Official Report 453KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2005 of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee.
Thank you.
The situation is slightly more complicated than that. As things stand at present, I am not sure whether anything is in dispute.
Excellent.
I concur with the member's comment. Will you lead any evidence, Mr Greig?
I would like to hear what Mr Thomson has to say. Perhaps he will advise the committee on his position before I say anything further.
I am happy to go first. My understanding is that the only dispute between the promoter and the group 1 objector is the execution of the protective provisions agreement. The instructions that I was given yesterday evening were that the agreement would be executed by the time we met this morning. This morning, I am told that it has been executed by Network Rail and Transport Initiatives Edinburgh, but not by the City of Edinburgh Council.
Thank you. Mr Greig, having heard what Mr Thomson had to say, do you wish to ask any questions of Mr Ramsay?
If the position is that the promoter accepts the requirement for a protective provisions agreement and that it is necessary to enable the bill to proceed, there is nothing in dispute. It remains for the agreement to be concluded, however that may be done. If that commitment is given, my view is that there is no need for any cross-examination.
I think that I can give that undertaking; it is accepted that a protective provisions agreement is required. At worst, only the precise terms of it may be in dispute. I do not want to suggest that anything is in dispute because I simply do not know whether there is. However, I have no reason to believe that there is any such dispute.
Mr Greig, are you satisfied with that?
I am satisfied.
I should, of course, ask my committee colleagues whether they wish to ask any questions.
I suggest that we should get a report on the City of Edinburgh Council's actions as soon as the council knows what has happened, to confirm the discussion that has taken place at committee today.
Okay. Therefore, the position is subject to the committee receiving such confirmation, which would be helpful to our deliberations. I thank Mr Greig, Mr Thomson and, indeed, all the witnesses who were spared from giving evidence this morning. That concludes evidence taking on group 1.
First ScotRail has rebutted only the statements by Geoff Duke and Richard Mansfield. Therefore Dr Sales may cross-examine only those two witnesses. Of course, members of the committee may decide that they want to question any of the witnesses.
Should I say something about the areas that I consider to be in dispute or should I go straight to the witness?
You should go straight to the witness, as we are clear about what the areas of dispute are.
There is one issue that I was thinking about in particular. I am not exactly out of the woods yet because of the problem that arose with Network Rail. The promoter's position is that most of First ScotRail's concerns are dealt with by an agreement that does not yet exist, and there is the same impending issue about whether any of the witnesses needs to be questioned on that matter.
I think that the meeting will be swift this morning.
I wish that I could concur with you.
Having heard from both Mr Thomson and Dr Sales, we will proceed with Mr Duke's evidence. I take it that there will be no requirement to take evidence from Mr Mansfield, so he is let off the hook.
I ask Mr Duke to update us on events since the last rebuttal statement.
Since the last rebuttal statement, we have had a meeting with First ScotRail. In that meeting, we were able to inform First ScotRail that we had reached agreement with Network Rail regarding the protective provisions, which we believe will give First ScotRail all the comfort that it requires. Those provisions will protect First ScotRail in relation to the issues that were raised in its objection.
Paragraph 3.1 of your witness statement of 20 May states:
Yes.
I think that the point is acknowledged in paragraph 3.3 of your statement. Further on, paragraph 3.5 of your statement says:
That is my understanding. In our meetings with your clients, we addressed issues at Haymarket station. We also addressed issues concerning the depot, but that is not for consideration today. We now believe that those issues can be covered by the protective provisions that are afforded to Network Rail.
I understand that the most recent of those meetings took place last Friday, but I will come back to that, if I may.
No.
Will you enlighten us as to why, in your view, agreement with First ScotRail has not yet been reached?
As I said, we met and were developing an agreement with First ScotRail separately. Events were then overtaken by the agreement with Network Rail. There is no point in having two agreements when one is an umbrella agreement that will offer all the comfort that we believe First ScotRail requires.
As we just mentioned, the last of those meetings took place on Friday 17 June.
Yes.
You were in attendance at that meeting. Do you agree that it was a rather short and—perhaps from First ScotRail's point of view—not constructive meeting to try to resolve outstanding objections to a parliamentary bill?
I agree that the meeting was short, but I do not agree that it was not constructive. We were able to inform First ScotRail that the protective provisions that we had agreed with Network Rail would give First ScotRail comfort.
Was it fair for Mr Amner, who is sitting to my right—as you will recall, he was First ScotRail's representative at that meeting—to conclude from what was said at that meeting that TIE did not want to negotiate with First ScotRail and that it said as much at the meeting?
I believe that those words were said.
Was the meeting fronted by Mr Ian Kendall of the promoter's agent TIE?
Yes.
Mr Kendall's position at that meeting was that the agreement with Network Rail adequately covers all the issues for the rail industry parties, including First ScotRail.
That is TIE's view, given the legal advice that we have received.
Mr Kendall's position was that TIE did not think it necessary to have an agreement with First ScotRail because approval would in effect be secured by the industry processes pursuant to the Network Rail agreement. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Is my information correct that Mr Kendall also said at that meeting, in relation to the car parking issues at Haymarket, that the Scottish Parliament is not really interested in compensation matters?
He may have said that. We understand that, at this stage, the Parliament is considering not compensation issues but objections.
Do you recall Mr Amner pointing out at that meeting that First ScotRail was not a party to the agreement that it was hoped would be reached with Network Rail and that its interests and obligations differed from those of Network Rail?
I recall that.
Do you recall Mr Amner asking at that meeting what comfort, if any, TIE was willing to offer First ScotRail?
Yes.
Mr Kendall's response was that the Network Rail agreement was to the effect that no works to Haymarket would be undertaken before 19 November 2007 and that TIE was not prepared to give anything separately to First ScotRail. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Do you recall Mr Amner saying at that meeting that if TIE was willing to give undertakings to the committee today so as to give First ScotRail comfort, the objection could have been withdrawn or at least limited in its scope?
Yes.
Even that olive branch was in effect rejected out of hand by Mr Kendall. He was simply not interested.
I am sorry; I hate to interrupt the natural flow, but the committee is interested not necessarily in the detail of the negotiations, but in the substance of the objection. With that guidance, I ask Dr Sales to proceed.
I will do so. I will move swiftly to where that leaves First ScotRail. Does Mr Duke agree that it is in a rather difficult position?
If you consider the position to be difficult, it clearly is. It is the position of TIE and the City of Edinburgh Council that we recognise ScotRail as an industry partner with which we will have to work not only to resolve this issue, but to progress towards integrated transport in the next few years. We therefore want to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all. In that regard, at that meeting, Mr Kendall also offered Mr Amner the opportunity to identify any gaps in the Network Rail agreement if—as Mr Thomson said—we could reach agreement to share it, given the confidentiality considerations. Were such gaps or any deficiencies in the industry process to be identified, we would consider them and consider giving ScotRail comfort to close those gaps.
Thinking of those gaps, do you agree that the Network Rail agreement—if and when it is fully executed—would not give First ScotRail sufficient comfort for the following reasons? First, First ScotRail will not be a party to the Network Rail agreement, so it can offer First ScotRail no direct redress on its concerns.
I recognise that.
Secondly, any indemnity funding in favour of Network Rail under the agreement will cover only direct claims under the access agreement with Network Rail and not any claims that are made against First ScotRail under the station lease, for example.
I have not been a party to the detail of the protective provisions. If ScotRail wished to identify that gap, TIE would be willing to consider it.
Is it the case that the Network Rail agreement would not protect First ScotRail from claims against it by beneficiaries of the station arrangements, such as Great North Eastern Railway or either of the Virgin train operating companies that use the station?
I cannot comment on that.
In the light of that, the practical impact and revenue leakage concerns that First ScotRail expressed in its objection remain.
If that is the case.
Issues to do with what we lawyers call vires, or the powers of authorities and those to whom they give powers, and how such powers would mesh with other considerations, would also remain. I am thinking of potential clashes with the requirements of the Railways Act 1993 in relation to closure procedures, change procedures and the Office of Rail Regulation.
Sorry, but what is your question?
Would issues about the degree of mesh with United Kingdom statute remain if the Network Rail agreement were signed?
As I said, if a deficiency in the industry process is identified in that regard, TIE will be willing to consider how to address the matter.
For example, is it the case that Network Rail, which might have the benefit of the agreement, is not obliged to procure closure certificates or change certificates under the 1993 act?
I understand that that is the case. However, I find it hard to believe that Network Rail, as a close industry partner, would refuse to initiate those procedures if it were asked to do so, particularly given that under the Railways Act 2005 it will be in direct liaison with the Scottish Executive, which has an interest in this and other schemes in the Haymarket area.
Is it the case that the interests of First ScotRail to secure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will not be met through the Network Rail agreement?
I do not know.
Finally, will the agreement with Network Rail have the effect of qualifying the powers that are sought under the bill?
As I said, I am not familiar with the detail of the matter. My colleague Mr Ramsay might be better placed to answer your question.
None of the matters that I raise is covered in sections 5 or 6 of your witness statement, as far as I can see.
I doubt that they are, given that the provisions were not drafted at that stage, so I would not have known what was in or missing from them.
However, in paragraph 2.2 of your witness statement of 20 May, you say:
My evidence demonstrates that the promoter considered the objections that First ScotRail raised.
Which parts of your evidence demonstrate that the promoter considered my client's concerns?
The promoter liaised with and held meetings with First ScotRail to consider the issues that it raised, and met Network Rail, which is the asset holder at Haymarket station, to consider its concerns.
In paragraph 2.3(iv), you say that your evidence will cover
I do not refer to First ScotRail in section 6, but I refer to the infrastructure that is required to deliver the services that the Scottish Executive and the City of Edinburgh Council want to deliver.
Was the section intended to comprehend First ScotRail's position?
That was the intention. Once the infrastructure is in place, it will last for 50 to 100 years. There will be a number of franchisees during that period.
Is the promoter's agent taking a longer-term view—one that covers the century rather than the duration of the current franchise?
We have to take both views. It is clear that one does not spend a few hundred million pounds without taking a long-term view, but we acknowledge that the company that will deliver services today and tomorrow must be given the comfort of knowing that it will be able to continue to do so, to receive the revenue that it thought that it would receive at the outset of the franchise and to be compensated appropriately for any loss in revenue that arises from circumstances of which it was not aware when it made its bid.
It is apparent from the evidence for the promoter that is before the committee on my client's objection in group 2 that TIE believes that the concerns of First ScotRail are overstated. Is that a view to which you subscribe?
That would seem to be a fairly subjective view. Whatever an organisation includes in its objection has meaning for that organisation. I would not like to comment on whether the concerns of First ScotRail are overstated.
Do you agree or disagree with that view as stated in the written evidence from TIE that is before the committee?
I am not sure. Without reviewing everything again, I cannot honestly say whether I believe that First ScotRail's concerns are overstated.
If that view is held by the promoter or the promoter's agent, do you agree—standing your reference to its being a subjective view—that it involves making a value judgment?
Yes.
Do you agree that, before making such a value judgment, one would have to have a very full understanding of the operation of Haymarket station and its integral areas?
That is a reasonable assumption.
Do you consider yourself to have that requisite degree of knowledge?
I personally may not, but the team of advisers that we have used in getting the project this far would be able to input to that.
I hate to interrupt again, but I am finding the relevance of your line of questioning to the witness statements and the nature of your objection slightly difficult to comprehend. It might be useful if you were to use the present opportunity to tell the committee what the deficiencies are.
I will endeavour to do that through the evidence of Geoff Duke.
I ask you to make your questioning relevant both to the witness statements that are before us and to your objection. I feel that I have given you some leeway, but we are straying considerably.
I will seek to address that instantly.
I am not sure that we said that TIE would identify the gaps. We said that, if First ScotRail identified the gaps, TIE would identify how to address them.
Do you have a detailed knowledge of the station access agreement for Haymarket?
No.
So you are not in a position to help the committee with how a breach of that agreement may arise by virtue of the proposed works and operation of the tramway and yet not be covered by the agreement that has yet to be reached with Network Rail.
No.
I take it that your answer would be the same in relation to the national access conditions—or NACs—on which such agreements are based, which, in effect, come down from the Railways Act 1993.
Yes.
Are you aware that there is a regulatory component and an existing statutory component to those NACs as operated by the Office of Rail Regulation?
I believe that that is the case.
May we take it that you do not have a detailed knowledge of the licences that are obtained from the Office of Rail Regulation to operate Haymarket station under the Railways Act 1993?
That is correct.
Do you also lack knowledge of the role of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to a breach of certain licence conditions?
I do not know what the detail of the role of the HSE would be there.
Do you know, for example, that the HSE can close a franchise station such as Haymarket where there are breaches of certain licence conditions?
Yes. I believe that that is its power with respect to any part of the network.
You may be familiar with the penalties levied through the revenue support mechanism if First ScotRail fails to achieve specified outputs under its franchise agreement with the Scottish Executive and its public service requirement.
I am aware that there are incentives in the contracts.
Dr Sales, can we focus on what First ScotRail wants? I am having difficulty tying this down to the four objections set out in your letter to the committee of 29 March 2004 and the subsequent information that we have received from you.
Yes, madam. I will turn to the evidence of Mr Duke, since I believe that that is the only way of conveying the information to the committee. An example will perhaps help to illustrate the concerns.
Yes.
Suppose that there is some slippage in the Waverley upgrade project, as a result of which the tram project starts off site—perhaps away from railway land. Are you with me so far?
Sorry, which project starts off site?
The Waverley upgrade project—the second one. Suppose that there is some slippage. Suppose that as a result of those off-site works there is an interruption to the power supply to Haymarket station and as a result the lighting, the telecommunications, the fire alarms, sprinklers and the like all go down. In those circumstances, Haymarket could not operate as a station, could it? Do you agree that it could not even operate as a temporary substitute, as it will be, for Waverley station?
I do not know, without having the detail of those circumstances.
In such a scenario, is it your belief that the agreement reached with Network Rail would manage all those knock-on effects?
I do not know whether it would or not.
I will address the concerns of First ScotRail about the disruption to the car parking facility at Haymarket that will be brought about if tramline 1 proceeds. Network Rail is the landlord of that station is it not?
Yes.
As such, it is removed from First ScotRail's customers: the fare-paying passengers. It does not have a direct interest in those passengers in the same way as First ScotRail. Do you agree with that?
Network Rail's long-term view is that if it interrupts the rail services that are intended to be delivered through its back-to-back contracts with the Scottish Executive it is in its interest to act immediately upon any event, whether or not that interest is directly incentivised.
But there is not a direct impact on Network Rail, is there?
No.
But in such circumstances there would be a direct impact on the train companies using Haymarket station car park.
Yes.
Do you know what the annual revenue from each car parking space is at Haymarket?
No. I am sure that that information is commercially confidential.
Would it surprise you to learn that it is of the order of £3,000 per annum for each space?
No, that would not surprise me. One of your client's directors informed us of that.
On the gaps between the position of Network Rail and that of First ScotRail, may we look at the example of passenger flow, which is not in Network Rail's interest. That would suffer severance during a construction period, would it not?
Yes.
It would not matter a jot to Network Rail how many customers went through Haymarket station.
It might not matter to the payments that it receives for operating the station, but it may matter for public relations and on-going relationships with the Scottish Executive.
I will make a helpful suggestion, Dr Sales. You are to question Mr Duke on his statement and any rebuttal that he has made, but passenger flows do not form any part of his statement that we can identify. Perhaps some of the questions about what you would like would be best put to your witness. That might flow better.
Yes. I am close to the end of my time with Mr Duke. I ask you to indulge me for a further minute or two to explore with Mr Duke a further example of the gaps, as I think we are calling them.
I do not know.
Is it not the case that all stakeholders in Haymarket station have to agree to any changes in the station's operation and, failing that, would go to the Office of Rail Regulation for adjudication?
Yes, that is my understanding of the industry process.
Do you know whether the level of disruption to the car park during the construction phase, let alone the long-term loss of spaces, will require a full closure certificate under ORR auspices?
I do not know whether it would require such a certificate. I have heard your client say that it would do so.
That was the problem with the new council offices that were to be built on the Waverley car park, was it not? As I understand it, Network Rail had agreed to make that car park available, but the problem that arose was that one of the train operating companies—GNER—just said no, which led to a delay of some two years.
I make a final interruption, Dr Sales. I struggle to find any reference to car parking in Mr Duke's statement, so perhaps you should address those points to your own witness.
I will happily let matters rest there and address my questions to Mr Amner.
Thank you very much, Dr Sales.
I would like to pursue the point about the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In response to a question, Mr Duke said that he did not know whether compliance would be achieved. That causes me some concern, so I ask him to elaborate on that point.
I cannot remember the exact terms of that question, but I assure you that TIE and the City of Edinburgh Council would wish to comply with any legislation that is currently in force.
I detect a slight reluctance for open negotiation with First ScotRail. Is that simply because of the on-going contact with Network Rail?
I hope you did not get the impression that there is reluctance on our part. We understand that the provisions afforded to Network Rail will protect First ScotRail's interests. Dr Sales has attempted to identify through me some of the gaps, which is exactly what we have asked them to do. We have said that, if they identify the gaps or any deficiencies in the industry process, TIE will consider how to address them. As I said at the start, we recognise an on-going relationship with not only First ScotRail, but any other franchisee in the area, and want to be able to work smoothly to provide an integrated transport system in future.
I will ask a simple question: why did you not do that from the beginning? Why is there an impression that you must take a convoluted route through Network Rail before you engage with First ScotRail?
That is not the case. At the outset we started to negotiate with First ScotRail and had got quite far with an agreement with it. We did not know how matters would progress with Network Rail, so we addressed all issues with all objectors. It is just that events with Network Rail overtook the negotiations with First ScotRail and, having arrived at a set of protected provisions, we informed First ScotRail of that position.
Thank you, Mr Duke. Mr Thomson, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr Duke?
Yes, I do. I will attempt to be brief.
That is my understanding.
I want to read to you two sentences from paragraph 3.7.3 of the rebuttal lodged by Mr Geoff Cook as an objector on behalf of Network Rail to see whether it accords with your understanding of the relationship:
It is my understanding that there are those back-to-back contractual obligations.
Is that why you believed that if a suitable protective agreement could be reached with Network Rail, it would provide at least prima facie adequate and proper protection for First ScotRail?
That was our understanding, yes.
Thank you.
There being no further questions for Mr Duke on the lack of due regard to heavy rail issues, I thank him for his evidence.
I have no initial questions.
Does the committee have any questions for Mr Ramsay? If not, you are spared providing any information to us, Mr Ramsay. I remind the committee that Dr Sales is unable to question Mr Ramsay on the basis that there was no rebuttal to Mr Ramsay's statement.
I move on to take evidence from Neil Amner, who is already at the witness table, so we do not require a break to bring him here. Members will note that this is a change of witness to that originally agreed by the committee. Mr Andrew Mellors has been unavoidably recalled to London, so is unable to give evidence today. I am advised, though, that Mr Amner can answer any questions raised by Mr Mellors's witness statement and rebuttals.
I will introduce Mr Amner—who will give evidence in place of Mr Mellors for the reasons that the convener mentioned—simply by referring to what he says about himself in the introductory paragraphs of his witness statements for BRB (Residuary) Ltd in group 3 and for British Transport Police in group 4. He details his position and his experience in those witness statements.
Thank you, Dr Sales, but brevity is always appreciated by the committee.
I will do my best, madam.
The agreement covers the core contractual payments under the lease with Network Rail, but it does not cover matters outwith those core contractual arrangements or the core payments made under the lease. Particular examples would be the station's qualitative elements, such as its ambience, the quality of experience for passengers who are passing through and the impact that that has on the quality of services. Under the franchise agreement under which First ScotRail provides its services, failure to comply with the service quality incentive regime—SQUIRE—can result in severe financial penalties for First ScotRail.
In the overview section of Mr Mellors's written evidence, he refers to several arrangements that First ScotRail has in place for Haymarket station. With an eye to identifying the gaps between the position of Network Rail and First ScotRail, will you explain why First ScotRail's lease of the station and associated areas from Network Rail will not be adequately protected, as far as First ScotRail is concerned, if any difficulties should arise under that leasing arrangement?
Sorry, I am unclear about the question.
Why will the protective provisions that may be afforded to Network Rail not cover the lease of Haymarket station?
Obviously, we have not seen the final text of the protective agreement between the council and Network Rail. However, from the earlier drafts that I have seen, I understand that the agreement's compensation provisions are limited to access agreements. As the definition of access agreement does not include station leases, any claim by First ScotRail against Network Rail under the lease would not be covered by the funding that Network Rail would be able to derive from the protective provisions agreement. My understanding is that any compensation payments would be limited to those that arise directly through access agreements. However, "access agreement" is a legal term of art, which the Railways Act 1993 defines as the contractual arrangements under which a train operator either gains access to the track by paying what is akin to a toll charge on a toll road, or arranges to be allowed to call at a station under a station access agreement, which is akin to the situation of an airline paying a landing charge at an airport. Therefore, First ScotRail's station lease would simply not be covered by the protective provisions agreement.
Your written evidence also refers to the licence that is in place in respect of First ScotRail's interests at Haymarket station. Again, with an eye on what we seek to achieve as a result of your evidence, will you tell us the differences between Network Rail's position and First ScotRail's position on licences?
Network Rail has a licence to operate the network, but First ScotRail holds the licence to operate the station. Accordingly, First ScotRail is directly responsible for compliance with the safety case requirements under the licence and for the application of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that apply to the station—there are also obligations in the franchise agreement to comply with that act. My understanding is that the Network Rail agreement covers only access agreements, which is another head of claim, if you like, that is not adequately covered. I should also point out that a licence breach would affect not only Haymarket station, but potentially First ScotRail's capacity to operate any of its services throughout Scotland.
On the station's access contracts, your written evidence refers to the detailed change procedure rules that will have to be gone through if changes are required at Haymarket as a result of the construction or operation of tramline 1. Will you please explain how such a procedure might be required as a result of what is proposed?
I will use car parking at the station as an example. The station's contractual set-up is such that, to allow the other train operators to know what is available to them and their passengers or customers at stations, there are documents that are referred to in England as the station annexes and in Scotland as the supplementary station access conditions, which set out in detail the facilities that are available at each station. If people wish to change any aspect of what is available at a station, they require to go through what is, in effect, a stakeholder consultation exercise. The exercise is contractual in that the change procedures are set out in the fairly hefty document that contains the national station access conditions, which applies to all stations throughout the network.
Page 5 of your written evidence gives details of the anticipated loss of car parking spaces. It states:
No offer from the promoter is currently on the table.
Why is it so important that replacement car parking spaces should be made available?
It is important for commercial and, in essence, regulatory reasons. I will deal with the regulatory issues first. A number of disabled car parking spaces are currently available. If we are to enable customers who have mobility problems to access the station, we need those spaces or a workable alternative. The commercial aspect for First ScotRail and other train operators is to do with the fact that the revenue derived from season tickets is substantial and is directly linked to the availability of parking spaces. Passengers who use the parking spaces at the station invariably buy season tickets on the back of the availability of a parking space. If spaces at the station were not available and there were no spaces of suitable quality at a reasonable distance from the station, passenger numbers and ticket revenue would decline, which would have an incremental effect on congestion and the environment.
In your written evidence, you suggest that the Morrison Street car park could meet the requirement for alternative provision. Do you want to add any comments about, for example, how an arrangement with the owners of the car park might be achieved?
I am speculating, but it would be for the promoter to arrange the matter or for First ScotRail to seek to negotiate an arrangement. In the absence of any funding or offer of indemnity from the promoter, First ScotRail has not been involved in such negotiations. However, I would have thought that the promoter could reach a commercial agreement or seek powers in the bill in relation to the temporary use of a proportion of the Morrison Street car park as a substitute for the spaces that are currently available at the station.
One might assume that, barring temporary occupation, the equivalent of compulsory purchase acquisition powers would also be available.
Yes, if there was a mind to grant such powers.
Finally, in your submission you say:
As I said, the heavy rail network is a pre-existing network that has operational services in relation to which a fairly complex web of contractual and regulatory provisions is in place. Those provisions are by and large driven by the terms of the Railways Act 1993 and include the Office of Rail Regulation and the station closure procedures, as well as other contractual obligations under the franchise agreement. There are also regulatory obligations in relation to the role of the HSE and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, the railways safety case regulations and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
As a rider to that and having regard to what I think our American cousins often refer to as a mother-and-apple-pie proposition, do you agree that it is desirable that there should be no room for conflict between the provisions of the Scottish bill as it may be enacted and the UK regulatory framework, principally under the 1993 act?
Yes, that ought to be the case.
I have no further questions for Mr Amner.
Thank you.
I think that the committee has to hand a copy of the original objection: four bullet points are set out in it, but parking is not one of them. I understand that some sort of e-mail or other correspondence specifically mentioning parking for the first time followed on after the objection period. Let me clarify my client's position, which is that there is not a timeous objection about parking. [Interruption.]
Please carry on, Mr Thomson. We will get back to you on the subject.
Mr Amner, I think that you have to hand the paragraph of Mr Geoff Cook's statement, which I put to Mr Geoff Duke. If I may, I will read it to you again, in case it is not fresh in your memory:
Yes.
So if, for example, Network Rail was unable to provide access to a number of car parking spaces, it would be liable to compensate your client, the objector, in respect of that deficiency?
It would in terms of the agreements to which you refer, although they are limited in scope.
I am asking about the contract between your client and Network Rail.
Yes, and I am saying that, although the contract contains a compensation provision, the scope of the compensation that is available under the contract does not cover all the potential losses that First ScotRail could suffer.
We will come on to that in a moment. However, you accept so far that your client has contractual rights against Network Rail under both the lease and the access agreements.
Yes, in the event of a breach by Network Rail.
You also accept that, to a certain extent, it is for Network Rail to take the steps that it regards as appropriate to protect itself from claims by your client.
Yes, that is correct.
You described in some detail the change procedure. You said that, if a change were to be made to either the lease or the access agreement, that would require the agreement of all the stakeholders.
Yes.
And that anyone could veto it.
They could, but that is subject to the event of the veto being maintained, in which case the matter would be referred to the Office of Rail Regulation for determination.
However, without any such variation of those agreements, the contractual remedies that we have just been looking at would stand.
Yes, although I should qualify that. Obviously, under the terms of the agreements, there would be an effect on the station if, for example, car parking were to be removed. The operational impact of that change is covered by the objection and would require the consent of First ScotRail.
So you, among others, would have to agree to the number of car parking spaces being varied, for example.
Yes.
You explained that, in addition to the direct loss of a car parking space, indirect losses might flow from a loss of revenue from people who use the car park then travel on a train.
That is correct.
You also drew attention to SQUIRE, the quality standards that your client must meet and the adverse effect that might follow on turnstile revenue if your client failed to achieve those standards.
That is right.
Are those compensation matters for potential claims against the promoter in due course?
Yes.
You referred to possible alternative car parking at Morrison Street. Is that on the site that has recently been the subject of a public inquiry?
I am afraid that I do not have direct information on the site's availability.
Thank you, Mr Amner.
I will clarify our position on a point that Mr Thomson raised earlier, which I suspect from his last question on car parking that he has accepted. The committee is happy to consider car parking under point 2 of the company's objection to the bill, which says:
I accept that ruling fully, but I should explain, because my witnesses have been criticised, that nothing about car parking was in the principal witness statements. That is why the promoter did not regard it as the subject of an objection. Once the matter was raised in the objector statement, we had to cover it in rebuttal.
In fairness, I tried to contain Dr Sales's questioning of the chief witness.
We have heard considerable discussion of compensation as a result of regulatory and commercial interests. My concern is about who will compensate the public for the loss of amenity and how they will be compensated. I guess that the question is for Mr Thomson and the promoter.
We are questioning Mr Amner, who is the witness.
He might wish to amplify how he thinks that the promoter will compensate the public for loss of service and loss of amenity, because not just First ScotRail or Network Rail should have compensation.
The simple answer is that the public will not be compensated unless alternative car parking provision is made available to maintain the current service provision. First ScotRail wishes to have the alternative car parking provision. It wishes to maintain a suitable number of car parking spaces to serve the station and the passengers who use it.
Have options other than Morrison Street been considered? Was that simply your suggestion to the promoter? What discussion of alternative sites has taken place?
I ask permission to confer with a gentleman who is behind me. I speak for First ScotRail, but I am fortunate to have one of its directors with me.
Have any suggestions been forthcoming?
Not as far as I am aware.
May I ask one more question?
You are straying outwith the scope of the objection.
My question is to do with the impact on services. Mr Mellors says in his statement that Haymarket is the busiest rail depot in Scotland because of the fuelling of diesel trains that come to the station.
I stop you there, because that matter is being considered by the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee.
First ScotRail suggests that the lack of car parking spaces is relevant to operations in the short and longer terms. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
You talk about the loss of spaces in the long term and say that the number of spaces would go down from, I think, 150 to 90.
Yes.
Have you considered what impact the tramline will have in reducing car use among people within its area travelling to Haymarket for continuing journeys?
The best thing that can be said on car parking and the impact that the tramlines will have when they are operational is that there is a connection and interoperability between the two public transport modes. However, the loss of car parking is a definite event—we know that the car parking will be lost and that customers will be lost, at least during the construction phase. Whether those customers will transfer to the tram is currently unknown. One would hope that some would, but probably not all of them will. Once the tram is operational, it might open up areas of Edinburgh for travelling by train for longer journeys and make commuting journeys to the west, for example, more attractive to Edinburgh citizens who currently find it difficult to get to the station. However, all that is supposition and subjective judgment; the one hard and fast thing that we know is that, during the construction phase, which is during a core element of the current franchise, there will be a loss of car parking.
Dr Sales, do you have any follow-up questions?
Yes, I have two.
No, I do not, because the powers would be granted to the promoter and, thereafter, to the authorised undertaker. It is not necessarily the case that that will result in Network Rail breaching its obligations. Network Rail might be forced into doing so, but it would not be controlling the sequence of events. At the moment, the powers are unqualified.
Mr Gallie asked you a question on what I might characterise as the short-term and longer-term benefits of the modal change—if I may introduce that term—that the introduction of the trams on tramline 1 might bring about. Do you regard customer loss as the only consequence of that, or is there a need to take into account customer convenience or inconvenience during the construction period?
There is a need to take into account customer inconvenience. We must bear it in mind that, if we lose a customer on day one, we will not automatically get him back on day two.
There are no further questions for Mr Amner on the protection of operations, so I thank him for giving evidence. I say to both parties that we hope that they will keep the committee apprised of what I assume will be continuing negotiations.
In my submission, we have seen the tip of the iceberg of rather obscure contractual and legislative arrangements that regulate the operation of heavy rail. However, the bare bones are pretty simple. The contractual framework between the objector and Network Rail has two separate parts: the leasing of the station and the access arrangements to the other assets of Network Rail, primarily the lines on which the objector operates its trains.
We look forward to that.
Four key issues are outstanding for First ScotRail in relation to tramline 1. The first is a concern about timing following the upgrade of Haymarket and Waverley stations, both of which must be completed, in the submission of First ScotRail, before the authorised undertaker is permitted to exercise any acquisition powers in relation to Haymarket station.
Thank you very much, Dr Sales. That concludes the evidence on group 2. After taking a short break, we will move on to group 3 and BRB (Residuary) Ltd. I thank all the witnesses. Mr Duke will stay with us and Rahul Bijlani will take his place at the witness table.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Okay, I intend to recommence the meeting. If those people who are elsewhere join us during the course of the evidence, that is excellent, but five members are present and that is enough for me, so we will just start.
Rahul Bijlani made a solemn affirmation.
Mr Duke has already made a solemn affirmation.
Our position with regard to Mr Duke is almost identical to our position on the previous group's objection. Our position is that the protective provisions agreement, once finally executed, will provide the due regard and comfort that are required to answer that aspect of the objection. I do not propose to lead Mr Duke any further on that issue today.
We will consider those matters after we have dealt with Mr Duke.
I am obliged. I have that point firmly in mind and will approach my cross-examination of Mr Duke accordingly.
That is correct.
On that basis, all that I need to put to you is the following: is it your understanding that the position of BRBR is that it wishes specifically that the requirements of both Network Rail and First ScotRail are satisfactorily addressed, either by amendments to the bill or by way of separate commercial agreements with the promoter?
Yes.
So BRBR also seeks separate agreements unless it can be persuaded that there are no gaps and that everything that it wishes to see covered in respect of First ScotRail has in fact been covered by a separate agreement between the promoter and First ScotRail?
Yes.
Is it BRBR's position that such amendments or commercial agreements must be mutually consistent and properly allow the protection of all industry stakeholders?
Yes.
I have no further questions for Mr Duke.
Excellent. Does the committee have any questions?
No.
Does Mr Thomson have any follow-up questions?
No, thank you.
There being no further questions for Mr Duke on the lack of regard for heavy rail issues, I thank him for giving evidence.
Unfortunately, I do not think that it is. I understand that the section 13 issue has been agreed but, on the issue of pre-existing statutory obligations, I understand that Mr Bijlani is about to make a recommendation to the promoter but that he has not yet done so. That proposal flows from an agreement that Mr Bijlani has reached with Mr Amner.
I am now in a position to recommend that the promoter accept an amendment in very similar terms to the one proposed in Mr Amner's evidence. I will come to a couple of minor changes to it in due course.
Just for completeness, can we consider the acquisition of title rights over BRBR land?
To update the committee, we have now received from BRBR a demarcation agreement. Neil Amner's evidence explains what that is but, in essence, it is an agreement that governs the terms between Network Rail in respect of its operational land and, in this case, BRBR where the lands abut. We accept that, in circumstances in which the promoter is taking BRBR land, those terms need to be taken into consideration. The demarcation agreement is complex—it is being analysed and its implications are being digested, but that process has not yet been completed, although we hope that it will be soon and that we will reach agreement on the matter. The promoter's view is that the issue is best dealt with outwith the bill, as it involves potentially complex title conditions.
Finally, will you explain what has happened about section 13?
I hope that section 13 is agreed to. Mr Amner has proposed some minor amendments with which I concur.
That one is looking good.
As there are no questions from the committee, I thank Mr Bijlani for giving evidence on the issue. We will now take oral evidence from the objector's witnesses. I invite Stephen Bennett to join Neil Amner at the table.
Mr Bennett will address the issue of due regard for heavy rail issues. The promoter has chosen not to rebut Mr Amner's witness statement, so its cross-examination will be limited to Mr Bennett.
At the risk of incurring further comment, I wonder whether, for the sake of consistency, the order of witnesses at this stage may be reversed. To relieve Mr Amner of his position beside me, may we take his evidence immediately after the points that Mr Bijlani made?
That would be absolutely fine.
Mr Amner, you have heard the update that Mr Bijlani gave this morning. What is your position, on behalf of BRBR, on the first point that he made—that an amendment very similar to the one that you have proposed, with two minor changes, is to be recommended to the promoter? Do you wish to comment on the proposed change of "former railway" to "disused railway"?
Obviously, given that the proposal was made only this morning, I have not had a chance to obtain instructions on it. Personally, I can see no objection to the change.
The other minor change to the amendment that you proposed involved the deletion of "or otherwise" after "statutory". Do you wish to comment on that?
It is a potentially material change, but I am confident that we will be instructed to accept it.
Are you content with the position that Mr Bijlani set out this morning on the demarcation agreement?
Yes. I think that he recorded the current position accurately. However, the base element of the BRBR objection will stand unless and until we reach agreement with the promoter. I confirm that we are talking about one parcel of land and the title conditions that relate to it. I add for the benefit of the committee that, although we accept that the demarcation agreement is a chunky, fairly complex document, there is precedent for provisions of this type to be inserted in a statutory provision or an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. In particular, I refer the committee to the City of Edinburgh (Guided Busways) Order Confirmation Act 1998.
I have no further questions for Mr Amner.
Thank you, Dr Sales. That is almost a full house, gentlemen. As members have no questions for Mr Amner, I thank him for his evidence. We now turn to Mr Bennett.
I am obliged to you, convener, for changing the order of witnesses. Mr Bennett, can you set the scene for us by explaining why you are here as a member of the Strategic Rail Authority to speak to the objection from BRB (Residuary) Ltd?
Good morning. The SRA holds the contracts with all train operating companies in the UK. It also holds the budget for rail, including payments that are made to Network Rail, so it must have in mind the interests of the industry as a whole. That remains the case until the changes that were recently brought about by the Railways Act 2005 take effect. That has not happened yet, so I am still here. The concerns that I have come to express today will have been adequately addressed if all the concerns that the committee has heard from First ScotRail, BRB (Residuary) Ltd and Network Rail are met, which we understand is likely to be the case. In those circumstances, we will be well satisfied and will withdraw our objections. That is a summary of our position.
We can rest with that summary provided that we are absolutely clear that what you, on behalf of BRB (Residuary) Ltd, are looking for is satisfaction with respect to both Network Rail and First ScotRail, which comes back to the point about the identification of gaps.
That is correct. Our concerns are the operational and economic integrity of the heavy rail industry. All those matters have been raised one way or another this morning.
In relation to paragraph 4.2 of your written statement, on compensation provisions, do the propositions that Mr Thomson put to Mr Amner during his cross-examination of Mr Amner about the First ScotRail position satisfy BRBR?
The proposition that it is adequate to have compensation arrangements with Network Rail alone on behalf of the whole industry had good intent but does not meet all the concerns of the whole industry. I believe strongly that the promoter should address adequately the legitimate concerns of the whole industry.
With respect to those legitimate concerns, to be blunt, are we talking merely about the protection of First ScotRail's financial position or is BRBR concerned with the qualitative side of the delivery of train services?
One of the reasons why I prefaced my rebuttal statement with the words "operational" and "economic" was to stress that the operational integrity is at least as important as the economic integrity.
As far as the alleged lack of due regard to heavy rail issues on the part of the promoter is concerned, are you here simply to support First ScotRail's position?
Obviously, we have to take a longer-term view and consider the interests of all the other operators, because it is not just First ScotRail that uses the railway network. As we heard earlier, there are other franchises and there are also freight operators, so my concern is for the entire industry. However, from what I have heard so far and from the discussions that I have had with First ScotRail, I believe that what it proposes is entirely consistent with the interests of the industry as a whole.
If Network Rail's position is satisfied, you are not here to support that organisation.
I see no need to do anything further for Network Rail, provided that the council is prepared to sign the agreement.
Thank you, Mr Bennett. I repeat the remark that I made at the beginning of my questions last week that when I do not cross-examine a witness, it should not be taken for a moment that I agree with everything that the witness is saying. My position is set out in the promoter's witness statement and rebuttal and I will try to confine my questions to achieving clarification and illumination of factual difficulties outside the areas of controversy that we all know about.
Thank you for that very helpful clarification. We would not assume that simply because you did not question somebody you necessarily agreed with them. Indeed the committee will consider all the written evidence alongside the oral evidence when coming to a conclusion. Committee members have questions for Mr Bennett.
Is BRBR satisfied by the promoter's response to the concerns that were expressed about the timing of the construction at Waverley and Haymarket stations?
That is a good question and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something about the matter. If I had not attended this meeting, I would have been chairing a meeting of the Waverley development group, which includes all industry parties and the City of Edinburgh Council. The group requires Haymarket to play a large role in the Waverley project. We told the promoter that we hope that the project will be complete by the end of 2007 and we asked for assurances that the tram works will not start until after that date. I was encouraged by what I heard today, which was constructive and demonstrates that people are working together.
Your response concerns me a little, because projects such as the Waverley development tend to run late. If the Waverley project were to run late, the knock-on effect could be added costs for the tramline project. What consideration has been given to the matter?
You identify a reason why we take such large projects very seriously and put a lot of effort into them. I will not be telling tales out of court if I say that the Waverley project is currently slightly ahead of schedule. We are confident that there should not be a problem.
If the Waverley project were to run late, would you regard yourself as under an obligation to reverse compensate?
One of the reasons why the industry is so complex and has such high costs is that it involves complicated regimes and relationships. I would not recommend such a complicated approach to light rail, if that was your suggestion.
I will ask the question that I had intended to ask. You referred to Mr Thomson's comments, which appeared to me to represent an acceptance that Network Rail would compensate for or recognise operational losses that First ScotRail incurred as a consequence of developments in the Haymarket area. Are you satisfied that Mr Thomson's comments would have legal basis, if compensation were sought in future?
We were very pleased to hear those comments, but the crucial point that the objector's representatives made was that although such compensation would address some of the losses, it would be inadequate to cover the totality of losses. Such compensation would be intended to address only a particular contract, but the railway industry operates on a matrix of contracts. For example, Mr Amner referred to SQUIRE, which is a contract that is quite outside the contracts that were being discussed. If we rely on a single remedy, we will have only a partial solution. What we heard this morning represents an encouraging development but does not address the whole issue.
BRBR had concerns about access and fuelling at Roseburn. The promoter indicated that it would plan with Network Rail and First ScotRail to minimise disruption. Are you satisfied with the promoter's response?
I suspect that that is a depot issue. Am I right in thinking that the convener wants such issues to be considered elsewhere?
I think that the matter affects tramline 1.
We suspect that depot issues, including that one, will be considered by the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee.
Our notes say line 1, but—
That just shows that members are interested in pursuing every aspect of the proposals.
I have just one question. In response to Mr Gallie's question, Mr Bennett referred to what he described as the "crucial point" on compensation in relation to the Network Rail agreement, if it is fully executed.
Yes.
Is it your belief that those interested in the SQUIRE matters—principally First ScotRail—would be able to reclaim their financial losses from Network Rail?
No. I believe that there is an impediment to that. The compensation on the table this morning, as I understand it, relates specifically to the track access contract and the station lease. It does not relate to other contractual matters.
Do you believe that it will be possible for Network Rail in some way to compensate for the qualitative factors not having been met, in terms of SQUIRE?
No. Network Rail is limited in what it can do because it is a regulated utility and it has to operate strictly under the arrangements that are set out by the Office of Rail Regulation.
Thank you, Mr Bennett.
There being no further questions for Mr Bennett on due regard for heavy rail issues, I thank him for giving evidence today.
In a way, BRBR's position simply reflects the position of, first, Network Rail and, secondly, First ScotRail. With the greatest respect, I think that it does not add much to the sum total of our knowledge. There was a reference to freight interests, but there is no freight operator objector. In effect, BRBR's position is moral support for Network Rail and First ScotRail. In my submission, most of the issues that it flagged up today are purely compensation issues.
Thank you. Dr Sales, you have up to five minutes to make your closing remarks.
BRB (Residuary) Ltd's locus in objecting is as an honest broker that is looking to the position of both Network Rail and First ScotRail. In effect, BRBR is appearing as agent for the SRA to say that the SRA responsibilities under the UK requirements may be breached unless the bill recognises the wider rail interests of both Network Rail and First ScotRail. The committee should address all the interests of both Network Rail and First ScotRail and not just those of one of them, as will be the case if the promoter is not obliged to address the outstanding concerns of First ScotRail in a contractual fashion.
Thank you. Before I conclude the evidence for group 3, I remind everyone that, when the committee considers amendments at the next stage, only the committee can amend the bill. I look forward to those amendments coming forward in due course. That said, I conclude our evidence taking for group 3.
I am happy to give that confirmation.
I am happy to hear it.
I am happy to accept the confirmation.
That is excellent. I hope that we can keep going in this way for the rest of the afternoon. Dr Sales, do you want to take the opportunity briefly to explain the agreement?
I think that there would be no benefit in doing so.
Excellent—not that I want to curtail the debate. However, as both sides appear to be in agreement, I see no reason for the committee to take oral evidence from anyone. That concludes the evidence taking from group 4.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
For the Official Report, I will repeat a comment that I think that I made earlier. I am aware that Transco has had two name changes as a result of company restructuring and that it became Blackwater SCA Ltd and then Scotland Gas Networks Ltd. However, I am content that it is appropriate for the objection to proceed. For convenience, we will simply refer to "Transco" during the meeting.
I was simply going to invite Mr Blackhall to update the committee on what has happened, but I am happy not to do so if you are happy to proceed on the basis of the information that has been received from Transco.
For the sake of form, we will allow Mr Blackhall to give the committee an update.
I would like to mention one thing before I question the witness. The promoter does not accept that the objector has simply had a change of name. I am not raising an issue about how we should proceed, but lest it be suggested later that I have accepted that there has simply been a change of name, I say that I do not accept that. My submission notes that there is a different consideration when assets are transferred from one body to another, which is what I understand happened. However, I am not objecting to how we are proceeding.
Your comments have been noted, Mr Thomson. Please proceed.
Will Mr Blackhall please simply give us an update on the negotiations and the agreement that has been reached with Transco?
With regard to tramline 1, as in our previous submission, we fully agree that all parties and all provisional commercial protection and fundamental protection to the apparatus are in place. The only objection, which was mentioned in the e-mail that the committee received late last night, relates to the side letter, which obtains only to tramline 2. There is a particularly sensitive trunk-main gas pipe by Gogar roundabout and we have agreed in principle that Transco should carry out works in order fully to comply with any provisional protection that is required. As things stand, there is no objection to line 1 from Transco, which has agreed that all provisional protection is in place. At the 11th hour, it changed its mind about the format for proceeding on agreement.
As far as tramline 1 is concerned, do you envisage any difficulty in securing execution by both parties to the agreement?
I would say that there will be agreement within the next 10 to 14 days. At the moment it is—although I do not like to use this phrase—a done deal, subject to City of Edinburgh Council's approval.
Are there any questions from committee members?
We like done deals, too. There is nothing further to hear from Mr Thomson, so I thank Mr Blackhall for his evidence.
I have none.
Mr Henderson?
I have none.
Excellent. You are spared any further ordeal, Mr Bijlani. We move on to your colleague, Andrew Oldfield.
Mr Oldfield is here to address temporary requirement of land.
I need only to ask Mr Oldfield to update us on developments since the date of his witness statement.
At the time of the witness statement, I had been asked to focus, for the purposes of reprovision of parking, on areas of land that are owned by the City of Edinburgh Council. I understand that, since then, the promoter has, with the aid of its planning adviser, investigated one or two other sites that are privately owned. The responses from those private landowners are not positive, and we await further information.
Thank you, Mr Oldfield. That is my only question at this stage.
Mr Henderson?
I will ask the questions.
My script is wrong, but not to worry. Carry on, Mr Pearson.
Mr Henderson will ask questions of me when I am a witness.
I am not in discussion with those owners—those discussions are being undertaken by TIE's planning advisers. I understand that the sites are at the former Christian Salvesen headquarters, Edinburgh's Telford College, the Morrisons superstore and Fettes College.
Are those the four sites that appear in Mr Pearson's evidence and which were put to the promoter in October last year?
That is correct.
To confirm, at the moment you have not identified an alternative car parking site, you have not secured a lease on a site, and you have not entered into an agreement with BAE Systems to deliver a site.
At the moment, we have identified two sites at which it would in my view be practical to have car parking; both are owned by CEC. One is adjacent to the western perimeter of the BAE development adjacent to Ferry Road, and the other is at the west Pilton depot site that is currently occupied by the building services department of the City of Edinburgh Council.
The first site that you mentioned is a new site—it is certainly new to me. Could you tell us a bit more about it?
It was one of the six sites that I was asked to examine last December for their practicality for parking purposes.
It would be helpful for everybody if you could tell us where that site is. Perhaps you could point it out on the badly photocopied Ordnance Survey map that is attached to Mr Pearson's statement.
On your statement?
At the back of my statement there is a badly photocopied OS extract that shows the proposed route of tramline 1.
Hold on a minute. I will say two things. First, the map that I am holding up is the map that we are talking about. Secondly, we are talking about a new site that has not been mentioned anywhere in any of the statements or rebuttals. We will take two seconds to identify where the site is on the map. It would be helpful if someone could draw circles for us. I suspend the meeting for two minutes to enable that discussion to take place.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I confirm for members and for the record that we are considering the triangular area of land next to the area marked "phase 2 office building" on the location plan.
I will focus on the new site, because it does not appear in the evidence. How big is the site?
It is only about 176m2.
Can you say which portfolio within the City of Edinburgh Council owns the site?
No. The site is one of the CEC-owned sites in relation to which I was asked to consider the engineering practicalities in respect of parking.
How many parking spaces would fit into that triangle of land?
About 25.
Where would access to the site be?
It would be from Ferry Road.
Would it be directly from Ferry Road?
Yes.
Did you produce for your own purposes a drawing that shows the 25 parking spaces and the access from Ferry Road?
A draft layout of parking spaces was prepared.
Did you show the draft to, or discuss it with, the objector?
I understand that the drawing was not issued, but the site is plot 3 to which the promoter referred in a letter to the objector, which I think was sent on 25 March.
Is the letter in the evidence that is before the committee?
I do not think that it is.
Is it the letter of 24 March, which is before the committee?
Will you indicate which letter you are referring to?
The letter is attached to your statement.
I do not think that the statements contain anything on this matter, so you might want to consider the issue offline away from the committee. Please move on, Mr Pearson.
We will leave the matter until we come to my evidence, if that is acceptable.
Dundas and Wilson.
That is a firm of planning consultants, is it?
No.
In the 20 years during which you have been involved with projects, have you spent any time in Edinburgh?
Mr Oldfield, I must prevent you from answering that question, which is not relevant. Summaries of people's backgrounds and experience are included in the witness statements, but a witness's place of residence is irrelevant.
With respect, I was just trying to decipher the extent of Mr Oldfield's knowledge of north-west Edinburgh. I was trying to ascertain whether he uses the road network frequently in that part of the city.
In that case, do you intend to ask every member of the committee about their home address and experience of north-west Edinburgh?
No. Mr Oldfield makes statements in his evidence about traffic and other matters and I am trying to ascertain whether he is familiar with the network in north-west Edinburgh. Perhaps he could answer that directly and put me out of my misery.
If you have problems with the evidence that Mr Oldfield has provided in his statement, by all means take issue with the evidence. Aside from doing that, you might want to ask how he arrived at the evidence. However, it is inappropriate to ask where he lives, so I ask you not to do so and to continue your questioning.
Mr Oldfield, I ask you to clarify part of your statement. The number of existing parking spaces seems to be in dispute. You suggest in paragraph 3.2 of your statement a limit of 757 spaces. Where did that figure come from?
The advice from our planning advisers is that the provision is based on gross floor area and allowance for the metreage of gross floor area. That is the standard provision in that area of Edinburgh.
I am sorry; I do not understand. Are you telling us that the 757 spaces are legally constrained, or has an arbitrary ratio been calculated?
I understand that a planning standard has been used.
What is the source of that standard?
Again, that was advice from TIE's planning advisers.
You have identified the site at Crewe Road Gardens as an alternative and your evidence is that it can take 150 parking spaces.
That is correct.
You have provided a digitised drawing of that to the objector. Was your drawing discussed with the transport section of the council's city development department?
I am not aware of whether the drawing was discussed with that section. It was passed to the promoter, which may or may not have taken that action.
So you do not know.
I understand that the city development department has examined the site and that its initial reaction is that the site could be used for parking.
That was not what I asked about; my question was about the transport section.
I have not liaised with the transport section. The city development department may well have done that.
Do you have confirmation in writing from the council that the design for 150 parking spaces that you have provided complies with the handbook on design?
Are you asking about the design of the parking layout?
Yes.
I do not have such confirmation, but the design is in accordance with the council's standards.
But you do not have confirmation in writing.
That is correct.
Has that scheme been discussed with the development control section of the council's planning department?
No.
Has a planning application been made?
No. We would not make a planning application until it was agreed that we intended to use the site for parking.
You are telling us that the site may not receive planning permission or that you do not know whether it will receive planning permission.
That will not be known until an application is made.
So it has not been ascertained whether the site is available for lease.
I understand that the City of Edinburgh Council owns the land. I received a request from the promoter to ascertain the practicalities of using the site for parking. On that basis, my expectation is that the City of Edinburgh Council would make the land available, although its use for parking would be subject to planning permission. However, we would not seek planning permission until we had reached agreement that the objector wanted to use the location for parking.
I have one more question on that site. Have you or the promoter had direct discussions with BAE Systems to try to agree heads of terms for a lease of the site?
I have not.
Has the promoter had such discussions?
No. As yet, we are unclear whether the objector would accept the site as alternative parking provision.
Will you outline the capacity and access provisions that are required for a construction compound?
There is a general shortage of space within the city for construction compounds, but we have tried to identify conveniently located sites in order to allow the most efficient progress in execution of the works. In an ideal world, we would take a lot of space for construction compounds, but clearly we are constrained. We have identified a site at the location that we are talking about that is limited simply by land-ownership boundaries.
A range of sites have been suggested to us, but it is not clear to me which are being suggested for construction compounds and which are being suggested for alternative parking. Will you clarify that?
Six sites were originally examined for alternative provision of parking. At the objector's suggestion, an examination was also carried out of the possibility of using the Easter Drylaw recreational ground as an alternative construction compound. As I have said, the promoter is examining the potential to use private land for reprovision of parking.
What discussions have you had with the Morrisons supermarket on the possible use of its car parking facilities?
My understanding is that the promoter has had initial discussions about that car park with Morrisons. Morrisons may have a problem with the proposal because of a general company guideline or policy that it does not provide parking for external use.
Mr Thomson, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr Oldfield?
No.
As there are no further questions for Mr Oldfield on the temporary requirement for land, I thank him for his evidence. [Interruption.] The interference in sound is because somebody has a mobile phone or a pager on. Even if it is on silent, it will be most helpful if whoever it is could switch it off, to aid our hearing.
Mr Pearson will address the loss of operation space and alternative sites. Let me get this right: will Mr Henderson ask the questions?
Yes.
Excellent. I had visions of Mr Pearson attempting to question himself.
Good morning. I ask Mr Pearson to confirm that the objection with which we are dealing concerns replacement provision during the construction period for the temporary loss of a car park that is currently used by the employees of BAE Systems.
That is correct.
Will you also confirm the number of spaces that are currently available in the temporary car park?
The car park in question, which is on the aerial site, is not temporary; it has existed since the 1960s and contains 172 spaces.
So BAE is simply trying to be satisfied that, during the construction process, its staff will have parking space that is safe, of similar size and reasonably nearby?
Yes. BAE is looking for a compensatory measure.
Is the case that you are making that no proposal from the promoter has been satisfactory?
As BAE's agent, during the past year I have had only one meeting with TIE, since which it has failed to carry out the actions that it agreed to undertake at that meeting. As we heard earlier, there is no paperwork or agreement in place to deliver an alternative car parking site.
One of the proposed sites—albeit that the various permissions for it have not been obtained and it is owned by the City of Edinburgh Council—is the Pilton works depot. Is that correct?
That is correct. The depot is at Crewe Road Gardens.
What is the approximate distance of that site from the offices of BAE Systems?
BAE Systems staff work in two buildings. The nearest of those buildings to the site is the phase 2 building, which is probably about 300m away.
By comparison, what is the approximate distance between the site that will be temporarily lost and that BAE Systems building?
The current site is immediately across the road. It is accessed by a pedestrian crossing.
For the benefit of the committee, will you describe the approximate profile of the walk from the BAE Systems offices to the proposed depot site? You said that it was 300m away. Is it a safe, well-lit, promenade-type walk?
I am not a health and safety expert, but the BAE Systems health and safety manager, Mr O'Connell, who walked the route with me, expressed grave concerns about individuals' safety, especially in the dark winter hours. In case you are not familiar with it—stop me if you are—I will describe the physical route. Coming out of the closest building to the proposed site, you would turn left and head north. The path then narrows to a thin bit of pavement with protective railings where it crosses a railway bridge, but it then opens out again. You would then need to turn left into a residential area, then turn right, then turn left again and—finally—turn right to reach the depot. Obviously, as the route goes through residential streets, there are no crossing facilities. As far as I am aware, the roads are not traffic-calmed at that point.
You have suggested to the promoter several alternatives, all of which—or, at least, a substantial number of which—are either adjacent to BAE's site or opposite it. I presume that those alternatives would alleviate the safety concerns.
Yes. We have proposed four alternatives. The most obvious site is the car park at Morrisons. In our discussions with Morrisons, the store manager told us—with some irony, I suppose—that some BAE staff already use the car park and that he has great difficulty in enforcing how the spaces are used. He explained that most shoppers at the store, which Morrisons inherited when it took over Safeway, come on foot or by taxi, so there is no great demand for parking spaces. When the supermarket was constructed, planning policy specified a minimum number of parking spaces for such developments, so the reason for the perceived oversupply is that that amount was required by the council at that time. Of course, the Executive is now moving to a policy of having a maximum number of parking spaces for such developments.
So it is conceivable that the new temporary car park could be immediately adjacent to BAE's existing facility.
Morrisons has said that it is willing to lease the two banks of car parking that are nearest the perimeter fence. The health and safety manager at BAE has no problem with putting a turnstile in the perimeter fence, which is what is used at the other exits from the facility. A viable solution exists.
I think that I am right in saying that there is a vacant office building immediately opposite BAE's site—it used to be World Markets House—which has an extensive car park. That is another potential alternative.
I think that you are referring to Helix House, which has about 400 parking spaces. The building is available to rent and the agent, King Sturge, has told us that the landlord is open to negotiation on the leasing of those spaces. That site does not appear in the paperwork.
In summary, there are two car parks—albeit that they are privately owned—immediately adjacent to or opposite the existing facility that could be superior alternatives to having to walk 300m up a road, under a railway bridge and through an unfamiliar area, and the people at BAE who are responsible for health and safety would find their use satisfactory.
Yes. Would you like me to point out where Helix House is?
No—it is fine.
In the present process, is there any reason why a privately owned and leased site cannot be considered instead of a publicly owned and leased site?
Land ownership is not an issue. It is clear that alternative sites are available; it is just that they have not been investigated thoroughly. However, we are leaving aside the fundamental point, which is that my client considers that an alternative temporary works site is available.
I was just coming to that.
Yes.
I am aware that you have investigated a number of sites, but have you had a look at the little triangular site to which Mr Oldfield referred earlier?
I have. We have written to the council's property department—I forget the chap's name, but it is in my day book—and it has confirmed orally that the triangular site to which you refer is in the transport department's portfolio. The property department made inquiries, but was told that the site would not be sold because it might be required for the tramline if there was a realignment. In the longer term—after the tramline has been constructed—the council might be prepared to lease the site. The health and safety manager and I went to the site to consider the possibility of extending the car park into it. We reckon that we could get a maximum of 15 spaces in the area that is available.
You would be replacing 140 spaces with 15 spaces—or 25, if Mr Oldfield is correct.
Given that we will lose 172 spaces if we disregard the council's site for the tram halt, 15 or even 25 new spaces will not be sufficient compensation.
I will move on to a slightly different subject. BAE subscribes to the idea of being a responsible employer. It has various transport plans, including a green transport plan. You might want to expand on the parking and transport initiatives that it employs for its staff.
In his rebuttal statement, Mr Oldfield suggested that BAE Systems should be seeking to reduce its number of car parking spaces to meet a commitment in a green transport plan. The company has a company travel plan—which is not a green transport plan—based on a survey that Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers did on the travel needs and patterns of the staff. That survey sought to split the staff into two categories, the first of which was staff who cannot get to work without a car, perhaps because of where they live. Forty five per cent of the workforce lives outside the urban area of Edinburgh and has no alternative to driving, so the company decided that it would have to make car parking provision for those who have no choice but to drive, which is the basis for the provision that it has on the main and aerial sites.
I will move on to a third area. So far, we have been debating the site that is marked PPC3 on the map that is attached to your statement and whether, if that site is to be used as the depot, there is suitable replacement parking nearby. We have established that there is car parking adjacent and opposite that might be an option and that, if that could be explored, it would be welcomed. However, there is another alternative, which is not to have the works depot on PPC3—I did not devise the terminology, I am afraid—but on an alternative construction compound that is identified just to the south. I would be grateful if you could talk the committee through whether you think that that site is suitable for a depot.
I do not want to repeat everything that I have said in my statement, but I will summarise it. The committee members who were on the site visit could see clearly that the amount of land that is available on that alternative site is probably three times the land that the works depot requires. It is immediately adjacent to the proposed route, so there would be no difficulty in importing plant, machinery and building materials on to the route. Moreover, there is a variety of vehicle accesses into the park. There is an immediate access from Telford Road, but it is not the pedestrian walkway that is in the photographs in Mr Oldfield's rebuttal statement—I think that he has picked up wrongly on that. There is a road from Telford Road that is fronted by some flats and goes directly north into the site, so there is an immediate access.
To concentrate on the road network, there have been two fairly substantial developments in and around that area. I know that Miller Homes constructed a bunch of flats and I think that a new school has also been built, so there has clearly been some heavy lorry transport down the supporting road network recently. Is that correct?
The council knows that there is a construction period for a new primary school and 35 houses, so I would imagine that, in granting planning permission, it took the view that, although the construction traffic would be an inconvenience, the road network was capable of handling it. If the impact on the road network had been significant, that would have been a justifiable reason not to grant planning permission.
That ends my questions.
Thank you, Mr Henderson.
Mr Pearson, I will start by looking at your rebuttal statement. You refer to the Easter Drylaw recreation park site as a possible alternative for the construction compound. What is the present use of the Easter Drylaw recreation park?
On my last visit, which was probably the committee's visit, we saw an area of flat, open space that had recently had installed on it some children's play equipment, which I understand is a requirement of the Miller Homes development. Other than that, there are no formal pitch markings and the footpath network goes round the site; it really does not have any function at all as far as I am concerned.
Do children habitually play there?
I did not see any children on the play equipment when I last visited the site. Not being a child, I would not know.
How often have you visited the site?
Over what time period?
Ever.
Ever? Thousands of times—I grew up in the area.
Have you ever seen children playing there?
Oh yes. I probably played there at one time when I was a child.
Can you understand the view that some people might hold that putting a construction compound full of enticing-looking vehicles on what had been a play area—albeit a partly informal play area—might not be a good idea? Children might be enticed to go where they have habitually gone before.
There is a wide variety of views throughout society on all aspects of many matters. I have certainly had no evidence presented to me in this arena that suggests that any of the residents are up in arms about the proposal, which has been on display publicly for some time.
But no one had proposed to put a construction site there before your client's proposal.
But my client's proposal was made over a year ago. The proposal clearly documented the objections and it was put on display in all the public libraries. As far as I know, the newspapers have not even picked up on it. I am not unduly concerned.
Can we be clear about which plot is which? I am thinking of plots 174 and 173. Am I right to understand that plot 174 is a linear plot, which is adjacent to the proposed tramway and is leased by your client from the council, in respect of which your client made no objection, although it is proposed to acquire the plot compulsorily and permanently for the line?
Plot 174 is currently leased on an annual basis from the transportation portfolio of the council. The council has intimated that it will not renew that lease when it expires. The council did not object to the tram order, so my client took the practical view that, if it is not objecting to the tram order and we will not be able to use the plot, we will just have to accept its loss and try to find an alternative site, which is what we have done. We have put in a planning application for the southern part of the aerial site.
That is plot 173, to which your objection relates.
No. The southern part of the aerial site is not included in the order.
But plot 173 is the proposed site of the construction compound and that is the subject of your client's complaint.
Yes. Plot 173 is the proposed site. That is the existing car park, which has 172 spaces on it.
What is proposed is to acquire the plot temporarily for the duration of the construction work on that part of the line.
That is correct, but the length of the temporary acquisition is unknown: it might be five, 10 or 15 years.
Do you not think that two or three years might be more realistic, having regard to the expected completion date of the tram project?
My client's view is that this is a medium-term project, not a short-term project.
So you have not advised your client that the expected completion date of the tram is 2009 and that the likely duration of the construction period is two to three years?
The completion date is 2009. That is correct and my client is aware of that, but that timeframe has slipped now because we are here today, a year down the line from when the orders were drafted.
Do you have your rebuttal statement in front of you?
Yes.
Could you please look at the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 3, where you refer to plots 174 and, in brackets, plot 173. Have you got them the wrong way round?
No, I do not think that I have.
Are you saying that plot 173 is leased from the council?
Sorry, yes, the penultimate paragraph should say that plot 174 is leased from the council.
So you are saying that the applications do not relate to plot 173, but that that should correctly say 174?
There is a grammatical error here.
Would you like to correct it, please?
No, it is correct. The planning applications that are referred to in the statement are for the two new office and industrial complexes on phase 1 and phase 2, which are on the other side of Ferry Road. The plot that is being compulsorily acquired was not part of those planning applications.
So if we simply transposed 174 and 173 we would have the correct sense.
No. The planning permissions for phase 1 and phase 2, which are the two buildings on the north side of Crewe Toll, did not include plots 174, 173 or the remainder of the aerial site. That is what is being explained in the submission.
But if you correct the figure in brackets from 173 to 174, you are then referring to 174 both within and without the brackets, which seems unlikely, because you are trying to refer to both of them, are you not?
The submission is saying, as I have just said to you, that the planning applications have nothing to do with the council's site or the aerial site in its entirety or in part. I do not think that there is any confusion.
We have just agreed that plot 173 is not the aerial site.
Plot 173 is part of the aerial site.
In the next paragraph, you talk about plot 174, which is leased from the council.
Yes.
At the top of the next page, you state that the lease
Yes. The lease has expired, but there is an annual licence.
The planning permission that your client enjoys for their existing premises has a parking limit of 718. Is that correct?
Planning permission was granted for phase 1 and phase 2. Each proposal had a set number of parking spaces attached to it. The levels of parking, as you put it, were approved. Since then, there has been an extension to one of the buildings, which required a loss of some parking spaces to facilitate the building work, which reduced the overall total for the two sites to—
718.
Yes.
And that was approved by the council planning department.
The three applications were approved, but an application is pending that seeks to replace those lost parking spaces.
At the moment, can we agree that it must have been implicit in the granting of planning permission for the logistics building—the third part of the site—that, at the time, the planners were content that the overall parking number should be reduced to 718?
I cannot speak for the planning officer who processed the application but I would imagine that, at the time, national planning policy guideline 17 would have required a maximum number of parking spaces. I cannot speak for the architect and say whether they came under pressure to get rid of parking or whether they volunteered to do it.
Had the change from a minimum standard in relation to car parking and to a maximum standard occurred by that time?
I would have to think about that. If you want to give me a few minutes, I will have a think.
No, do not trouble yourself.
That is correct.
Can we be quite clear that section 124 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides not for the granting of planning permission but simply that enforcement action may no longer be taken for a breach of planning control?
That is correct.
So, if your client had had planning permission for the site, they might have been able to go to the planners to try to trade it for a temporary transfer to another site.
Which site are we talking about?
I am talking about plot 174. You say that you currently have 140 spaces that are immune from enforcement procedure.
The use of that land is immune from enforcement.
But you have agreed with me that your client does not have planning permission for car parking on that site.
They do not need planning permission because they are immune from enforcement.
But if they had had planning permission for it, they might have been able to trade that planning permission temporarily for parking on another site that did not enjoy planning permission for car parking.
I am not aware that there is any provision in town planning legislation that allows local authorities to trade sites or anything with anyone.
You have never attempted such a negotiation.
I have certainly never traded or swapped consents for sites.
We will move on to consider the green travel plan.
That document is not part of the papers that have been laid before the committee.
I stand to be corrected, but I rather thought that it was.
Well, it is not.
It has been produced as a document by the promoter.
Mr Pearson, you raised the document in oral evidence, so it is appropriate for Mr Thomson to seek to rebut it.
Thank you, madam.
The fact remains that the document is not before everyone.
Mr Pearson, Mr Thomson can rebut on the basis of your oral evidence. The committee has arrived at a view and I would be grateful if you did not interrupt Mr Thomson.
Do you have a copy of the document, Mr Pearson?
Do you mean the company travel plan?
I mean the green travel plan.
No, I do not have a green travel plan; there is a company travel plan that was produced by Blyth & Blyth.
Are you aware that the green travel plan was also prepared by Blyth & Blyth?
I have never seen a green travel plan. Perhaps you could show me the document; it might be one and the same.
Given your involvement in your client's planning affairs, is it not rather surprising that you have never seen their green travel plan for the premises with which we are concerned?
I have seen a company travel plan—I have a copy of that—which is referred to in my evidence, but I have not seen a green travel plan.
Did you know that one existed?
I do not know that one exists.
However, you saw it referred to in Mr Oldfield's statement.
Yes, Mr Oldfield referred to it.
Did that make you wonder whether you should perhaps have a look at it and ask your client for a copy before coming here to give evidence?
I asked my client for a copy of the green travel plan and I was given a copy of the company travel plan.
So that we can clarify which travel plan we are talking about, I suggest that we suspend the committee meeting for three quarters of an hour for lunch and we can get the travel plans in the intervening period.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. When I suspended the meeting, Mr Thomson was quizzing Mr Pearson on a green travel plan, which is the same as the company travel plan. Phil Gallie pointed out to me that the author of the plan is Alistair Green, so perhaps that is why the confusion arose. As the promoter and objector both referred to the plan, it is before the committee and I confirm that the green travel plan and the company travel plan are the same document.
Mr Pearson, were you involved in obtaining planning permission for your client's premises?
Are you referring to phases 1 and 2?
Yes.
No, I was not involved in that.
Were you involved in obtaining planning permission for the logistics building?
No.
Were you aware that a section 75 agreement affected the development?
No.
In that case, you would not be aware that the production of a green travel plan was a requirement of the section 75 agreement.
I knew that the production of a company travel plan—to give it its proper name—was a requirement and that there is a requirement to review the plan. I understand that the City of Edinburgh Council recently approached my client to seek to review the plan in the light of the tramline proposals.
The document refers to monitoring and an annual update.
I would expect a company travel plan to contain such references.
I take it that there has not yet been an update.
Work has been undertaken by Blyth & Blyth since the company travel plan was endorsed by the council.
To what effect?
The travel survey that I mentioned earlier, which considered modes of transport and the geographical locations of employees, was carried out.
Has there been formal amendment or replacement of the document?
Not that I am aware of.
Does paragraph 1.1 of the company travel plan state:
Yes, that is what the paragraph says.
In paragraph 1.2, do we find that
Absolutely. I would expect that to be the objective of a company travel plan. I return to what I said previously about the later survey. Some 45 per cent of staff come from outwith the urban area and the objective can be applied only to parts of the workforce. It must be remembered that the document that you are looking at relates to the position back in January 2004.
The survey work that you have described has not caused the company travel plan to be revisited.
It is being revisited at the moment.
But that has not happened yet.
The plan is being revisited now. I had an internal meeting last Wednesday afternoon about the document.
But the document has not yet been replaced.
It has not been replaced—it is being reviewed.
Has a travel plan co-ordinator been appointed under the travel plan that we are considering?
I would have to read the whole document to find that out.
You could read the next paragraph.
I suggest that the committee has that information and that we are capable of reading the document. We know about what is being asked, so you should proceed to the nub of your questioning.
For clarification, I can tell the committee that the Mr O'Connell to whom I referred earlier is the travel plan co-ordinator.
Did you know that before you spoke to him about, for example, the possible Pilton Road car park site?
Yes.
Did you speak to Mr O'Connell about the relevance of new off-site car parking to the travel plan?
The context of the site visit was the potential loss of existing car parking, which is not included in the company travel plan. We are discussing something that relates only to phases 1 and 2 and has nothing to do with the aerial site, which is the subject of the draft orders.
When you spoke to him, did you know that he was the travel plan co-ordinator for your client?
Yes.
Did you speak to him about a possible search for further off-site car parking?
He has been involved with that since day one, when he called me in and instructed me to advise him.
Did you speak to him about the relevance of your search to the travel plan?
Yes.
To what effect?
To the effect that I have just described. The matter relates to phases 1 and 2 and has nothing to do with the operations on the aerial site.
Is it the intention that the aerial site should provide additional car parking for phases 1 and 2?
No. The intention is that the southern part of the aerial site, which is the subject of a planning application, should replace the car parking on the council-owned site. The lease will not be renewed.
Is it your position that phases 1 and 2 and the logistics building require no additional car parking? Currently, the maximum car parking provision is 718.
That is a tricky question—I cannot say. All that I can say is that the staff survey showed that more than 1,000 car parking spaces are required for the company to operate at its landholding as a result of where the people come from.
That seemed to me to be the effect of your written statement, but I wondered whether you would like to reconsider the matter.
That is still the requirement and what the questionnaire survey, which was carried out by Blyth & Blyth, revealed. BAE always works to the target of ensuring that there are enough spaces to meet need.
Do you agree that the provision of more than 718 car parking spaces in phase 1 and phase 2 appears not to accord with the terms of the travel plan?
No, I do not agree at all. The car parking spaces in council plot 174 and aerial site 173 have been there since the 1960s. They have nothing to do with phase 1, phase 2 or the planning applications; the council recognises that. Without having seen the section 75 agreement, I imagine that it relates only to the application site and not to the aerial site.
Can we agree that the travel plan recognises the provision of 718 car parking spaces for phase 1, phase 2 and the logistics building? I am referring to paragraph 6.1 on page 4.
I do not dispute that. The logistics building is in phases 1 and 2; it does not relate in any way to the aerial site or to the land that is under the draft order.
Is it your evidence that, notwithstanding the terms of the travel plan, your client requires substantially more car parking to service phases 1 and 2 and the logistics building?
I am sorry. Will you repeat the question?
Is it your evidence that, notwithstanding the terms of the travel plan, your client's car parking requirement is for more than 718 spaces to service phases 1, 2 and the logistics building?
I will repeat what I said earlier: the questionnaire survey shows that my client's requirement is for about 1,124 parking spaces. That is the number that the company aims to provide for smooth running of its business. It just so happens that one third or one quarter of those spaces happen to be on a site that is unrelated to the planning applications.
So, is it your position that you envisage that your client will shortly sign up to a new travel plan that will show a figure of over 1,000 spaces, which is well in excess of the 718 spaces that are shown in paragraph 6.1?
We are deviating from the purpose of being at committee today. The company travel plan will be reviewed once the Scottish Parliament has decided what will happen to tramline one; the decision is important in respect of the availability of travel options. The travel plan will be reviewed once that is determined.
Can we agree that the travel plan has wider objectives than merely to satisfy the terms of a section 75 agreement under which a green travel plan is required?
I did not write the plan—I cannot answer the question.
But you have read it.
Yes.
Does it seem to have wider objectives than merely to meet the requirement for a green travel plan?
As I said earlier, I take the company's objective to be—as it has always been—to meet its employees' travel needs. In terms of the proportion of employees who do not necessarily require the use of a car, the company's objective is to put in place initiatives to discourage them from bringing their car to work.
I take it that you have read the list of bullet-point benefits in paragraph 1.2.
Yes.
If we look at the second last one, do we see that one of the objectives is
Yes. An example of that would be an employee who lives in Stockbridge, which is about a mile away from the office, and who drives to work, thereby aggravating a resident by parking outside their front window. Clearly, there is no need for that person to drive such a short distance; they could take the bus or walk. The gist of the travel plan is to get people such as that off the road—they do not need to be there.
Another of the bullet-point objectives is:
We have heard evidence that the company has done that. It has sacrificed parking spaces to build the logistics building. Again, parking spaces may be taken by people who do not need to use their car in the first place.
After the logistics building was constructed, there were 718 parking spaces. The objective appears to be an aspiration to reduce that number further.
I gave only an example of that aspiration. You are right to say that there were 718 spaces after the logistics building was constructed and that, if BAE requires to expand the facility again, it will probably have to consider losing more parking spaces.
Are the 172 car parking spaces on plot 173 currently used by employees who work in phases 1 and 2 and the logistics building?
I have no idea.
Why not?
Because the questionnaire survey did not ask that question. I imagine that a proportion of those employees work there, but I cannot imagine that all 172 people do. Things would be a bit tight in the lift.
Perhaps we should go back to your statement, which sets out the arithmetic for us. At the bottom of page 2, in the section entitled "Existing Car Parking Arrangements", you refer to the reduction to 718 spaces that we have just discussed and then say:
As I have said, those spaces are supplementary. They are not tied to the site.
In your statement, you say that that gives
Those 2,200 staff represent the current employment roll for phases 1 and 2 and the radar site which is on the aerial site. I also imagine that that figure includes people who might normally work there but not necessarily all the time.
So the figure for the principal buildings for which planning permission was granted seems to be 718.
Yes, that is what is left for phases 1 and 2.
As I understand it, you are saying that your client needs more than 718 spaces. In particular, your client needs the 172 spaces on the north aerial site, which would bring the number of spaces up to 1,030. You also point out that BAE has leased from Telford College 150 spaces on a temporary site.
BAE no longer has those spaces.
I should point out that you say that those spaces brought the figure up to 1,280; however, I think that the arithmetic works out at 1,180. As you have said, you have lost 150 spaces, which means that you are back down to 1,030. You then relate that figure to the parking requirements for people who work in phases 1 and 2 and the logistics building. That means that you are talking about providing substantially more than the maximum car parking requirement of 718 spaces.
I think that you are missing the point. Before BAE Systems bought GEC-Marconi, which was previously Marconi Ferranti and, to begin with, Ferranti, a lease had been agreed that allowed the aerial site and the council-owned site to be used for car parking. It is an historical arrangement and has nothing to do with the planning applications for phases 1 and 2.
But your client currently uses those areas to provide additional staff car parking provision for the buildings that have recently been given planning consent.
In legal and planning terms, those sites are not connected to phases 1 and 2. If my client chose to do so, it could decide to rent those car parking spaces to someone else. They are really nothing to do with those buildings.
Given that employees are parking there at the moment, is there not a practical linkage?
They have been given the right to park there at the moment.
The beginning of the summary on page 5 of the travel plan states:
The key words are "new development". The travel plan clearly reiterates that it relates to phases 1 and 2, and does not have anything to do with the aerial site.
Is the aerial site the logistics site?
No, the aerial site is the radar site.
Are you saying that none of the 172 car parking spaces is used by employees in phases 1 and 2 and the logistics building?
I imagine that some of them are.
On planning permission, at the top of page 11 of your written statement you refer to the difficulties in getting planning permission for car parking on what you call the "HD site". Is that the Pilton depot site?
Yes. It is the council site on Crewe Road Gardens.
Do you mean the one that you walked to with whomever it was?
Yes—with Mr O'Connell.
At the top of page 11 you point to various planning policies that suggest to you that it is unlikely that planning permission would be granted for parking on that site.
Yes. Parking on that site would contravene development plan policies.
Do you have in mind somebody seeking planning permission for car parking that is ancillary to your client's business activities?
Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, the wording of the policy does not differentiate between car parks for housing developments, factories or football grounds. It simply treats a car park as a car park.
Is the important policy TRAN3, in the fairly new structure plan, which requires local plans to provide for maximum parking standards?
That is a material consideration, yes.
It is more than a material consideration in planning terms, is it not?
No. The policy is a material consideration, just like any of the other policies.
Does not it carry the additional weight of section 25, as part of the development plan?
No. The policies of the development plan all have equal weight. It is up to the person who makes the decision to decide what weight to attach to them.
Can we agree that the structure plan was approved by Scottish ministers last year?
Yes—the structure plan was modified and approved by the minister.
So that plan is up to date and is more recent than the policies of the existing local plan.
You are right that the adopted local plan probably does not accord with the structure plan, but there is an emerging local plan as well.
That local plan will be required as a matter of law to conform to the current structure plan.
The local plan has to conform broadly to the structure plan, but it is not subject to approval by Scottish ministers.
The local plan has to conform absolutely by the time it is adopted.
The local plan has to conform broadly, but not absolutely.
I refer you to section 17(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. You are quite right that the local plan has to conform generally when it is first published, but by the time it is adopted it has to conform absolutely, has it not?
We can have a tutorial on local plan adoption if you want. With local plans, when a public inquiry happens and objections are heard, a reporter is appointed by the Scottish ministers to consider all the objections, write a report and make recommendations. There is no requirement for a local authority to accept all the recommendations. In that respect, the local plan does not have to conform absolutely.
The policies, in particular TRAN3 and the requirement for maximum parking standards, apply to any application in respect of any piece of land in this part of the world.
I think I know where you are going with this.
However, your client might choose to follow a new course for the purpose of providing additional car parking to service the client's existing premises.
On the maximum car parking standards, which are imposed by directive by the Executive, you are quite right that if the council proposes to approve an application in which the standards are exceeded, that application has to be referred to ministers and could be the subject of an inquiry.
Do you agree that, in that part of the city—where, as we saw from the aspiration in the travel plan, there is pressure for developable land—it is undesirable that land be taken up with car parking when it might be used for more productive developments, such as housing?
I do not agree that there is particular development pressure in west Pilton, Pilton and Crewe, where most of the land is owned by the council. There is no significant development pressure from housing associations in that area.
Is there strong development plan pressure to encourage redevelopment of brownfield land?
It is certainly the case that Scottish ministers prefer to use brownfield land to greenfield land in urban areas.
We are talking about an urban area.
Yes.
Would a housing application for any of the car park sites be supported?
We are moving on to a different subject. The site in question is not completely developed; only a small part of it has been developed with a yard. In effect, the vast majority of the council's depot is on greenfield land. In my statement, I commented that the land is home to a fox's den and vegetation. Until someone does a survey of that piece of ground, I would not like to say that an application to put housing on it would be supported.
But the first policies that you are founding on are the transport policies.
In the structure plan, yes—and the environment policy.
I am simply trying to understand why you think that planning permission would not be granted for parking on the site and whether there is any reason why the same considerations would not apply to a planning application on any other undeveloped piece of brownfield or greenfield land in the vicinity, the purpose of which was to provide additional parking for your client's operations.
My statement sets out the policies that would be contravened by the car parking proposal.
We have already discussed the fact that plot 173 would be required only temporarily for the construction site. We differ on the length of time for which it will be required; I suggest that it will be needed for two to three years, but you suggest that it might be needed for five or 10 years, or even longer.
My client is concerned that the plot could be needed for five or 10 years, or even longer.
Is it correct that, regardless of the duration of the period, your client will receive compensation annually for being deprived of the site?
Yes. I imagine that my client will probably go to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to seek compensation, but that will not help it to resolve its parking situation in the short or medium term.
No—but the one thing that the promoter can do is look for land holdings that it has that might be suitable for the purpose. In fact, it has done that, but your client does not like the look of the land holdings that the promoter has identified. Do you agree?
It is correct that the promoter has trawled through its portfolio and brought to my client's attention one piece of ground.
But you do not like the look of it.
It is not a question of whether we like the look of it; the health and safety manager has concerns about it. The other point is that it has been brought to our attention far too late in the process. The fact that that site was available should have been brought to our attention when the draft orders were served.
Have you been instructed by your client to carry out a search of your own with a view to your client's being able to make alternative parking arrangements?
My company looked for possible sites without going into too much detail. Those sites are the ones that we flagged up to the project manager back in October.
Have you advised your client to make a planning application for any of those sites?
No—it is not my client's responsibility to find an alternative site.
Is it not?
No—it is the responsibility of the acquiring authority.
It is your view that that is the case, even if compensation is being paid.
Compensation is one way of resolving the situation, but we were trying to be proactive and positive and say, "There are all these other sites. Have you thought about them?" The promoter could have tried to get us a lease at Helix House or parking at Morrisons.
Thank you.
Thank you. Does the committee have any questions?
The convener had one eye on the clock when she said that, but I will ask my question anyway. On page 11 of the statement that you submitted in May, you say that, in the spirit of co-operation, you identified several other sites. You go on to say:
In the example that you cite, there was no need for us to go to director level because decisions about each supermarket are taken by the manager. If that had not been the case, Mr Callaghan would have told us that he could not deal with the request and that I would have to speak to his boss.
What about the other companies that you suggest might be approached to provide car parking for BAE?
You are talking about the list on page 11 of our original statement.
Yes.
Some time ago, we spoke to Edinburgh's Telford College, but we did not really have a dialogue with its representatives because they were too busy with their new college building at the waterfront. I understand that the college has sold the main campus site—not the north campus—to a housing developer. Although the college is relocating, it is a large site and if the developer were building it up with houses in a phased manner, the final phase could be used for car parking.
Will you pick up on the other companies that you have cited in evidence?
We have not been able to speak to Fettes College.
Have you made a formal or informal approach to either of those organisations?
We tried to speak to the principal of the college, but it was just by telephone. Letters never seem to get replied to these days. It is far better to try to speak to someone and get their view. Also, at the time, Christian Salvesen's agent told us that the land was under offer. However, it is not our responsibility to contact those organisations. The promoter should have done it.
Your statement says:
We should put aside the question whether the compensation would pay for the build cost. As I explained to my client, because of the maximum car parking standards, it would not be allowed to build a multistorey car park and increase the amount of car parking. As we have heard, for a planning application, the amount of car parking is directly related to the floor space. BAE is probably at the maximum already and if it put in a planning application for another deck of car parking, the application would probably be refused. Even if it were not refused, the application would end up with ministers because granting it would contravene the directive.
Did you explore that possibility with the council planning officials in light of the fact that it might have resolved a particular problem and the City of Edinburgh Council and TIE might have welcomed the proposal? Every planning application ultimately comes down to what the councillors on the planning committee say. They have to take into account the balance of opinion about the greater good and what is in the greater interests of the community of Edinburgh. Have you had such a discussion with planning officials?
With respect, I think that such a discussion is not required because, as I have explained, even if the elected members of the council were minded to approve a planning application for so many spaces above the maximum standard in SPP17, they could not issue the permission; it would have to be sent to the ministers and it would be a matter for Victoria Quay to deal with. I suspect that it would result in a public inquiry or further exchanges, thus delaying the procedure.
When Mr Thomson questioned you, he referred to the fact that more productive use of land could perhaps be made of the sites around BAE. The company has 2,200 employees; are they in the higher or lower economic brackets? I am thinking of the economic development of Edinburgh.
I do not think that the company has ever done a survey of that outside its personnel department. However, because of the nature of the company's businesses, there is a broad range of socioeconomic profiles and job titles. There are janitors and catering staff, just as there are managing directors. I am told that probably half the staff are graduates—chartered engineers and other professionals—who produce the product for the company and the rest are support workers.
You said that many of the staff live outside the urban area of Edinburgh, which suggests that they are in the higher socioeconomic brackets. The work that BAE undertakes on aircraft design, for example, suggests that the staff are specialist workers who are a great asset to Edinburgh and Scotland.
BAE is a great asset to the UK. When the company recruits graduates, they get a choice: they can go to America, go somewhere else in the world to develop their skills and give their ideas or come to BAE Systems.
If we were to condone the reduction of car parking for a period, less expertise might remain in Scotland than at present.
That certainly is—
I will pursue another line of questioning, which is slightly sympathetic to the points that you have made. I am sorry that we are not in a position to recall Mr Oldfield; I should have asked my questions when he was giving evidence. It appears to me that the promoter has not been terribly seriously involved in the issue or, at the very least, has not maintained the level of contact with BAE that I would have expected. Do you think that that is the fault of BAE or of the promoter?
The answer lies in my statement. We have had one meeting with the promoter, which was in October. Although we have had some e-mail correspondence and telephone calls with consultants who were appointed by the promoter, there has been little willingness to resolve the matter.
We have spent a lot of time on the issue today. Do you agree that it is of such importance to BAE and to the promoter that some coming together at a very early date would be very much welcomed?
It is very regrettable that we have had to resort to being at committee today to try to sort out the situation. The bottom line is that the promoter did not want to discuss the matter with us. When it did so, it was at a very late date. I think that it was last month before we saw a flurry of activity in which we were told, "Here is a site. What do you think?"
Your statement includes the suggestion for an alternative construction site. I believe that it is better for the committee to concentrate on the car parking issues. You say that easier access could be made to the site from Telford Road. I looked at the suggested access point during our site visit. My impression is that construction traffic would travel right under the windows of the flats that are on land that I suspect the route would have to cross over. On that basis, is the issue worth pursuing?
You pick up correctly our suggestion for another access point. You rightly say that some flats—I think that it is six or seven—are next to it and that its residents would therefore witness some inconvenience.
Given that acknowledgement, would it not be better for you to concentrate on the issue of car parking?
No. I am trying to think about how the construction site would operate. Most people are at work between 8.30 am and 6 pm. I do not believe for one moment that big heavy goods vehicles will be trundling back and forth 10 times an hour during the construction period; vehicles will drive into the yard infrequently over the core working hours. I cannot say that it is not a viable option unless a study is done.
To be absolutely fair, I remember that you asked a previous witness where he lived. If you lived in those flats, would you be happy about such a development?
You are not required to answer the question, Mr Pearson; it is more of a rhetorical one.
All right.
I am quite happy to answer it.
No, Mr Pearson. What is fair for one witness is fair for another. Is that it, Mr Gallie?
Yes.
I am interested in exploring a little further the modus operandi of your client, Mr Pearson. I refer you to the company travel plan, which was prepared by Alistair Green. As you pointed out, a travel plan co-ordinator is in position. Will you remind me of his name?
Mr O'Connell.
You said that Mr O'Connell was thoroughly involved in the development of the company travel plan and that he remains similarly involved in the consideration and evaluation of a new plan. I assume that your client reviewed your witness statement and rebuttal and the supporting documentation before you came before the committee today.
Yes.
Can I therefore assume that the travel plan co-ordinator—I have forgotten his name again—was fully involved in reviewing the evidence.
He is the man who instructs me. His name is Douglas O'Connell.
How do you marry the sentiments that you express so eloquently in your statement to the slightly differing sentiments that are expressed—or which seem to be expressed—in the company travel plan? The same gentleman was involved to a fairly large degree in both cases; in one, he would have reviewed the material and in the other he would have commented and worked with the people who put the plan together. I find it hard to reconcile the contradiction between the statement and the travel plan.
I am sorry, but I do not agree. I see no contradiction between the company travel plan and my written evidence.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr Henderson, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr Pearson.
No.
That is great. Thank you. As there are no further questions, I thank you for your evidence, Mr Pearson. Mr Thomson, you have up to five minutes to make your closing remarks about evidence that relates to this objector.
The first issue is whether the promoter requires to take plot 173 for the purposes of a construction site. My submission is that it plainly does. The alternative site proposal is unsuitable for a variety of reasons that are described in Mr Oldfield's rebuttals in particular. Some of the reasons for its unsuitability were conceded somewhat grudgingly by Mr Pearson.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. Mr Pearson, given that you started the session I am sure that you could close it for us. You have up to five minutes to make your closing remarks.
It is indeed regrettable that we have had to come to this arena today to try to sort out this matter. BAE Systems has tried for more than a year to resolve the issue by asking either for the temporary work site to be moved to council-owned land, which would not require compulsory purchase, at no cost to the promoter, or for an alternative site to be identified to compensate for the temporary loss of the car parking. The relative silence was broken in May, when the council produced out of the hat the housing department site in Crewe Road Gardens. Even if we assume that it is suitable, it does not have planning permission for a car park and is unlikely to get planning permission.
Thank you very much, Mr Pearson. That concludes oral evidence from group 9. We now move on to group 16, which will discuss evidence relating to Stanley Casinos Ltd.
I want to say again that all the parties that are involved need to come together at an early date to try to resolve matters, irrespective of any compensation elements that are involved. Doing so would be in everyone's interests.
Absolutely.
Mr Oldfield has, of course, previously taken the oath.
Mr Bain, will you give us an update on progress with those objectives?
We have been in correspondence with representatives of Stanley Casinos. We believe that we have an in-principle agreement on each of the issues. The promoter's legal advisers are currently drafting a side legal agreement to address each of the issues.
Thank you. I propose to ask no further questions of Mr Bain.
Although what you have said is welcome, Mr Bain, the objector is not here to confirm it, so the committee may want to ask some questions.
My first question is about the objector's concerns about ease of access to its property. How would signalised junctions as proposed by the promoter address those concerns?
I am sorry, Helen. We are questioning Mr Bain.
I beg your pardon, convener; I will wake up now.
Yes, that is correct. The additional mitigation measures that we have proposed also mean that there is no net loss of car parking for Stanley Casinos over the consented spaces. The promoter has already offset the tramline by 2m to provide a 2m footway on the north side of the road, but it would be unable to offset the alignment a further 5.5m southwards, because that would impact on the Tradewinds development, which had full planning consent when the bill was introduced.
How have you determined that the promoter's proposed loading bay would be appropriately sized?
We sized it on the basis of particular types of rigid vehicles. We believe that the proposed 10m would be sufficient for most vehicles that would be required to service the premises.
At what stage are the discussions with Forth Ports and Cala Homes—both of which are objectors to line 1—in relation to access to Stanley Casinos for building maintenance and emergency vehicles?
We have had numerous consultations with Forth Ports in recent months and throughout the development of the scheme. That cannot be said of Cala, however. There is a question mark about the ownership of plot number 47. We have sought clarification from Forth Ports about the current owners of that site. We are not sure whether ownership has transferred from Forth Ports to Cala—the acquisition of land is tied to a planning application that has not yet been determined.
Okay, and—
That probably covers the issue, because the final question was answered by the response to the first. That completes the questions from the committee to Mr Bain. Mr Thomson, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr Bain?
No.
Thank you for your evidence, Mr Bain. There being no further questions, we have finished with you for the moment.
I have no introductory questions. I propose that Mr Turnbull should be available for questions.
Excellent. Are there any questions from the committee?
One of the objector's concerns is about ease of access to its property. How would the promoter's proposal for a signalised junction rather than the existing roundabout address that concern?
There are two issues. First, let us consider the formation of the junction together with the revised access arrangements to the objector's property, which are explained in Mr Bain's statement. It is proposed that the two access points to the property will be moved from their existing position—one to the east and the other to the west. With those locations in place, we went on to consider the appropriate form of the junction.
There are no further questions from the committee. Mr Thomson, do you have any follow-up questions?
No.
As there are no more questions for Mr Turnbull, I thank him for his evidence.
I have no introductory questions.
I invite questions from the committee.
Mr Oldfield, your four options appear to relate to different alignments of the whole tramline 1 route rather than to the minor alteration that the objector proposes. What specific appraisals have you undertaken in relation to the objector's proposal to move the route some 7.5m south?
That is an alignment issue to which my colleague Mr Bain referred. It is my understanding that the planned development on the opposite side of the road precludes moving the alignment to the south because it would no longer be possible to get in a footpath to the north of that proposed development.
There are no further questions from the committee or from Mr Thomson for Mr Oldfield. Thank you for your evidence.
The first witness is Steve Mitchell, who will address the issue of increased traffic noise and vibration. I invite Mr Thomson to ask questions.
Again, I have no introductory questions for Mr Mitchell or, indeed, for the other three witnesses in the group.
Perhaps you want to get home, as we do. I know that my colleague Rob Gibson has questions for Mr Mitchell.
I do. With respect to paragraph 3.3 of your evidence, Mr Mitchell, will you clarify what the distance will be between the kerb and the building and what the original distance is?
That slightly depends on the part of the building that you are talking about, but the distance will reduce in general from about 14m to about 7m.
It appears from your witness statement that you have not been in the objector's building and that you have not specifically assessed noise. What reassurances can you give the committee that your noise and vibration assumptions are correct?
As my statement says, I have not had an opportunity to go into the casino, but I have a broad understanding of its business and particularly of how sensitive it might be to noise or vibration. I deal with all types of sensitive receptors across the range and I would put the casino fairly well towards the non-sensitive range, compared with what other objectors have mentioned, which we may discuss later.
There might be a small increase in noise, but it could be annoying when trams on either route enter and exit the depot—I refer to wheel squeal in particular. How might that affect the casino?
I am not trying to avoid the issue, but I did not address that matter in my evidence because the objection letter specifically mentioned road traffic—it did not mention trams. I studied the objection letter carefully and the concern seemed to be about road traffic.
So you would not expect wheel squeal to affect the casino.
I would not expect wheel squeal to occur. Even if it did unexpectedly occur, I do not think that the kind of building that we are discussing is particularly sensitive to noise anyway.
Let us assume that your assumptions are not proved to be correct. What mitigation for noise and vibration would you recommend?
Do you mean for tram noise?
Yes.
I repeat that I have not considered tram noise, simply because the objector did not mention it at all in the original objection or in any statements since that objection. However, I am happy to give my opinions on the spur of the moment if they are required.
I would like you to answer the question that I asked and to talk about traffic noise, too.
I am sorry, but perhaps you would help me with the question.
Basically, I want to know what noise and vibration mitigation you would recommend if your assumptions about noise prove to be incorrect.
Do you mean in relation to tram noise and wheel squeal on the bend in particular?
No—in relation to traffic first.
Oh, I see. I do not think that there is any question of an assumption; it is very easy to predict the change in noise level. I do not expect a significant increase in noise in the building. The building has small windows and I believe that it is air conditioned and well insulated, so I would be very surprised if the change in the noise from traffic was perceptible within the building. I do not believe that there will be a problem. If there were to be one, I am not sure that any mitigation could be offered.
Secondly, you offered to give me an explanation of what you might use as a form of mitigation were wheel squeal to occur.
I expect to talk about wheel squeal in the context of other objectors whose buildings are more sensitive to noise. I have written some evidence on that and I would be happy to talk about it in due course.
Thank you. That is helpful for the laypeople on the committee.
Are there any other questions from committee members?
I have a quick question for Mr Mitchell. I accept that 3dB is not high, as far as variation goes, although noise levels sometimes depend on existing levels. I presume that the existing levels are such that the change would be pretty insignificant.
The existing noise levels are reasonably high, but the hours of operation of the casino are a bit unusual, to say the least, and at night the stretch of road is still pretty noisy. What is important is the nature of the building and what it is used for. I have not been in the building, but from my external viewing of it it appears to be well insulated. It has small windows and it does not seem to rely on having the windows open. Because the windows are small and the building is modern and well insulated, I think that the noise levels inside it will be very low compared with the levels outside it. That is another reason why I do not think that the change would be significant for the objector.
In effect, your argument depends on the construction of the building. You could say that you have had a break.
It depends not just on the construction of the building, but on the nature of the building's use. Had the building housed a library or something that was more noise sensitive, we might have needed to look at the matter more carefully.
Thank you. That is very helpful.
There are no further questions from committee members. Do you want to ask any follow-up questions, Mr Thomson?
No thank you, madam.
There being no further questions for Mr Mitchell, I thank him for his evidence.
How would the experience in Croydon, to which you refer in your statement, relate to the objector, given that Stanley Casinos is not a retailer or part of a retail complex?
In the evidence that I gave in my statement, there are two specific points that are worth looking at. The first is that off-centre developments—I am not being pejorative—need good public transport links. I refer specifically to Purley Way, in Croydon, which is a combined shopping and leisure development. I refer also to Meadowhall in Sheffield; the ExCeL development in the London docklands; and phase 2 of the Merry Hill development in Birmingham, which is also a mixed shopping and leisure development. As all those centres are some distance from the main centre of gravity, they need good transport links to make them function well.
Thank you.
That was a wonderfully creative answer, Mr McIntosh. I am sure that it was based on evidence, but it was also amusing. Does any other committee member dare to ask Mr McIntosh a question?
No.
No? Mr Thomson, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr McIntosh?
Only to wonder whether the evidence was purely creational or whether it was based to some extent in fact.
Oh, yes. It was built rather than created—on solid fact and evidence about the socioeconomic groups that use different sorts of transport and on the evidence from the independent research into modal shift on the Croydon tramlink and other systems that are sponsored by the PTEG. Collecting information on the age profile is inherent to the way in which research on the travel-to-work pattern is carried out in London—the evidence is collected on a large sample base and is statistically significant.
Is there a recognised link between the retail activity and commercial leisure of the sort that you describe?
Yes. These days, the developers of most mixed-use developments seek to have a large anchor store, such as a department store, as well as multiscreen cinemas, casinos and other entertainment-complex components. Those elements are seen to have a synergy; mixed-use developments are seen to work better than stand-alone ones.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. Do you have a question, Mr Stone?
If I may, I will probe further into the question. Mr McIntosh, you gave us a fascinating answer, in which you described well-off, trammy-type people who go out to play blackjack or have a flutter at the casino. I accept what you said about multiscreen picture houses. However, if what you said about casinos is true, why are they not being slapped up next door to big retail developments in other cities? Perhaps they are and perhaps I am missing a trick, so to speak—I would be if we were playing blackjack.
If you were to go to the area around Marble Arch in London, you would see that a significant number of casinos are located close to a large element of retail that is aimed specifically at the sort of people who tend to use casinos. The same thing is likely to happen if the supercasino in Blackpool is approved. The site that has been chosen for that development is right between the pleasure beach and some large shopping arcades. People see the synergy between those different activities.
That was slightly off the procedures that we should adopt, so I invite Mr Thomson to follow up anything that has been said.
Thank you, but I am quite content.
That is fine. There being no further questions for Mr McIntosh, I thank him for his evidence, which I am sure is built on very solid foundations.
That is correct.
Mr McIntosh has covered the committee's original question, but I will give members the opportunity to ask any further questions. Do any members have questions for Mr Eyles?
No.
Mr Eyles has got off lightly. There will be no questions at all for him, but I thank him very much for being here.
I do not.
In that case, I turn to committee members. I believe that Phil Gallie has a question.
I usually like to fire off having heard something from those who are asking questions, but I have a question that has been written down for me and I will stick to that.
The bill incorporates the usual compensation provisions that one would expect in relation to something that is being constructed by a public body, some of them specifically and some by implication. If land was acquired from Stanley Casinos, it would be able to claim compensation for any reduction in value of the casino, as in any normal circumstances.
Could there be an added value, given what we have heard from Mr McIntosh about the pulling power of the tram?
We would certainly take that into account. We are allowed to take into account any betterment that results from the construction of the tramway, and we would certainly have to consider that. It is perfectly possible that the tramline would bring to the casino people who perhaps have to drive there at present and that there would be an increase in the number of people arriving at the casino.
There are no more questions from the committee. Mr Thomson, do you have any follow-up questions?
No.
As there are no further questions for Mr Rintoul, I thank him for his evidence.
I do not really want to make any comments on the evidence that we have heard. The objector's initial problem was one of access. Solving that problem and reconfiguring the frontage gave rise to a car parking issue. That was then solved satisfactorily, as has been explained in the evidence. There is a potential noise issue, but that is related to the increased proximity of existing road traffic rather than the tram itself, as Mr Mitchell explained. The other problem raised by the objector is the general profitability of the site as a result of the tram. In my submission, the evidence that we have heard today is encouraging, and I invite the committee to accept it.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. I am sure that we do.
While he is taking his seat, I am pleased to be able to tell you that the Network Rail agreement that we were talking about this morning has been signed by the council.
Excellent. I am sure that your negotiations with First ScotRail will continue apace.
I do not think that I have a starter question for Mr McIntosh.
It is Mr Mitchell, rather than Mr McIntosh.
I am so sorry.
Do not worry.
My order of papers is different. The only witness that I have a question for is Mr Bain.
That is excellent. I invite questions from the committee.
I have two questions for Steve Mitchell. Mr Mitchell, how can you reassure the committee that your assumption that ADM Milling's building is
ADM Milling's objection with regard to noise is related to construction and disturbance, rather than to traffic or the operation of the tram system. We are talking about the level of noise during the construction phase.
What mitigation measures might the promoter consider should your assumptions prove wrong?
I have just remembered that you mentioned a lack of monitoring. Strictly speaking, there will be some monitoring during construction. If it is deemed necessary by the council, noise monitoring will take place to check that the level of 75dB is not exceeded. That is one measure that can be taken should our assumptions about construction methods and noise emissions during the construction prove wrong.
As there are no further questions from committee members or follow-up questions from Mr Thomson, I thank Mr Mitchell for his evidence.
We have just heard that the code of construction practice is a strong document, which it has been indicated will address the access concerns of the objector, but what reassurances can you give the committee that it will be enforceable and that breaches will be monitored?
Access and temporary road closures are covered by section 5.2 of the code of construction practice. It is my understanding that TIE has not only adopted it as a code of construction practice but intends to incorporate it in the contractual documents, which will be let to the main contractor and will cover the main contractor, its agents and subcontractors. All will be contractually bound by the code.
So that deals with any enforcement and monitoring.
As there are no more questions from the committee or follow-up questions from Mr Thomson, I thank Mr McIntosh for his evidence.
I ask Mr Bain the usual question: will he give us an update on anything that has been happening in his discussions with the objector, ADM Milling Ltd, since the date of his written statement?
The legal advisers for the promoter have drafted a legal agreement, which has been put to ADM Milling. The company's main objection concerned the access to the east of its premises, which is currently its sole means of access, being stopped up. I confirm that that will not happen for construction or operation of the tram.
It might be that the objector misunderstood what was proposed about stopping up the access.
I think that that is the case.
That appears to be further excellent news, but I will allow Phil Gallie to pose some questions.
I will be brief. A lot of work is on-going in that area at present. How will it fit in with commencement of the tramline construction? How will that affect ADM Milling?
Do you mean the tram construction rather than the other developments?
How will other developments affect the commencement of tramline construction and how will they affect ADM Milling?
A planning application has been submitted by Forth Ports plc for the main vehicular access to the western harbour area. I expect that it is likely that it will precede work on the tram proposals. Therefore, further access will be provided to ADM Milling—a betterment of the access that it is currently afforded, which is only to the east.
As there are no further questions from the committee or follow-up questions from Mr Thomson, I thank Mr Bain for his evidence.
With respect, I do not feel that that will be necessary in this case. The nature of the dispute is so narrow and has probably disappeared altogether. The committee has the evidence and I invite members to accept the further evidence that they have heard today.
That is excellent.
No.
A number of procedural implications flow from that and are flagged up in the paper. However, first I ask committee members whether they agree that there is merit in further examining the alternative alignments proposed by the promoter. Is that agreed?
As a result of that decision, I seek members' agreement to the suggested advertisement and notification timetable that is set out in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the paper. Is that agreed?
Are members content that the objection period for the proposed alternative alignments should commence on 24 June?
Are members content with the revised and supplementary documentation that the promoter has identified in the promoter's memorandum at paragraphs 11 to 13?
Should the committee receive any objections to the proposed alternative alignments, we will need to give the same consideration to them as we did to original objections. However, given that it is unlikely that there will be many objections, there is some merit in truncating the written evidence process so that any new objector is given two weeks to provide information such as witness summaries, statements and rebuttals. In addition, any new objector will be able to view the committee's current evidence taking and prepare on that basis. Are members content that we truncate the written evidence process for any new objections to the alternative alignments?
We now move into private session. Members will recall that we agreed to meet in private at the end of each oral evidence-taking session to enable us to consider the evidence that we have heard.
Meeting continued in private until 15:56.