Official Report 248KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee. I apologise to everybody for the delay in starting the meeting. We had a slight technical hitch with the recording equipment, which I am delighted to say has now been sorted, so every word this morning will be captured. We have received apologies from Helen Eadie and Jamie Stone, who will join us during the meeting.
Yes—I cannot stay away.
You will come to regret saying that.
Certainly. I am the facilities and building manager for Verity Trustees Ltd, which owns Verity House, 19 Haymarket Yards, Edinburgh, and is better known as the Pensions Trust. The Pensions Trust is the United Kingdom's leading provider of occupational pension schemes for charities, voluntary bodies and not-for-profit organisations. Verity House was bought in 2002 to provide a modern, spacious working environment for 50 employees.
Thank you for being so succinct. Mr Boyd, do you wish to add anything to what has been said?
No, I have nothing further to add.
That is great. Thank you.
No, nothing.
What do you think that you should have received in that period?
When the process started, we did not receive any notice of it at all. We found out about it when two men were outside on our land checking sizes and I went out to check what they were doing. I then went on to the internet and found out about the plans.
So you found out purely by accident.
Yes.
In what way will your rights be adversely affected by the use of plots 284a, 286, 287, 290 and 290a?
As Janette Lawrie said, those plots provide road access, pedestrian access, a servitude for drainage of the property and a connection to the electricity substation. As I understand the law of compulsory acquisition, if the land is acquired, the servitude rights automatically disappear. If the land is taken by compulsory purchase order, everything that is subservient to it disappears. We hope that that is not TIE's attitude, but at this stage we have heard nothing about the matter, despite assurances from TIE that it would be in touch with us. Naturally, my client is extremely concerned that it might end up with a footprint of a building and a car park but no assurance about anything else.
In part, you have answered the questions that I intended to ask. What effect has the lack of notification had on your company?
We do not know where we stand. We are a non-profit-making organisation and we are concerned because the building is part of people's pensions. We do not know what effect the proposals will have. We do not know what would happen if we ever tried to sell the building or land round it, or whether people would want it. TIE should have notified us properly so that we could check those matters.
Given that you have stated that you do not want to stop tramline 1 going ahead, how can the situation be remedied?
TIE should get in touch with us to tell us what it intends to do physically to the land and whether there is a chance that we will be able to claim some of it back. We would like to know whether the land will be used just to get the building work done or whether it will be taken for good.
You attempted to make contact with TIE and your complaint is that it ignored you.
We have not received anything.
To clarify, apart from the two letters to which Janette Lawrie referred, which were very much holding letters, we have received no correspondence. I was interested to note that, at the previous meeting of the committee, evidence was given to the effect that questionnaires were issued to all parties who had an interest in land and that follow-up action was taken if the questionnaires were not returned. I assure the committee, as lawyer acting for Verity Trustees, that I am advised by my client that we have received absolutely nothing. I have seen no questionnaire and Janette Lawrie assures me that there has been no follow-up.
Given what we have heard from Verity Trustees and given how important it is for TIE to create a good image and carry out its consultation in a way that is acceptable to all those who will be affected, has your confidence in TIE been somewhat blunted?
Yes.
I now invite Angus Walker and Parma Kataria to give a five-minute opening statement. However, before they do, I have to say that it might be helpful if the four of you talked to one another after the meeting.
We do not have an opening statement, convener.
That leaves more time for questions.
You will be aware of the recent situation with the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill in which a number of notifications that should have been served were not. What assurances can you give the committee that the same situation will not arise with this bill's notification process?
We carried out the referencing exercise as we were instructed to do after initial discussion with Bircham Dyson Bell, LandAspects and other consultants. I believe that all aspects were covered in accordance with standing orders and following procedures.
I note that one of the promoter's witnesses is a representative of TerraQuest Solutions. What was TerraQuest's role?
Could you clarify that question?
One of the witnesses for the promoter is a representative of TerraQuest. Can you explain TerraQuest's role in that relationship?
Landowners who had an interest that would be affected or that would be acquired within the LOD or LLAU would receive a landowners notice. The research to identify those interests would have been carried out through the register of sasines, the land registry, site inquiries and the electoral register. We also identified the addressable properties and affected parties adjoining the LOD and LLAU through Ordnance Survey mapping and site inspections. Moreover, we reviewed the council register, which sets out all postcodes for adjoining properties, and identified adjoining landowners. For example, if a landowner's land extended beyond the LOD, that would confirm who the adjoining owner was.
Just for clarification, will you please tell us what the initials LOD and LLAU mean?
LOD stands for "limits of deviation" and LLAU stands for "limits of land to be acquired or used".
Sorry?
Limits of land to be acquired or used.
We will understand the technical terms eventually.
It is quite important.
LODs are the limits of deviation. The plans show the land that lies within the limits of deviation for the main works. LLAUs are limits of land to be acquired or used for purposes other than the main works.
Can TerraQuest tell us how people with an interest in heritable property that will be affected by the bill but will not be the subject of compulsory purchase were notified?
They were notified in the first instance by issue of a notice served by hand.
How was it decided who should receive notification of the introduction of the bill?
The decision was based on the Parliament's standing orders and involved Bircham Dyson Bell and the results of the consultation involving ourselves and TIE at the beginning of the project.
In essence, two types of notice were served. A landowners notice was served to people whose lands, or whose rights in lands, were to be acquired; and an affected persons notice—a secondary level of notice—was served to people who were to be affected but from whom no land was to be acquired. TerraQuest and my firm—Bircham Dyson Bell—drew up, with the agreement of TIE, a set of criteria for people who should be classed as affected persons. We asked Parliament, but Parliament suggested that we should define the criteria. We have listed the people affected in a written response that we have already submitted to the committee. I can read them out if that would be helpful.
We are trying to home in on this particular case. Was Verity Trustees regarded as a landowner whose land would be affected? Did it receive a notice as such?
It received a landowners notice for its affected land.
It did? In that case, why did you not notify Verity Trustees in respect of its interest in plots 284a, 286, 287, 290 and 290a?
It was not proposed that the interest would be adversely affected.
The use of language is important and you talk about interests being "adversely affected". Who decided whether Verity Trustees was adversely affected? Was it you? If so, what criteria did you use?
We drew up objective criteria with the aid of the promoter and TerraQuest. TerraQuest then applied the criteria to the landholdings to decide who should receive which notices.
I have a slight difficulty with the phrase "objective criteria" because it is the promoter that is drawing them up. It was the promoter that drew up the criteria that determined who would be adversely affected.
That is right.
You sent out notices on the basis of those judgments.
We sought guidance from the Parliament, which told us that we should draw up our own criteria. We drew up the criteria first, before considering particular landowners, and then applied the criteria to the particular situations. That is why I used the word "objective". For example, all properties whose land abutted the limits of deviation or the road along which the tramline was to be laid, and all landowners whose only access would be across the tramline, would receive a notice.
Can you therefore explain why Verity Trustees did not fit into your criteria?
As far as the plots that have been mentioned were concerned, we did not propose to affect its interests. Therefore, notification was not required.
The question relates to the servitude on the plots. The right of access, the electricity supply and the foul-water removal could be affected if the land were in any way altered from its present use. How can you say that the interests of Verity Trustees are not affected?
For instance, the tram will not affect the subsoil interests. It has been decided that interests in subsoil will not be referenced in the order. Those people who have interests in the subsoil will receive an affected parties notice in any case.
We are not talking about the subsoil, we are talking about access and existing utilities.
We are seeking a simple answer. Is it the case that Verity Trustees could end up with a property with a car park but with no access or electricity and so on because you have affected the plots in question as you are developing the tramline? If that is the case, what are you going to do about it?
In our judgment, we are not going to affect those interests, which is why Verity Trustees did not receive landowners notices. Sheet 22 in the plans, which you might have before you, shows that the plots in question are not ones over which the tram is directly running but are off to the side, where access is being laid out. That relates to access to the car park at Haymarket and is not to do with the central construction work.
Excuse me, but that is incorrect. As I read the plans, it looks like plot 290 is the main access to the road that is called Haymarket Yards. The tramline runs from Haymarket Terrace, down the opening stretch of Haymarket Yards and takes a right turn behind the existing tenements. Clearly, there are problems with that route.
I think that Mr Boyd is right about plot 290. I am sorry about that.
Am I right in thinking that we are talking about a situation that might involve compulsory purchase of those plots? In a situation involving compulsory purchase, we are told that the servitudes are removed. What have you done to ensure that Verity Trustees can use the building in future once its servitude rights and so on have been taken away?
The point is that we are not intending to take away its rights. I should point out that plot 290 is a public road and that, therefore, the private interest is subsumed into the public interest. That is why we did not give anyone a notice for that lot.
I do not want to cut off people's lines of questioning, but given that you have now started detailed negotiations, it is probably much better if you continue that yourselves, get to the bottom of the question whether there is an adverse effect and provide the committee with a report of your conclusions, which we hope will be amicable.
Certainly.
That would be most helpful.
I am concerned about many of the things that have been said. There seems to have been a delay in the examination of the complaints that have been made by Verity Trustees and you, Mr Walker, have just highlighted that you had incorrectly interpreted something in the plans. What can you do to assure us that any such delays will be kept to a minimum and that genuine complaints that are raised will be addressed timeously?
We are not the ones who are handling communications with objectors. Nevertheless, I assure you that we are doing our utmost to maintain a dialogue with all of them as efficiently as possible.
Will you take back the fact that the dialogue has obviously not been very good in this instance?
Yes. In this case, it appears not to have been.
I thank all the witnesses on our first panel. I hope that you go away and use the opportunity to have that dialogue and get back to the committee in writing.
Yes, we do—we could not resist. I know that you appreciate not having to listen to statements, but we have not been listened to for 18 months. Shall I just launch in?
Yes. Absolutely.
Thank you for this opportunity. I am the chair of Blackhall community association, which covers about 2,500 households in the north of Edinburgh. For the purposes of this involvement in the tram, we seem to have accumulated residents from other areas that are adjacent to Blackhall community association as well.
Thank you. Given that you have waited for 18 months, I allowed you a flexible five minutes. I invite Mrs Odell Milne to make her statement.
Before I address the committee on the adequacy of the consultation, I mention that I would have liked to make certain comments about notification. I know that I have not been asked to do that, but I have responded to the promoter's responses to my comments on notification and, with your permission, I will pass my response to the committee.
The committee is aware that you sent us an e-mail at 11.23 pm last night. We have not had an opportunity to consider your points in detail, but we will take the matter away and consider it, as we consider all the evidence that we receive.
Thank you.
Thank you. I ask both witnesses to set the scene. When and how did you first hear about the line 1 proposals?
I first heard about the proposals through newspaper reports in The Scotsman in summer 2003.
The same applies to me.
What are your general impressions of the extent to which the promoter has publicised the tram project and of the efforts that have been made to enable people to participate in the consultation? I know that you have criticisms of the consultation, but my question is about the lead-in to it.
In its evidence, TIE has made statements about advertising on buses, in newspapers and so on. However, it has not made enough of an attempt to engage with local people. In our area, there are two well-established residents groups, the Maidencraig residents association and the Maidencraig Court residents association, which have been in existence for a number of years. Neither appears on the list of community groups to be consulted. Blackhall community association was formed about a week after the tram consultation period began.
I am trying to establish whether you think that TIE's approach was reasonable. The consultation may have been slightly patchy, but was it reasonable for TIE to advertise in the papers and to distribute leaflets?
The approach that TIE took was too passive and obvious. It was based too much on large-scale public relations and on the assumption that people read advertising on a bus when it goes past. The promoter was not sufficiently active.
In June last year, I went along the cycleway with a friend and a bundle of leaflets that we had made. We could not stop cyclists, because they go too fast, but we could stop pedestrians pushing prams. We went along the cycleway on several days, but despite the reports in The Scotsman and the leaflets, none of the people to whom we spoke knew that it was proposed that the tram should follow that route. Most of them knew that there were proposals for trams somewhere in Edinburgh, but they knew no more than that. They certainly did not know that it was proposed that the trams should go along the cycleway.
When the committee took a jaunt down part of the route, we noticed some of your leaflets on the lampposts.
They were mine.
In its submission, Blackhall community association was especially critical of the way in which the leaflets were distributed, as we have heard. What happened in your neighbourhood? Was what happened brought to the attention of the promoter?
I had a number of telephone conversations with Weber Shandwick in which I said that leaflets had not been received in my street. From early on, I was fully aware of the proposals. In the event, I collected a number of leaflets. I circulated a newsletter to people and put up notices on lampposts in which I said that in June there would be a big public meeting in Craigleith. Initially, the promoter was resistant to holding such a meeting, but we, along with our elected representative, pressed hard for it. I do not know whether I have answered your question.
You are setting the scene. What is your experience to date of the community liaison groups?
It has been very depressing. We were fortunate that Margaret Smith MSP chaired the previous meeting. She would concur with our view that in a year we have got absolutely nowhere. It was only under her chairmanship, when she said, "Right—we want action and conclusive answers to people's questions," that we realised that we had not been given answers for the past year. I have to say that I felt a bit of a fool, having gone along for so long and got nowhere.
Of course, the matter is detailed and it is obvious that liaison groups should be a place—
—to discuss detail. They told us that we were not allowed to discuss the principle of the bill. Whose liaison groups are they? They are certainly not ours.
I hope that we can discuss the principle here and help to make it understood.
The majority of responses that were given on the tear-off slip on the "tramtime" leaflet were in favour of the on-road option that went nearest to the Western general hospital. For some reason—I can only assume because the alignment had already been decided—the promoter decided to overturn that majority vote by saying that anyone who mentioned cycling would have their vote discounted because the cycle path would be retained under option A for the Roseburn wildlife corridor and cycleway.
On the point about the majority vote, I noticed somewhere in the information that has been provided that cost was a factor in the overturning of that vote. Was that intimated to you?
No. In the consultation leaflet there is no qualification, such as, "Would you like a tram scheme if it would cost you £600 million?" The cost factor was not presented to people in the leaflet as a choice. It was introduced late and was not shared with the public when they were coming to a view on which option to choose.
I very much approve of your idea of putting up notices along the route. If that had been done and people had applied for information, would the information that you have seen to date have been adequate to allow people to make a sound judgment on what was being presented to them?
We are in a weird position: we are still asking questions and they are still not being answered. We have been saying the same thing for a year and a half and we think that we have a point because it is not being answered. People would not have got more detailed information but they might have got less biased information on the scheme.
That is fine.
The boundaries are peculiar in our area, which is covered by three different local government wards, so we do not have a community council. In the absence of a community council, we are it.
Has that led to a lack of consultation, given the role that community councils should play in such matters?
I believe that Murrayfield community council was informed. Its area overlaps with some of our area, but it meets only once a month and the short consultation period did not give people enough time.
You have commented:
It would have been good if the promoter had asked people where they wanted to go or at least had consulted major transport providers, including Lothian Buses, on the choice of alignment. We understood that the alignment of the circular line was fixed. As far as I am aware, lots of groups were not consulted on the issue—indeed, the public were certainly not consulted on it. In the act of completing their tear-off "tramtime" forms, a number of people indicated where they would like the tram to go; they said that they wanted it to go to the Western general hospital.
You referred to the survey that you undertook in respect of the distribution of literature. You will be aware that politicians distribute literature widely; however, come election time, people say that they have not received any of it. How much of the literature that was distributed hit the bucket without people really looking at it? Did your survey highlight that issue?
I accept the point, which is a valid one. People in my area feel strongly about the tram. I circulated our newsletters with the aim of helping people to get access to more information. When we began the process, we were not against the tram; we simply wanted to know more about it. The result of our actions is that we do not know much more; we are not being given answers and so now we are against it.
May I ask a semi-personal question of you, Mrs Milne? In one of your submissions, you refer to the fact that you found some of the documentation difficult to follow. The reason you gave was that abbreviations were used, references were made to statutory documents and so forth. Given that someone of your background found that to be the case, would not it have been difficult for the general public to follow much of the information that was provided?
It was the documents that were not provided—the ones that we had to ask for again and again—that were difficult to follow. I am referring to the Anderson report and the Scottish transport appraisal guidance reports, which are complicated. I also could not understand the financial case document, although Mr Raynal can.
It does; it makes the point. I am pleased to have brought it out.
Absolutely. Your key phrase was "getting community people on side". There is no question that that is what is intended. What we are experiencing is a feeling that the tramline 1 project must be got through no matter what—there is no question of bringing us along with it. The action that the promoter is taking needs to be more meaningful and it must be more respectful and less patronising. Local people have valid points to make. They know their area—indeed, they get to know it better all the time. They also know more about transport than they ever wanted to know.
I am sure that we will hear evidence of that local knowledge in due course. You mentioned a survey; we would be happy to receive further information on that, so if you leave it with the clerks, they will ensure that it is circulated to committee members. Am I right that Mrs Milne attended a public meeting?
Yes. I attended one in the Assembly Rooms in George Street.
Were you involved in any of the displays or road shows that were going on?
There were displays of the plans at the meeting and information was given out at Sainsbury's at one time.
What was the level of information? If you asked questions were people able to answer them?
The experts were very good. The people standing in the background who were from Mott MacDonald, or whoever did the plans, were very knowledgeable and helpful. There is no doubt that when we asked them about the plans their answers were very good. In the public session there were few straight answers to comments that the public made. At the public meeting stage, it was very much a case of "this is the line and you will like it." There was no consideration of the route; it was not a matter for discussion at that meeting.
What kind of feedback have you had beyond the public meeting with the promoter? Has your experience been similar to Kristina Woolnough's, or has it been different?
It has probably been similar. The most frustrating thing is that we have got bogged down by lengthy letters from the promoter that do not answer any of our questions. We get to the stage of thinking, "I've asked all these questions and I've got fives pages back. I could go back again, but I'd probably just get the same five pages." I am not saying that it is easy to respond to hundreds of letters on similar points—it is not—but from a member of the public's point of view it is disheartening to get stock responses to questions they did not ask and no responses to questions that they did ask.
My question is for Mrs Milne. In point 2.4.1 of Bill Raynal's submission on the adequacy of accompanying documents, he asserts that, given the extent of the construction work that will be necessary, the consultation to date has been insufficient to proceed reliably with the bill and construction. In what way has the consultation been insufficient?
Bill Raynal was referring to statistics that he mentioned. Roughly 125,000 leaflets were sent out which, given that Edinburgh's population is about 450,000 to 500,000, covered about 20 per cent of the population. There were responses from only 3,000 people, which is about 1 per cent of the population—I think that that is what he meant—which did not provide a sufficient mandate, given that the construction and impact of the proposal will be so significant.
I understand that. What further consultation would you like, given the views that you have expressed about the small number of responses?
I would like the promoter to start again and consult on the route. The promoter should ask people whether they want to go to the hospital, to schools or wherever. They should thereafter give us a route for a tram, or consider buses and other options, then ask the people of Edinburgh what they really want.
The people of Edinburgh go to the ballot box during elections. Was the tram not an issue during elections and was it sprung on people between elections?
It was not an issue at elections. The difficulty that we have found is that the central Edinburgh local plan showed a possible light railway route from Leith, up Leith Walk, along Princes Street and out to the airport. That plan was available for the public to consult and to make statutory responses at the local plan stage, but the tramline has come out of the blue. The waterfront route has come out of nowhere as well. It has not been part of any statutory planning process and in terms of public participation—you can hear how annoyed I am getting—we have been cut out of the picture and have been able to participate in only the most cursory and non-statutory manner. The issue has not come up in elections, but it is now too late for that, because we would have to wait until 2007.
I wish to return to something that Mrs Milne said, because my understanding of the background is that the City of Edinburgh Council prepared a transport strategy and consulted on an integrated transport initiative. Were you aware of those consultations?
No. We found out about them only well after the 2003 consultation and after objections went to Parliament this year.
Do you accept that that might set the context for the bill?
As we did not know about the consultations on the transport strategy and the integrated transport initiative, we were not able to express our views. If we were not aware of those consultations, I am sure that an awful lot of other people in Edinburgh were not aware of them either. Such consultations are the kind of thing that I would look out for in the newspapers.
"Integrated Transport Initiative for Edinburgh and South East Scotland" and the transport strategy came out earlier this year after the tram, and feature the light railway retrospectively. I participated in the congestion charging public inquiry to try to identify the financial links between congestion charging and the tram. Those strategies were brought out after the tram alignment was chosen. The previous strategy did not mention the alignment.
I am sure that we will pursue those points with the promoter. Thank you both for coming along; I have no doubt that we will see you both again in the future.
I will be brief and I hope that I will be of assistance. My colleague Craig Wallace and I represent Norwich Union which, as you may know, is a major investor in Edinburgh that manages vast pension fund assets, a large part of which is invested in property in Edinburgh. One of those pension assets is Rosebery House, which sits on Haymarket Terrace adjacent to the line of the proposed tramway. Norwich Union considers that consultation on the alignment of the line was inadequate. I circulated a plan to committee members.
Yes—we have that.
Between May and July 2003, the promoter undertook a form of consultation on the original proposed alignment, which is coloured purple, or bluish, and runs down to the bottom of the plan.
I am sorry; what we have is in black and white.
Defeated by technology.
A number of your comments related to the detail of the bill. Objection 91 will be pursued if the bill reaches consideration stage and you will be able to make all your points again, if need be. Thank you for providing us with the information.
Thank you for the opportunity to make representations to the committee.
For the record, I offer my apologies for being late. I was stacked in the air for 45 minutes over Stirling.
We first became aware of the tram proposal as a result of the consultation exercise in summer 2003. There had been talk of it prior to that, but the consultation exercise alerted us to it.
I will respond on behalf of Norwich Union, for which the situation is similar to that which Professor Rowan-Robinson described. The results of the consultation exercise of summer 2003 were sent to Rosebery House. In November 2003, we received a letter from TerraQuest that identified areas of land round Rosebery House that might or might not be required for the tram proposals. The tram bills were introduced in the following year.
I understand what you say, but if we move to the present and look ahead, the promoter talks about on-going consultation. Do you have a different story on that front? Are you involved in consultation now?
As my colleague Stuart Reid said, Norwich Union received a letter on 4 March 2004 from TIE's project manager that identified that issues arose in relation to the alignment in respect of Rosebery House, and invited further detailed discussion between the two parties. That was the first direct contact that the fund manager received on the detailed alignment that is in the bill.
That should make TIE quite keen to co-operate with you.
I echo what Mr Wallace said. We are having helpful negotiations with TIE and some of the consequences for the Citypoint block might be able to be mitigated. Our concern is that, as Mr Wallace says, there is no going back on the alignment that the bill proposes. Our concern is that the alignment must have been chosen simply for engineering reasons, but I have no idea how sound those are. The effects on property in the immediate vicinity have not been taken into account, yet the line was changed to the present proposed alignment because of the effect the original line would have had on Network Rail's property.
For the record, will the Norwich Union representatives restate how the company was consulted about the change in the alignment of the tramline that runs adjacent to Rosebery House?
The key issue is that we were not directly consulted on the alignment change, which appeared only when the accompanying documents to the bill were lodged with Parliament.
Was the information that you received about the route change adequate to enable you to assess the change's impact on your property? You said something about a holding company.
The information was certainly not adequate. We obtained information about the alignment changes only through our own investigation following a letter dated 4 March 2004 from TIE to Norwich Union about potential issues with the adjacency of the building and the alignment.
So you cannot say that the information was helpful.
It certainly was not. We know from the book of reference with the bill that TIE was aware that Norwich Union was the property's owner. The current tenants had been listed, but no direct contact was made with any of those individuals to discuss an alignment change.
Will you explain your experiences of your contact with the promoter, perhaps elaborating on your comment that
TIE was very much aware of who and where NULLA was. There was no reason why a direct approach could not have been made to our clients to discuss the impact of the realignment at an appropriate time before it was lodged in the formal process, after which there was not significant opportunity for change.
There are two things: the original alignment and the final alignment. We are dealing with the final alignment, as laid out in the letter of 4 March. Have there been discussions since then?
There have been limited discussions with TIE, but as I said, there is limited scope to change the alignment in front of Rosebery House. We need to get down to the detail, such as potential compensation and how we can alter the detailed design to mitigate the impact on our client's building and reduce the financial impact on the investment that is Rosebery House.
Those are matters of detail, which will be discussed later, but it was worth teasing them out to an extent.
Professor Rowan-Robinson suggested that there is now no way back and that we are basically stuck with the route that has been determined. What can be done and what are your objectives in further negotiation or discussion with TIE?
Present discussions are focused on trying to mitigate the effects on the building, although it is difficult—because of the lack of detail—to determine some of those effects. Nonetheless, we are having helpful negotiations. As Mr Wallace said, we would ideally like a pause so that the promoter can consider properly what the alignment should be in the area. Rather than simply respond to someone else's concerns and move the route on engineering grounds, TIE should at least respond to our concerns. At the end of the day, TIE may decide that the present route is the best one, but it has not gone through that exercise.
Given the discussions that we had earlier with other groups, which you heard, do you feel that if there were to be a pause at this point, we would open up Pandora's box? There are difficulties all the way round the route; if an exception was made and a pause was created in the process in respect of Haymarket, it would be logical to think that that pause should be extended to allow for other areas in which there are differences.
I do not know whether there has been the same lack of consultation in other areas. In our area, TIE has not done what it said it would do, which is causing problems that might have been avoided for my clients and for owners of other properties.
I have no more questions, but having heard the previous evidence, it seems that you are not alone.
I thank the witnesses. I point out that at consideration stage—should the bill proceed that far—the committee can move amendments to particular sections of the route. If your negotiations do not go well, we may see you again.
We have no opening statement and are happy to go straight to questions.
Excellent. That leaves more time for questions.
We have come prepared today to talk about the tramline consultation. The consultation carried out in 2001 and the "Have Your Say: Edinburgh's New Transport Initiative" consultation in 2002 set the scene for the integrated transport initiative, and it might be best if we came back to the committee with details about them.
I suspect that we will formally write to not only TIE but the City of Edinburgh Council about those consultations, because I understand that they used citizens juries and a whole range of different mechanisms.
How did the promoter ensure that its consultation methods reflected the best practice that is now recommended instead of following the more traditional planning process consultation?
I will say a few words and then ask Lesley Clark to pick up on the detail.
TIE asked Weber Shandwick to pull together an integrated consultation that would provide a balance in people's ability to access information and their ability to respond. A couple of months before the consultation began, we held an information campaign that introduced people to the concept of trams to ensure that plans for such a scheme would not come as a complete shock. At the same time, we established the freepost address, the freephone number, the website and the e-mail address. All those lines of communication were established early on.
How were the roadshows advertised?
They were advertised in the leaflet and in adverts in the Edinburgh Evening News. They were also mentioned in the editorial coverage in the Edinburgh Evening News and The Scotsman and advertised on the radio.
You say that leaflets were available in shopping centres. Were they in piles on a table or were they handed out by people from the firm that you employed to distribute them?
People were employed to hand the leaflets out at the venues at which we had an exhibition. In the cases where we did not have an exhibition at the venue we had to go with what the supermarket or the shopping centre would allow us to do; in most cases, we were allowed to put a bin of leaflets in a prominent place.
Had you finished what you were going to say? I am sorry that I interrupted you.
I was going to add that the website that I mentioned earlier, which was set up prior to the consultation, was updated throughout the consultation. There was a mechanism for people to respond to us by filling in the response form that was on the leaflet or by e-mailing us.
Were submissions to the consultation made publicly available?
I will step back slightly to describe what we did when the consultation finished. We were asked to put together a report for TIE, which it proceeded to take to the council. As part of that report the responses to the consultation were summarised.
They were summarised, but the—
They were not all provided in full.
They were not made publicly available in full.
No.
Okay.
Updating is carried out at key stages, and the website continues to be updated—it will be updated throughout the process. We clearly had to change the website at the end of the consultation; for example, the tick boxes on the leaflet were not necessarily the right option for people to use to come back to us, but the freepost, freephone and e-mail options were still up and running, as they are today. At every key stage throughout the process—for example, when the preferred route was announced, when the bill was submitted and when new documents were made available—the website has been updated.
Were people made aware of the website's existence, apart from in the leaflets?
As far as I can remember, the website's address appeared on every piece of material that we put out. The website's address and the freephone number would be on any advertising that we did.
We are interested in how well the site has been used. How many page impressions has it had?
I do not have numbers for page impressions. I have a number for hits.
We are interested in page impressions, as hits can mean anything. Can you provide us with something in writing afterwards if you cannot give us information at the moment?
I will need to check and come back to the committee on that.
It is important for us to get an answer to that question and to know whether people got to the new information that you loaded up.
We have tried to keep the website simple and easy to use and to label all the information by the stages that the process has gone through. For example, we have tried to be consistent, clear and simple in labelling with respect to the initial background documents that were submitted to the council and the bill's accompanying documents—plans, maps, sections and so on.
You have made some interesting points about leaflets going out, the website and so on, and you have already touched on what I am about to ask you about. I want to look at things the other way round—at the information coming back and the responses to what you have described in some detail. Do you want to say anything more about encouraging people to come back to you with information?
Through the provision of access by the website, e-mails, freepost, freephone, exhibitions and public meetings, there were many opportunities for people to respond and talk to us—indeed, I was briefed to encourage that throughout the consultation. I probably have to ask Andrew Callander to elaborate on what happened to responses when they came in. As a consultancy, we gathered the information and then passed it to TIE.
I can say what happened to the information and how we used it. The purpose of the consultation was to obtain feedback in order to inform the recommendation to the council on a preferred route, and ultimately for that recommendation to go in the bill. The comments that came back from the consultation were therefore captured in a report. There were two objectives in doing that: to inform the promoter, so that it could understand what the feedback was; and to inform TIE, the engineers and the technical advisers, so that they could take the feedback into account in taking forward the routes. The process started as soon as the consultation ended, and the data were used. Everybody who responded to the consultation received feedback. We entered into dialogue with everybody who got in touch with the promoter through the freephone number and with anybody who raised issues with us. So there was on-going consultation and dialogue throughout the whole process.
So you believe that you can demonstrate—in the process and by how things were changed and adjusted—that the information was flowing back and that you were reacting accordingly.
Yes. The railway corridor has been discussed today. I can offer an illustration of how the process went, if that would be helpful.
That may be for another day.
The promoter—the City of Edinburgh Council—and TIE, which took forward the bill.
I will ask a supplementary question before Phil Gallie comes racing in. You said that the purpose of the consultation was to inform. In earlier evidence, the accusation was made that the whole process felt quite passive. Is that fair? Do you think that the consultation process is intended not just to inform but to enable the promoter to act on responses? Can you highlight one thing that has changed in the bill as a result of something that you heard from the public?
The brochure makes it clear that the objective of the consultation was to inform and to obtain feedback on the bill. There were two areas where options were presented for line 1: Princes Street or George Street; and Telford Road or the railway corridor. By using the feedback that we obtained, we reached solutions that were based on preferred options. Feedback obtained during the consultation influenced other parts of the route. As a result of such feedback, additional investigative work was done on the shore at Starbank, where there is an area with a restricted pavement, and changes were made to the bill.
I will return to this issue in a minute.
You stated that the consultation was designed to set the preferred routes and you just mentioned that there were two options in the consultation. Why was there not an element of openness to suggestions from the public? We might then have had a preferred route that was more in line with the public's thinking than preset routes to which they were given no alternatives.
It is difficult to strike the right balance between carrying out a consultation that can have a successful outcome and will produce a successful tram system, and doing that at the right stage of the process. We believed that we had worked up the design to the point at which we had enough information to put it before the public and to tell a story. There were some areas where we thought that there was a genuine need for feedback in order to finalise the route. We believed that the correct time to consult was when we did so last year, when the design had reached an advanced stage. At the start of the process, the public needs information on which to base decisions about moving forward.
I want to clarify the subject of the consultation. In the consultation, were you saying that there would be a tramline system, suggesting the routes that you favoured and asking the public to take it or leave it?
No. The consultation was based on the fact that we had done some work, and that work identified what we show in the brochure as our best estimate of a tramline. A lot of work went into that. In that context, we asked for comments to be given back to us.
It seems to me that the point has been missed. In the context of a consultation, people who live in a local area know a little bit more about what is required and what they want and they might have come up with some good ideas on that proposed route and perhaps changes to it.
They did, and people voted.
But when they did, you rejected the outcome for specific reasons.
Perhaps I could touch on that in more detail. For two of the options—the Roseburn corridor and the railway line—we did not ask people to vote. We said that we were seeking people's feedback on those options and we asked people to identify their preference. We also asked for their comments and the brochure highlighted some of the issues, such as cost and operational matters. In the event, 535 people recommended that the line should go down the railway corridor. There was also a petition of 49 signatures from residents who recommended using the railway corridor. The other option was chosen by 715 people, plus a petition of 35. A further petition, signed by 23 people, was against using the railway corridor at all, which included the whole strand of that route. In addition to those votes, we got various comments that we categorised and fed into the results. We assessed how to take those views on board. We then discussed that with the council and stakeholders. The process went on in October—
I am sorry; will you identify the stakeholders?
The stakeholders are the local community.
Some of your comments do not seem to balance up with other information that we have heard today. No doubt we can consider that in due course.
We set up a community liaison group initiative. In the area that you are talking about there have been seven meetings about the railway corridor. The community liaison group is the starting point. Through the council and the community councils we have tried to be inclusive and make sure that anyone who wants to come along to represent their community can attend those meetings.
It is interesting that you led on to the community liaison groups, because I was going to ask about their purpose and the actions that have resulted from activity within them.
There has been a degree of frustration among some of the attendees at the groups' meetings, because the council, on TIE's recommendation, has now taken a decision on the preferred route, so the purpose of the groups' meetings is to discuss mitigation of the impact and the background to how that can be addressed. We want to deal with the concerns that have been expressed. The broader debate about why we are where we are has happened in the process that I have just outlined. At the meetings of the community liaison groups, we have provided quite a lot of information on the preferred route, some of which has appeared on the website and has been submitted to the committee, as members will be aware. As regards environmental mitigation and the likely effects of the route, we are working up the designs all the time.
I have a question for the consultants. In your presentation, you spoke about putting up posters along Princes Street. Local residents have made to us the good suggestion that posters could have been put up right round the route. Did you do that, did you consider doing that and, if not, why not?
No, we did not do that. Numerous tools were available for us to use as part of our consultation. One can choose to advertise on television or not and one can choose to put up posters or not. We chose not to put up posters. We felt that the integrated plan that we had put together gave us good coverage of Edinburgh. In fact, the analysis that we did at the end of the consultation on the media coverage that was achieved and the advertising that we placed showed that a citizen of Edinburgh had 14 opportunities, as we call them, to say something about the consultation. Those opportunities gave information about how to respond. We felt that the plan that we put together, which included the public meetings and the exhibitions, gave us good coverage.
From what witnesses have told us, many people along the route seem not to have received leaflets. I recognise the difficulties that sometimes arise with leaflet delivery. Was any thought given to the idea of sending addressed letters to the properties and communities that were most likely to be affected? Was that ruled out on the ground of cost or was it not considered to be effective?
I would need to check whether I have got anything written that shows that that was considered. As far as I am aware, the land referencing had not been done at that time, in which case it was not available to me to use. We hired a company to deliver leaflets in the areas that were most affected—in other words, the areas that the tram was to go through.
Your response of 20 September to the committee states that hot spots were identified along the route. Where are the hot spots and has consultation in those areas produced any results?
Do you mean hot spots where it has been shown that there is strong feeling?
I guess that that is what is meant in your communication—although perhaps it was TIE's communication.
I think that it was.
We have illustrated what is happening in a particular area. There are obviously areas in which local residents have concerns. Our main vehicle has been the community liaison groups that we have set up. The groups comprise TIE, the promoter—the council—and the local community and they allow us to engage and to progress matters. The freephone line is still open. We engage with and respond to anyone who gets in touch with us.
I probably missed this somewhere along the line. Can you recall how many hot spots you identified and where they are on the route?
I would need to check that and come back to you with an exact answer.
I would be grateful if you would do that.
I come from the west of Scotland, so will you clarify something for me? We have heard about the Telford Road option and the Craigleith Road option—are they the same thing?
They refer to the same area and the same issue.
Thank you. In that case, you have answered the questions that relate to that area.
I have some specific questions that objectors raised. How did you undertake consultation on alternatives to the preferred route, including those that were proposed by members of the public, such as the old railway route at Trinity?
The old railway route at Trinity was not the subject of consultation and was not included in the scheme. Initial work at the preliminary feasibility stage considered a range of routes in order to arrive at the preferred route and dozens of potential options were considered. Obviously, TIE and the promoter had to come up with a viable tram scheme, so we came forward to consultation with a viable scheme. However, we identified two areas in relation to which we thought that there were options that did not have a huge impact on the overall viability of the scheme and which would benefit from detailed public feedback. The railway corridor at Starbank was not one of those areas.
How did you respond to the members of the public who suggested that you should consider the old rail route at Trinity?
If we received feedback and issues came up in relation to certain areas, we took people's comments on board. We considered the suggestion that you mention and we produced a small report for the City of Edinburgh Council that explained why that option was not considered viable.
Did you inform the objectors directly?
Yes. That was done through the community council. There is a community liaison group and we worked with the council in the area.
I think that Rob Gibson's question referred to direct contact with the individuals who thought that the suggestion was a good one, rather than to council reports or liaison groups. Did you go back to those individuals to explain why you were not pursuing the suggestion?
I would have to check on that.
This question relates to the situation with Norwich Union. What consultation did you undertake with newly affected parties following alterations to the route, such as the Haymarket realignment?
Perhaps I should clarify something. We have talked about changes to the route. When the consultation went out, the plan for Haymarket showed a broad route that ran straight through the middle of Haymarket Yards. The plan did not specify where the route would be. A box on the consultation leaflet indicated:
I presume that that was after March this year.
Everyone was notified in January.
We heard earlier that there was no discussion—
There was notification in January. All the affected parties were notified then.
They were notified, but consultation suggests a two-way process.
Detailed meetings started in March. With other parties it started earlier, in February. We have been talking to parties throughout the year to address their concerns, within the limits of deviation.
Can you tell me in rough terms what consultations you have had? How many times have you talked to Norwich Union about the issue?
I would have to come back to you with the exact number of meetings and letters, but there have been several meetings.
I would like that information, in general terms, if possible.
There have been two or three meetings, but I will come back to you with the exact details.
And the times, please.
I would like to clarify a point. Earlier, we heard that notification was done by letter on 4 March 2004, but you now say that it was done in January. Some people say that they found out about the proposals only when the bill was published.
The bill was published in January. In March, we were proactive and in addition to the notification we wrote to say that we would like to talk about the issues.
Are you saying specifically that you sent notification in January?
Yes. Everybody who was affected was notified. All affected bodies were notified in January.
We are receiving evidence that is different from that, so anything that you can do to substantiate your point of view would be helpful to the committee.
I will ask a couple of questions on specific objections. Lesley Clark told us that you won prizes for the consultation process, but I am led to understand that, from the 125,000 leaflets that you sent out, only 3,000 responses came back. Is that what you would expect in such an exercise? Secondly, when you analyse the 3,000 responses, how do you know that they represent what the people of Edinburgh think?
It is our best guess. We have done our best to establish what the feedback is and what people think. The other point is that people have access to their councillors, to TIE and to the current process to state what they think of the tram scheme. It is difficult to think what else we could have done. The consultation was our best attempt to gauge people's views on the scheme.
May I add to that? We would probably expect about that level of response. In our evidence, I included a quotation from the Direct Marketing Association on the level of response that one can expect from a mailing, which is normally about 2.5 per cent.
The response to your consultation works out at about 2.4 per cent.
As far as we were able, we consulted a number of community groups, such as cycling groups and environmental groups. Through them, we tried to canvass as much opinion as possible. You mentioned cyclists as a specific example. Although Spokes and other cycling organisations were able to take part in the full consultation, such groups were specifically invited to a number of what we deemed special interest meetings, two of which took place at the start of the consultation. Environmental groups, groups that represent certain sectors of the community, specific user groups, private transport groups and commercial groups were all invited to attend to talk about how, in a general way, their membership or peers would feel about the proposals and they were encouraged to respond as much as other members of the public.
I return to a question that I asked earlier. The term "direct mailing" has been used. To my mind, that implies personally addressed envelopes. The envelopes could have been addressed to households, not necessarily individuals, which would not have been a massive task. Do you have any figures from your professional body that demonstrate whether that would have been more successful than sending out leaflets with the paperboy, which, as happens in many instances, are not always delivered?
I do not have that information on me. Another route that can be used is the Royal Mail, which I think you are suggesting, but its slots were not available to us. The route that was available to us was to use a private commercial company.
Why was the Royal Mail not available to you? Was it because of constraints that were placed on your contract or was it because the Royal Mail could not handle your contract?
The Royal Mail did not have the space to do it. I believe that a number of companies that have used the Royal Mail route are now switching towards using private companies.
I find that surprising, because politicians are in the business of getting stuff out—let us not go into the detail of that—and, if we cannot get a Royal Mail slot, we just wait until we can get one. That is my experience. Perhaps we do things differently in the Highlands.
I am not supposed to be giving evidence, but in the west of Scotland we, too, use private companies linked to printers, so that approach is not unusual.
Clearly, civilisation stops at Perth.
I never said that; you did.
We would adopt the same principles and processes and do the consultation in the same way. Obviously, with hindsight, we are aware of areas of concern. We are confident that we would check those. I think that we would do everything that we have done.
That is not a fair question to put to you, Lesley, because you have budget constraints.
Meeting closed at 11:53.