposals would result in the loss of the existing vegetation and habitat along much of the former railway, which is a SINC. Primarily to minimise ecology impacts, the majority of embankment to the north of Wilford Lane would be left intact, with the tramway running to the east of the former railway line.

7.6.5

The impacts on the ecology and the vegetation generally would be minimised by replanting. This would ensure, through species selection and cultivation that, as far as possible, visual screening, the ecological value and attractiveness would be restored as quickly as possible.

7.6.6

In addition, further compensation is proposed through the creation of an area of approximately 3.1 hectares of wildlife habitat on land currently in arable use between the embankment and Fairham Brook just south of Silverdale (see section 7.7).

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

71

7.6.7

Lowering the embankment would significantly reduce the prominence of the tramway. However, this would involve considerable earth movement and disposal by heavy vehicles. In accordance with the Code of Construction Practice (see section 3.1, [NET.A15]), the timing and methods of such activities would be subject to approval by planning, highways and environmental health officers to minimise impacts during this period of time, which is expected to be fairly short.

7.6.8

By lowering the embankment, sufficient space is created for the tram alignment, retaining a footpath alongside and for planting of landscaping to minimise impacts. It is intended that this would be with native local species to provide a hedgerow effect, with interspersed trees. The natural approach may not provide the density that some evergreen species might achieve, but would be less intrusive and would best replicate the existing habitat. In some locations it may also be possible to supplement screen planting with planting at the end of adjacent residents gardens. Such arrangements can be agreed on an individual basis at a later stage. As the landscaping matures the corridor would regain much of its green character, with the new area south of Silverdale compensating the loss.

7.6.9

In addition to the planting it is proposed, where necessary, to enhance garden boundary fencing, to ensure a two metre high screen. Higher fences are not advisable as they would be excessively dominant over smaller gardens, cause significant shade and be difficult to maintain.

7.6.10 During the preparation of the Environmental Statement it became clear that there was potential for noise impacts adjacent to the tramway on this section of the route, and mitigation measures were carefully considered.

The NET Promoters approved a draft Noise and Vibration Policy for NET Phase Two [NET.A15] in 2004, which set thresholds above which noise impacts would be mitigated. The NET Promoters consulted Rushcliffe Borough Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and local community representatives for comments on the policy and recently updated the policy [NET.P7/B]. The thresholds are considerably below levels at which statutory noise insulation would be offered, and are aimed to bring noise below levels which are generally acceptable, although clearly some increase in noise is to be expected. It is not practicable to ensure no noise increases occur. Current indications are that noise barriers would be appropriate along substantial portions of this section of the route, on both sides of the tracks, and that the noise impact threshold levels of LAeq, 0700-2300 hours 55dB and LAeq, 2300-0700 hours 45dB can be achieved (within the draft Noise and Vibration Policy for NET Phase Two). These levels are roughly half as loud as those for which the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 offer noise insulation. The barriers would be designed taking into account their appearance and the nature of the area in which they are located.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

72

7.6.11 A ballast track form is proposed along the former railway alignment. This is quieter than equivalent concrete or street running track forms and is most suitable for off-street running.

7.6.12 Some objectors have suggested that there would be constant announcements from 5.30 am to late in the night at tram stops about tram arrivals and departures, creating noise nuisance to residents. This is not the case. With the network envisaged for NET there would not be the need for regular tram announcements and the Public Address (PA) system at tram stops would only be used by exception, such as in the event of service disruption. Likewise, use of the tram’s warning bell would only be used when the driver considers it is necessary for safety reasons.

7.6.13 The NET Promoters envisage passengers would access tram stops by foot, cycle (with provision of cycle stands at some stops), bus, ‘kiss and ride’ (dropped off by car) or park and ride (at the Clifton Park and Ride site).

Unnecessary car journeys are to be discouraged and so, with the exception of the Clifton Park and Ride site, there would be no provision for parking at the tram stops. The localised tram stops are intended for use by local people. If commuter parking occurs and creates a nuisance at tram stops, the City and County Councils, as Highway Authorities for their respective areas, would consider the introduction of restrictions (double yellow lines or residents parking schemes) to prevent dangerous or inconvenient obstruction from parked vehicles.

7.6.14 The proposed new footpath between Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane replaces an existing feature and should not reduce security for neighbouring properties; indeed, such footpaths are a common feature throughout the local estate. Vegetation would separate the path from property boundaries and there would be increased passive policing through the tram itself and increased use of a more formalised footpath. There would also be enhanced garden boundary fencing where necessary. The security of neighbouring properties should not therefore be compromised. The path would not be lit, except at the approach to the tram stops. Separated from the tracks by a fence and hedge, the path would still be an important element in the network of paths in the area, thus retaining an amenity for the wider community for walking, dog exercising and jogging.

7.6.15 The path that connects Compton Acres and Ruddington Lane across the embankment would be retained as would the other existing paths that connect Compton Acres with the embankment.

7.6.16 Although capable of speeds of 80kph (50mph) on straight and level track, in practice, for most of the proposed alignment, trams would be travelling at speeds well below this as they pull away from or slow down for stops, bends, pedestrian crossings, etc or pass through environments where lower speeds are more appropriate. For example, between the Wilford Lane, Compton Acres and Ruddington Lane tram stops the top speed is only possible for about 300m and for approximately half the distance the speeds would be below 30mph. Speed limits are determined through discussions

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

73

with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) and trams are driven by ‘line of sight’, like a road vehicle, and the driver has to drive at speeds that allow for all operating conditions and tram characteristics and adjust his/her speed accordingly to suit traffic, pedestrians, weather and other conditions and be prepared to stop promptly if required. But unlike other road traffic, speed limits would be determined for each different stretch of track through discussions with HMRI and would be enforced via automatic on-vehicle records.

7.6.17 The proposed fencing and hedges should ensure that pedestrians only cross the tramway where drivers expect them to do so, and would act to inform people of safe limits and make it difficult for them to cross these limits.

7.7

Replacement Open Space south of Silverdale

7.7.1

An area of open space to replace losses elsewhere along the route is proposed south of Silverdale. This area is considered to be a suitable replacement for the area of open space lost along the former railway embankment between Compton Acres/St Austell Drive and Ruddington Lane. The new area of open space would allow the creation of a wildlife reserve featuring various habitats, including wet grassland, native woodland, scrub, grassland and scrapes (where areas of subsoil are left to colonise naturally). In some areas the new open space would double up as a leisure resource for the whole area, and be an open, landscaped area with a network of paths.

7.7.2

Locating the tram within a mix of wildlife habitats and open space would in effect lessen the visual intrusion of the tram on local homes and the buffer of green space between urban areas would be safeguarded. This land would be drawn together into a continuous green space, and invested in to become a quality resource. All land on and around the existing open space, which is used to accommodate the NET tracks and infrastructure, would therefore be compensated for by the formal creation of new wildlife habitats and leisure resources.

7.7.3

When creating the open space some intervention would be employed to ensure that the habitats for wildlife are diverse and good quality. For example, by scraping back topsoil in certain areas soil fertility is reduced creating a diverse range of habitats and promotes less invasive species of native plants to flourish.

7.7.4

Silverdale Walk, part of the network of pedestrian rights of way and off-road cycle paths which weave in and out of the residential fabric of the area, crosses the northern most segment of a large area of recreation ground to the east of Clifton, between the urban area and Fairham Brook. The recreation ground and the adjacent farmland acts as a buffer between the suburban areas of Clifton and Wilford. The tram would run east to west across the farmland, before crossing Fairham Brook and emerging onto the recreation ground. The route would utilise a small portion of the northern

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

74

end of the recreation ground, intersecting with the north/south path of Silverdale Walk. The route would not affect any of the sports pitches on the recreation ground, and the alignment of NET avoids the woodland near to Farnborough Road. The Silverdale Walk cycle/footpath would be surfaced with a bound gravel material where it crosses the NET area.

7.7.5

The proposed path through the new open space would be a continuation of the Silverdale Walk recreational facility. Vegetation would separate the access path from property boundaries, and there would be increased passive policing through the tram itself and increased use of a more formalised footpath. The security of neighbouring properties should not therefore be compromised.

7.7.6

In keeping with the semi-rural character of the area the tram tracks would be placed over stone ballast material which has an informal look; and throughout most of the public open space low, knee rail fencing (just over a foot off the ground) would be used to delineate the boundary between the tram tracks and the rest of the open space. This type of fence informally, but definitely, separates people from trams, without compromising the open aspects of the space. As the tram emerges onto Farnborough Road the design strategy for the boundary treatment changes and visual barriers would be introduced to help shield neighbouring houses from being overlooked by people on the tram.

7.8

Clifton – Parking and bus services

7.8.1

Parking bays are proposed along Farnborough Road and Southchurch Drive in order to replace the on-street parking facilities currently available.

The precise location and number of parking bays would be determined during the detailed design stage of the project to ensure adequate parking provision would be made available and to deal with any specific localised issues. On a specific matter, where a parking bay is proposed in front of a row of houses, some of which have private drives, the layout of the bay would allow reasonable access to the drive to be maintained. During construction, it is recognised that there would be unavoidable periods of temporary loss of on street parking, which would need to be displaced further along the road or to nearby streets. This impact would be minimised through a rolling programme of construction.

7.8.2

Although there may be some changes to core bus services operating from Clifton, most services from the area are still expected to continue operating in a similar way to those from Bulwell where operators revised rather than removed bus services after NET Line One opened. By law, bus services outside London are deregulated, so it is up to the operators to decide how to amend or restructure services, but it is envisaged that the bus operators would amend some of their services to provide feeder services linking with the tram. The details of any feeder services would be determined in consultation with the operators at a later stage. There are a number of locations in Clifton where bus/tram interchange could occur such as at each end of Southchurch Drive; in the main shopping area on Southchurch Drive,

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

75

and for buses from outlying villages, at the proposed Clifton Park and Ride site.

7.9

Clifton Park and Ride site

7.9.1

The proposed location for the park and ride site is adjacent to Nottingham Road. The site is immediately adjacent to the proposed ExtraCare elderly care village, the construction of which started in spring 2007. Contrary to assertions made by some objectors, the land on which the care village is being constructed has been allocated for residential development within the Nottingham Local Plan since 1997 and has never been proposed as the site for the park and ride. The land is strategically important in ensuring the balance of housing type, size and affordability within the City and within Clifton itself and would be inappropriate for park and ride because of its status as a housing site in the Nottingham Local Plan.

7.9.2

The chosen park and ride site was identified following investigations of four available Green Belt sites, and, when assessed against national planning policy requirements, it was not considered an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In particular, the park and ride is an essential element of NET Phase Two and building the site in this particular location will not compromise the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of the location’s inclusion in the Green Belt. The park and ride site is an exception to Green Belt policy and its approval does not alter the protection afforded to other adjacent Green Belt land. There is no presumption that approval of the park and ride site will lead to further development of the Green Belt in this location and National Planning Policy Guidance advises that park and ride is not necessarily inappropriate in Green Belt provided that non-Green Belt alternatives are investigated first and a number of criteria are satisfied.

7.9.3

A considerable amount of design work has been undertaken to minimise the visual impacts of the proposals for the park and ride site and the access road. The park and ride site would be developed in a way to reduce its prominence, being cut into the hillside with a wide strip of native planting bordering the site. The layout, design and landscaping of the park and ride site and link road would be designed sympathetically, preserving the landscape and allowing wildlife habitat to be created.

7.9.4

It is considered unlikely that the Park and Ride site will result in increased traffic levels on Gotham Road or Barton Lane. The traffic analysis suggests that the majority of tram users would already be making car journeys on local roads, but would choose to divert to the park and ride facility instead of continuing their journey towards Nottingham by car. It is anticipated that a number of re-routed or new feeder bus services would access the park and ride site, where interchange facilities are proposed. The proposals are fully compatible with the A453 dualling following consultation with the Highway Agency.

7.9.5

Some objectors suggest that the tram park and ride would be unnecessary once the proposed East Midland Parkway Station opens, at Ratcliffe-on-

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

76

Soar in 2008. The station is primarily intended to offer an alternative for people accessing long distance rail services and East Midlands Airport.

While the station may attract some people travelling into Nottingham the rail service would be less frequent than NET Phase Two with expectations of only two trains per hour, more expensive and some distance from the most congested areas approaching Nottingham. In addition, Nottingham Station is also distant from key central area destinations. Therefore it is expected that most use of the parkway station would be for trips travelling away from the area, allowing passengers to travel to London or elsewhere without having to travel into Nottingham first. The NET Park and Ride site, situated on the edge of the built up area and with considerably higher ‘ride’ frequencies, would be far better placed to attract drivers bound for Nottingham immediately before they enter the most congested roads, offering a high quality, frequent and fast onward connection bound for Nottingham.

8.

Issues about listed buildings and conservations areas Some objectors have queried the need for the listed building and conservation area consents and the likely impacts. The NET Promoters consider that they have made applications for the necessary alterations to the listed buildings and the demolition of those non-listed buildings in conservation areas considered essential to enable the scheme to be built.

Each of the applications is discussed below.

8.1

Listed Building Consent 1 – Nottingham Railway Station

8.1.1

The NET Phase Two proposals involve the construction of a new bridge over the Grade 2* listed Nottingham Railway Station. The design of the new structures has undergone sensitive evolution to provide high quality, modern industrial structures which are sympathetic to the context of the Edwardian station buildings. The interface with the existing built elements of the station have been designed to minimise any alteration to the listed buildings and to ensure that any necessary alterations will not be visible to most users of the station. The principal works, to the building on Platform 4/5, involve the internal alteration of a building for the bridge piers and the careful dismantling and reconstruction of one part of the facade of the building. The works will not adversely affect the architectural or historic interest of Nottingham Railway Station as a whole.

8.2

Conservation Area Consents 1, 3, 4 and 7 – Station Conservation Area

8.2.1

The proposals also require the demolition of various structures within the conservation area surrounding Nottingham station. These include warehouses, hoarding, small fences, walls and gates, as well as the existing pedestrian link bridge between Nottingham station and NET Line One. Most of these structures make no contribution to or detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area, and their removal would have no adverse impacts, if the remaining sites are reinstated in a sympathetic manner. The west wing of Station House does make a positive contribution

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

77

to the character and appearance of the Station Conservation Area. After the works, the remainder of the site, not required for access would be made available for an appropriate redevelopment.

8.3

Conservation Area Consent 2 – 1A Arkwright Street – Station Conservation Area

8.3.1

After further consideration of the proposals the application for the demolition of 1A Arkwright Street has been withdrawn.

8.4

Listed Building Consent 2 – Wilford Toll Bridge

8.4.1

The works to be carried out on the Wilford Toll Bridge, which is Grade 2 listed, are required to add a new widened bridge deck and piers and strengthen the foundations for the central three spans. The design has been carefully undertaken to minimise the physical impact on the listed bridge, the toll house and the adjacent listed gates, statue and telephone kiosk. The external appearance of the historic parts of the bridge will hardly be altered and the proposed replacement bridge deck is more in keeping with these parts than the deck which is to be replaced. Visually the most notable features of the new bridge will be the Overhead Line Electrification system (wires and poles) and lighting. The works will not adversely affect the architectural or historic interest of the bridge or its setting.

8.5

Listed Building Consent 3, and Conservation Area Consents 5 and 6 Traffic management works in Beeston

8.5.1

The junction alteration works proposed in Chilwell and Beeston would have an impact on the curtilage walls of one listed building, The Grange (Beeston police station), and two other buildings in this conservation area, Chilwell Road Methodist Church and 2, Devonshire Avenue. The works would involve the demolition and replacement of these walls, and the removal and replacement of some trees. These works are necessary to ensure a safe layout and safe visibility at the realigned junctions. In all cases, replacement walls, matching the existing as far as possible, would be erected, and planting would be reinstated in consultation with the landowners. The reinstated walls and trees should ensure that there is no long-term detriment to the setting of the listed building or the character and appearance of the conservation area.

9.

Declaration

9.1

Each witness in respect of that part of this proof of evidence for which he is allocated responsibility in Table 1 (section 1.5) and in so far as his relevant area of expertise is concerned hereby declares as follows: This proof of evidence includes all facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions expressed and the inquiry’s attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of that opinion;

9.1.1

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

78

9.1.2 9.1.3

I believe the facts that are stated in this proof of evidence are true and that the opinions expressed are correct; and I understand my duty to the inquiry to help it with matters within my expertise and I have complied with that duty.

Proof of Evidence – Objection Response 05/10/07

79

For further information please contact: NET Project Office Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5NT 0115 915 6600 tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk www.netphasetwo.com

If you require this information in an alternative format please call the NET project office on 0115 915 6600