Official Report 189KB pdf
We now move to item 2. The committee will continue its oral evidence taking at consideration stage. Before we begin, I want to provide an update on a matter that I raised at our previous meeting—namely the continuing media speculation about the final cost of the tramline and whether it would be constructed in stages.
It seems that negotiations between the promoter and the objectors are paying dividends, which is a matter of some pleasure—indeed, relief—to the committee. Today we will take oral evidence only from the promoter's witnesses. All the remaining objectors are resting on their original objections. The majority of the objections that we will consider have been lodged in the name of businesses that are located in Roseburn Street, near Murrayfield stadium. The objections raise similar issues and the promoter has, by and large, put forward the same witnesses. We can therefore question the promoter's witnesses on behalf of more than one group at the same time. Where a witness provides an answer that is relevant to more than one group, there may be no need to ask that same question of the same witness again.
Good morning, Mr Thomson. Do you have any questions for Mr Rintoul? If you want him to provide an update on negotiations, he is free to do so, not just for the groups that were named, but for any other groups that may have been mentioned.
Good morning, sir. I have no questions for Mr Rintoul, but I would like to ask Mr Gavin Murray for an update. He will do most of the updates, with one or two exceptions. Do you want him to go through them?
Not at this stage. I ask you to proceed with the examination of Mr Rintoul.
I have no questions for Mr Rintoul at this stage.
That was fairly easy, Mr Rintoul.
I have a few, if I may ask them.
Okay—we will reverse the order and Mr Purvis will ask questions of Mr Rintoul.
I have questions for clarification that are relevant to most groups. Will you help the committee by giving us a bit more information—if you can—about how loss of profits could be defined for compensation purposes? That is relevant to group 10—Vanguard Rental (UK) Ltd. Is there consideration for good will and disruption?
There certainly is. The whole of Vanguard Rental's premises will be taken, so it will have to find alternative premises. Vanguard Rental will be compensated for the loss of the premises and for loss of profits, if profits are lost. That may very well happen—that depends on where it manages to relocate to. Loss of profits is normally considered in retrospect. The company could apply for and receive an advance payment, but we would normally wait to find out where the company relocated to and consider in retrospect whether profits had been lost. That would be negotiated between the parties.
What about the element of good will? Part of the process is huge disruption to any business, which incurs particular costs. Will they be included?
The compensation includes several elements that cover all such disturbance items. For example, the costs of removal from one premises to another and of informing clients are bound to be incurred. Several such miscellaneous costs are compensatable.
That is relevant to group 13—Stepgrades Motor Accessories Ltd—whose whole site will have to be taken and for which redundancy issues arise.
That is correct.
If a business has had plans to develop or expand, how is that considered as part of what is in effect an appeal to show that a plan was being made and did not miraculously arrive after the tram scheme was proposed? What is the mechanism for determining that? Obviously businesses should not be penalised if they had plans to expand and develop their business in advance of the tram scheme coming along.
If the business were to lose the whole of its premises, I presume that it would move somewhere else where it could expand. If it were to lose only part of the premises, and if that would limit its expansion, it would have to demonstrate that it had incurred a loss. It might well be able to demonstrate that it had intended to expand and was no longer able to, in which case we would have to examine with the business the potential loss.
If you are able to, I would be grateful if you could put on the record what mechanism businesses can use to demonstrate that they had intended to expand, because it would be helpful for them to know. Also, when you say that you would examine the situation along with the business, what would the mechanism be for that? Would it be a tribunal?
If there is any disagreement, a business can ultimately apply to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland for a hearing. It rarely comes to that. Normally, we would negotiate with agents on behalf of the claimant and we would come to some agreement. It is difficult to generalise about how businesses would prove that they had incurred a loss. By their very nature, claims are individual and vary from one business to another. If the business suggests that it would have expanded and has therefore incurred loss because it cannot, it would have to demonstrate that loss. For example, it would have to demonstrate that it had incurred expenditure in planning the abortive expansion. I would expect to receive correspondence from a business showing that it intended to expand a business. Planning applications and consultants will be involved, so if the business has incurred all that expenditure but the plans have been aborted, the expenditure would be compensatable.
Would the Lands Tribunal for Scotland be used only at the end of that process if there was disagreement?
Yes. The Lands Tribunal for Scotland would normally be involved only if there were irreconcilable disagreement between the parties. The parties would then refer the dispute to it.
What is your response to the objectors' concerns that the compensation package might well be worth less than the market value of their land?
Compensation is based on the market value of the property that is lost. Therefore the business should not get less than market value for the property and it should also get compensation for disturbance and any other loss that follows from the property being taken.
As there are no further questions for Mr Rintoul, we will now revert to the previous position. Mr Thomson may now proceed with the examination of Mr Murray.
Mr Murray, could you update the committee on events around the Vanguard Rental objection?
If it is all right with the committee, I would rather work from one end of the street to the other. That will be easier for me to follow and I hope that it will be easier for the committee to follow.
That would be helpful.
I will start with Stepgrades Motor Accessories, or Viking International as it is labelled on the street. It is a large property that is set back from Roseburn Street and which it is proposed to take completely within the scheme. Subsequent to my evidence, the objector has given verbal confirmation that he recognises that the issue is one of compensation, so he has no desire to have any further consultation with the promoter. In light of that, at the beginning of this month we sent him a letter setting out the position; the committee should have received a copy of that letter, which I think was dated 11 October. That is the current position.
Thank you, Mr Murray.
The objector Mr Sutherland is not present. To explain the situation, the committee will adopt a somewhat more proactive approach today as a result of the absence of counsel or party objectors. The information that we have received from Mr Murray is helpful, but we have one or two tidying-up questions. I invite Marilyn Livingstone to proceed.
The promoter's approach, which is accepted, has been to adopt a wide limit of land to be acquired or used. We hope that the area will be reduced considerably through discussions and agreements with affected premises, a process to which Mr Murray alluded in his update. In the main, will that process be carried out through individual agreements or will amendments to the bill be required?
Every effort has been made to include changes in individual agreements. We have sent several agreement letters to people such as the individuals in Mr Kelly's properties to ask them to accept our proposals to reduce the area. Unfortunately, some have declined to take the issue further and we cannot force them to accept the agreement. However, an amendment to the LLAU is included in the agreement with J B McLean, which was completed yesterday. Wherever possible, we have aimed to reduce the LLAU in line with the indication that I gave in my witness statement and the plan that was attached to it.
Various reasons have been given for not following the line of the ScotRail depot, such as compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the need for a stop near Murrayfield and constraints arising from the rail infrastructure. Is each of those problems insurmountable?
All the issues are combined in the design, because we must consider the whole in doing an alignment design—we cannot introduce a small wiggle here or a bend there without a knock-on effect. In a sense, all the issues that you mention combine together. Although one issue may be surmountable, when combined with the others, it is insurmountable.
Thank you. Can I ask you about specific objectors, starting with Vanguard Rental? You said that the crux of your discussions with it was compensation. In your statement, you say that there is little scope for avoiding demolition of the property. Is that where we are? Has Vanguard Rental been informed of that?
That is where we are and Vanguard Rental was informed of that early in the consultation. We initially developed an alignment that did not have the Murrayfield stop in that location; that alignment aimed at going through the very rear of the property, missing the main building. When we took that proposal to Vanguard Rental on site before the public consultation, we discovered that the alignment would affect the property in such a way as to make the company's operational mechanisms invalid. I believe that I covered that in my witness statement. We then looked again at a range of matters, one of which was the location of the stop. After considering the information from the site visit alongside the evidence from the consultation, we decided that it would be better to put the stop there, thereby utilising a location that is ideal for people going to and from the stadium because the stadium is visible from it, and to take the whole property to do that. We then put that position to Vanguard Rental, which has taken the view that the issue is now one of compensation and that it does not wish any further negotiation.
Group 14 is Mr Khalil and Roseburn Motors. As you are aware, he wants to know for sure what is going to happen to his property. If you could tighten the final construction width, there might be no impact—you say that that might still be a possibility. However, there might still be an impact. What timescale are you working to? When can you let Mr Khalil know what the situation is?
As I said, the final confirmation will come down to the contractor's construction method. It will require the contract to be let and the contractor to be involved in the assessment of the detailed design and how the line will be constructed.
But you cannot give a timescale.
I cannot give an exact timescale for that, no.
The other groups are 16, 18, 19 and 20. Your witness statement said that a misunderstanding has arisen about whether there will be compulsory purchase during construction. In your update, however, you said that there would be no direct impact on P D Labels or Gray's Mill Coachworks. On Collinson Ceramics and MRM Coachworks, comfort letters have been sent to the objectors. For groups 15 and 20 in particular, will you elaborate on what the comfort letter contains?
Certainly. In none of those cases did the LLAU indicate a compulsory purchase. I hope that we have conveyed that fully to the various objectors along that section. The real aim of the LLAU was to enable us to engage the objectors in the negotiation and to find out exactly how things were going to work there. The comfort letters have indicated to MRM and Collinson that it should not be necessary to use their properties. The original LLAU indicated that things will happen adjacent to those properties. The misunderstanding arose because the individuals concerned seemed to think that the LLAU gave powers for compulsory purchase, which is not the case. Does that answer your question?
Yes.
Sorry, what should not be necessary?
You said that there should not be any need to impact on those properties.
Correct. In any scheme—even just in general activities—there is always the possibility that something out of the ordinary will happen, in which case it would be an emergency situation. Such risks are greater in the middle of a construction process; I have therefore used the phrase "should not" rather than "would not". I do not expect there to be a need for anything unusual, but I have used that term rather than a categorical "would not".
Have you had any response to that?
No.
Finally, what will be the impact on property belonging to Custom Projects? You spoke about the need to impact at the end of the building. Will you clarify that?
The alignment as set out in the bill cuts across the rear of the property. Even in the revised alignment, there is a potential impact on the back corner of the building. Basically, there is a requirement for those end units to be included in the compulsory purchase. It may well be that, in the detailed design, that can be minimised and that a revised rear wall could be constructed, giving back the majority of the unit. However, at this stage it is deemed prudent compulsorily to purchase all those units.
Where an objector's business will not be physically affected, can you confirm that the promoter has provided an undertaking to the objector to that effect?
I believe so.
As there are no further questions, that concludes the evidence taking from the promoters' witnesses in respect of groups 10, 13 to 16, 19 and 20.
Before I do that, I should address the question of the timescale for the start of these works that Mr Murray was asked about, as that will give the committee a feeling for the point at which the people involved can be told exactly when and how they will be affected. The promoter could endeavour to produce something in writing to indicate whether the works will start a matter of months, or whatever period of time, after the date of royal assent, whenever that might be. Obviously we cannot speculate on that. However, it would give the committee a feel for the timescale that would be involved.
That would be helpful.
Before I make my closing remarks, I must ask Mr Murray a couple of questions on his evidence.
Yes.
Where it has been inevitable to require land to be taken, have you tried to maximise the land take's benefit to the scheme?
Yes. Vanguard Rentals is a case in point. Initially, we tried to minimise the land take through the back of the property but when we talked to the company in the early stages of the development it indicated that that was unacceptable. As a result, we looked again at the whole area, including the stop details, and came up with another proposal that took over the whole property and provided for both the stop and access to Murrayfield stadium.
Bearing in mind that detailed design work has not been undertaken and that a contractor is not even in place, far less in a position to submit detailed contractual design arrangements, do you think that it is possible to reduce the LOD or the LLAU at this stage?
It would not be prudent—or even possible—to reduce the LOD. We could end up with a bill on a project that could not be constructed, which would be a real shame.
But you have thought about that course of action.
Yes, definitely.
Thank you, Mr Murray.
I ask Mr Thomson to make his closing remarks.
As we have heard, the properties in question have certain elements in common. In a sense, the promoter is trying to build a tramline between the rock of these objectors' properties and the hard place of the ScotRail property.
Thank you, Mr Thomson.
I invite Mr Edgar to give the committee an update on the state of affairs between him and Mr Earley.
Subsequent to my witness statement, the district valuer provided a report on market value, which was dated 19 May 2005. That confirmed my company's findings on the level of market value. At that point, the promoter asked the district valuer to take over responsibility for the file. The district valuer agreed with the objector's professional adviser, Messrs Ryden, on the figure for market value on 19 September 2005. I remain of the opinion that there are good prospects of settling the objector's claim at market value, subject to the completion of the survey and the legal formalities. The promoter has sent a letter to the objector's advisers to confirm that that is its view.
Do we know what Mr Earley's position is?
Mr Earley's advisers have expressed to the district valuer and the promoter his wish to settle at market value.
Should the committee proceed on the basis that, in effect, agreement has been reached with Mr Earley, bar the dotting of i's and the crossing of t's?
That is correct.
That is straightforward. There are no questions. Do you wish to proceed any further, Mr Thomson?
I think that what I said in relation to the previous objectors applies equally to Mr Earley. I have nothing further to add.
You have no closing speech.
That was it.
We can now complete oral evidence taking in respect of group 18, which is in the name of P D Labels and Ms Dewar. The remaining witness is Mr Hyde, who will address the issue of noise and vibration.
I have no questions at this stage.
I draw Mr Hyde's attention to the fact that he is already on oath. Members have no questions for Mr Hyde and I assume that Mr Thomson has no closing remarks.
I simply adopt the remarks that I made earlier.
That completes the oral evidence from group 18 and all the objectors from Roseburn Street.
Mr Murray, will you give the committee an update on what is happening with Mr Hodkinson?
Certainly. Subsequent to the witness statement, there has been considerable to-ing and fro-ing with Mr Hodkinson. We have met him and his co-objector in the group, Ms Duthie, and gone through the alignment. The committee will note that Mr Hodkinson's objections are to lines 1 and 2—in fact, most of them concern where line 1 runs up the Roseburn footpath/cycleway, which was evident from our discussions with him.
The landscape and habitat management plan is a line 1 document.
Yes.
So it is relevant to Mr Hodkinson's line 1 objection.
It is also relevant as the footpath would be amended as a result of line 2 if the two lines were built. That issue was covered during the meeting.
The footpath would be amended if that bit of the delta junction was constructed.
That is correct. That would happen only if the two lines were built. If only line 2 was built, those elements of the objection would fall away because they would be irrelevant.
Would there be an impact on Mr Hodkinson's position from line 2, and in particular from one side of the delta junction, only if line 1 had already gone ahead?
That is correct. If only line 2 was constructed, the impact would be very limited as it would really only reflect what is already there with the railway. There would be very little impact on Roseburn Maltings.
But although Ms Duthie's property is situated close to that of Mr Hodkinson, she is in a different position because the property faces the railway line and would face line 2.
That is correct.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. As committee members have no questions, do you want to re-examine Mr Murray?
No, thank you.
That concludes Mr Murray's evidence.
Mr Truscott, what landscaping works would be involved in relation to Ms Duthie's property, rather than that of Mr Hodkinson?
I have been invited to respond to Ms Duthie's objection, rather than that of Mr Hodkinson, so I will do so. There is a proposal to carry out replacement planting on the corner opposite 19 Roseburn Maltings and for there to be additional mitigation planting associated with the construction of the delta junction to the south-east of that location. It is hoped that that will help to ameliorate and soften any localised impacts that may occur due to the two proposals. There will also be impacts associated with the new bridge crossing of Russell Road at that location.
Do members have any questions for Mr Truscott?
I would like the witness to clarify a couple of points. We have heard already from Mr Hyde about the delta junction. In paragraph 4.3 of your statement, you refer to the Russell Road overbridge. Are we talking about the same thing?
The Russell Road overbridge links into and provides access to the delta junction.
So it is not part of one of the arms.
I understand that it also feeds into the crossing point. The line crosses over the road, to carry straight on towards Haymarket. There is also a cord that heads up towards the delta junction termination point.
So it is outside the delta junction.
Yes. The delta junction is beyond the bridge.
That is fine.
In our assessment, any residual impacts that are moderate or substantial are considered to be significant. For that reason, moderate residual impacts are described as significant.
I think that we follow that.
Mr Thomson, would you like to examine the witness?
No.
That concludes the evidence from Mr Truscott. The next witness is John Hyde, who will address the issue of noise and vibration.
Mr Hyde, you indicate in your evidence that both properties would be affected to some extent by noise. What is being proposed to ameliorate that impact?
Both properties would be affected by construction noise during the construction phase. Ms Duthie's property will overlook line 2 construction, but in between the property and line 2 is Russell Road, which is a busy road that generates quite a lot of noise. The impact of construction noise will not be a major problem, but it is likely to be more noticeable at that point than it will be elsewhere. However, during the operational phase the proposed screening works alongside the railway should reduce operational noise impact to a minor level.
Is there a proposal to have a noise barrier, rather than planting?
As part of the assessment, there is a proposal for a wall along the line 2 section approaching the delta junction, which would give additional screening.
Is it the case that any noise that Mr Hodkinson experiences during the operational stage will be from line 1 and not line 2?
Indeed. There would be no impact from line 2, so the line 1 mitigation proposals would take effect.
Thank you, Mr Hyde.
Mr Hyde, the noise and vibration policy that you have produced has set levels at which mitigation will start to be considered. We have dealt with the issue to some extent in previous evidence sessions, but will you remind me of the basis on which you set those levels?
We look for a noise level change of between 3dB and 5dB. The noise level change is the difference between the existing background or ambient noise level—which has recently been assessed by measurement for the environmental statement—and the calculated or predicted tram noise level. The tram noise level is combined with any future background noise. We try to assess the difference between the existing situation and the situation with the tram. Where the difference will be 3dB or more, we have considered methods of mitigation, although it is not practicable in many cases. For example, with on-street running, it is not possible to put in screening measures. However, in areas where there is a potential for noise barriers or screens, they will be considered, especially if the noise increase is to be more than 5dB. That is the principle behind the policy that has been produced.
Has a similar policy been applied elsewhere? The most obvious example is Sheffield.
I cannot be sure whether it has been applied there. However, it has been applied to the next phase of construction in Manchester.
The south Yorkshire supertram has been used as the most recent example in which noise mitigation measures have been introduced. I have considered the matter in some detail. Are the trams in Sheffield similar to the ones that will be introduced in Edinburgh?
Yes. In our methodology in relation to the trams that will be used in Edinburgh, we used the Sheffield tram as a typical noise source. However, the technology that I have considered indicates that that is probably a worst case. Trams that are constructed now produce less noise than the Sheffield trams do.
Will the track bed be the same?
Track beds vary. In normal on-street track bed, the rails are encapsulated in rubber or sunk in a polymer resin so that they are isolated from the bedding. That is a standard form of construction that has been used in Sheffield and all street-running tram systems. In areas that are segregated—where the trams do not run on street—conventional ballast track is normally used.
In your witness statement, you refer to the Manchester metrolink—by sheer coincidence, I was there last week. Is that system the best comparison available in the United Kingdom?
It is a worst-case comparison. The Manchester system started in 1992, so it is an older system and tram design. Since then, considerable advances in vehicle design have taken place, particularly in screening some of the wheel-to-rail noise using the vehicle body. Examples of that can be seen in the Nottingham system, which I believe the committee visited. There has been progress but, by basing our assessment partly on Sheffield and partly on Manchester, on which a lot of data are available, we have looked at a worst case. I hope that, in the procurement for the scheme, we will obtain vehicles and track systems that are less noisy than those that have been used in the past.
Thank you, Mr Hyde. Mr Thomson will now re-examine the witness.
Mr Hyde, will you recap the arithmetic of dealing with ambient noise and new additional noise? What is the methodology for calculating the effect?
The ambient noise is measured. At most of the sites, it would include existing traffic noise and existing distant noise—for example, on Baird Drive, it would include railway noise. Ambient noise would include noise that was actually there at the time. The tram noise generation is often less than the existing ambient noise.
What sort of positive change in noise level is the ordinary human being likely to detect?
The perceptible change for a normal ear is 3dB, but that refers to a steady noise source. If a person listens to a fan or a motor that runs at a steady level, for example, and the noise is increased, the change would not be detected until it was about 3dB.
That is what has happened here.
Yes indeed.
Closing remarks, Mr Thomson?
Yes—
I am sorry, Mr Thomson; I am a bit ahead of myself.
We have one more witness to go.
The final witness is Mr Rintoul, although you may wish simply to adopt a position on the basis of his earlier evidence.
I have no questions for him. I do not know whether committee members have questions.
Does anyone have questions for Mr Rintoul? No one has questions, so we can now hear closing remarks from Mr Thomson.
The position is probably best appreciated by looking at the map and seeing where Mr Hodkinson's house is and where Ms Duthie's flat is. We have heard that Mr Hodkinson will be affected principally by line 1. When one looks at the geography and realises that the piece of the delta junction in question would not be constructed unless line 1 was constructed, I submit that what he complains about is attributable to line 1 and not line 2. That applies to his noise objection and his visual amenity objection.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. That concludes oral evidence from the promoter for group 53.
Mr Duke will speak about the purchase of the whole property. Bearing in mind my earlier remarks, Mr Thomson, do you wish to proceed?
Yes, sir. I wonder whether I might invite Mr Duke to do the updating.
That would be helpful.
Mr Duke, would you give us an update, please?
Yes. Since evidence was submitted, we have had some contact with the objector's agents. On 7 July, we exchanged e-mails requesting a meeting with them. Two weeks later, they said that because of their client's holiday commitments they would not be able to meet for another two weeks, and they suggested 11 August. On 11 August, we met them and updated them on the parliamentary process and told them that no date had at that time been set for their hearing.
If the alignment cannot be changed, would Mrs Kaur be likely to prefer to be bought out or would she wish to return to the property?
We got the impression from the meetings that we had with her agents that she would probably prefer for the whole property to be bought if the alignment cannot be changed.
And the promoter would be prepared to do that.
Indeed.
Thank you, Mr Duke.
Do committee members have any questions for Mr Duke?
My questions have been answered.
That concludes Mr Duke's evidence. The next witness will be Gavin Murray, who will speak about the effects of construction.
I have no further questions for Mr Murray at this stage.
Do members have any comments or questions for Mr Murray?
Mr Murray, in paragraph 4.2 of your witness statement, you say that it is difficult to determine the exact extent of the disruption to Mrs Kaur's property. Why is that? Paragraph 4.4 says that more opportunities for consultation will be presented as the design and construction details are developed. Is there a formal mechanism through which Mrs Kaur can participate in order for her concerns to be taken on board?
Let me respond to your first query on the difficulty of determining impact. We have set aside the whole of the property as a possible construction compound and it would be up to the contractor as to whether or not he wished to utilise it. Therefore, I cannot say that we need to take the whole property to provide for the contractor; it would be up to him whether he considered that to be beneficial to his operations.
But that is voluntary.
Yes.
Thank you. Do you have any follow-up questions, Mr Thomson?
No.
Thank you, Mr Murray. The next witness is James Truscott, who will address the issue of visual impact.
I have no questions for Mr Truscott.
Do any members have questions for Mr Truscott?
Mr Truscott, I want to ask for a little more detail about what is happening with the woodland planting to the south of the property. There seems to be a bit of confusion. The objector feels that what is being proposed is excessive, but you said in your witness statement that it is possible that there would be no planting, because it is for the specific objector to decide. I presume that the objector is not asking for there to be no planting. Can you clarify the situation?
Yes. I apologise for any confusion. The drawings in the environmental statement to which the objector refers have a proposal for woodland screen planting, which would be entirely for the benefit of the resident who is the objector, to try to mitigate the substantial visual impacts that they are likely to be affected by. However, I emphasise that the drawings are indicative. The proposal would be subject to discussion and negotiation with the owner of the property; if the owner felt that they wanted less or no woodland planting, we would be happy to take that position on board. Usually, this sort of thing can either take the form of a side agreement or it can be discussed at the detailed design stage.
So it is not a problem; it will be resolved.
Yes, it can be resolved.
Thank you. Mr Thomson will continue the examination.
To be brutal about the matter, Mr Truscott, the less planting the proprietor wishes, the better it would be for the promoter.
Yes.
But the promoter is, in fact, prepared to provide substantial planting.
Yes, on the assumption that the owner wishes the maximum screening effect.
And that was what was behind your thinking in providing for the planting.
The intention was to reduce as far as possible the impacts on that particular property.
Thank you, Mr Truscott.
Thank you, Mr Truscott. We now turn to Mr John Hyde, who will address noise and vibration.
I have no questions for Mr Hyde at this stage.
Do any members have questions for Mr Hyde?
I had one about the basis of the ambient traffic noise levels. It was answered in response to a question from Mr Thomson, but I did not fully understand the answer because logarithms are not my strong point. Can you confirm, Mr Hyde, whether there will be a screen or barrier along the back of the stop to minimise noise impact?
Yes. I would expect there to be barriers at the rear of most stops, to contain the stop and to act as a noise screen. At the stop in question, the screen would be to reduce noise from activities at the stop rather than to reduce noise from trams.
That is fine.
Do you have further questions for Mr Hyde, Mr Thomson?
None, sir.
We move on to Alasdair Sim, who will address nuisance, stop location and route.
Can you remind us, Mr Sim, why it is proposed to put the stop where it is proposed to put it?
Yes. The stop was located in that position primarily to provide facilities and access to the Royal Highland showground via the east gate. Given the nature of the alignment of trams, which Mr Murray mentioned earlier, specific stop requirements are necessary within the geometrics of the tram alignments. In this case we would have required as a minimum 60m of straight track in which to locate the stop—40m for the platform and 10m either side as a transition. In this area, the stop was located according to those geometric constraints.
Thank you, Mr Sim.
To avoid confusion, will you clarify which plots the promoter will take permanent possession of? Your witness statement reads:
I would certainly suggest that that is not correct. I return to the parliamentary plans. I apologise if there has been a typo or something of that nature in my statement. The plots of land that would be taken permanently are plot 386, for the purposes of landscaping, and plot 383, which would be accommodating the track and part of the tram stop. Plot 384 would be taken temporarily.
So as a result of that mea culpa explanation, we are left with the situation that plots 386 and 383 will be taken permanently.
That is right.
Thank you. Do any other members have questions?
No.
Re-examination, Mr Thomson?
No, thank you.
Thank you, Mr Sim. That concludes the questioning for group 54. It would be useful if Messrs Sim, Hyde and Murray could remain at the table. The rest of the witnesses are free to leave at this stage. I invite Mr Thomson to make a closing speech.
Thank you. This objection probably falls to be approached in layers. From the evidence that we have heard, if the route is allowed to proceed as proposed and the stop is located where proposed, the most probable outcome would be that Mrs Kaur would wish the promoters to acquire the property and that would be the end of her problems. She would be compensated according to the various statutory provisions. If she wished to remain in the property she could then be affected by noise and visual intrusion. We have heard from Mr Truscott the position about landscaping, in that the main purpose of taking lot 386 is to provide landscaping. If Mrs Kaur did not wish to have it, or wished to have a reduced amount of it, that could plainly be provided to suit her precise requirements. In my submission, the degree of landscaping that is proposed in Mr Truscott's evidence would provide satisfactory mitigation of the visual impact of the stop and the tram.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. That concludes the evidence from the promoter on group 54.
Mr Hyde, I simply invite you to give us an update.
Since the witness statement in June, we have undertaken a further noise measurement survey outside Mr Wilson's property. That survey, which was done in August, more or less substantiated the assessment that was carried out for the environmental statement. Noise levels from traffic on the A8 were considerably higher than the noise level that is likely to be generated by the tram. That led us to the conclusion that our original assessment was more than adequate. The survey demonstrated that the impact of the tram will be negligible, mainly due to the high level of traffic noise from the A8, which is right outside Mr Wilson's property.
As far as the operational phase is concerned, do your calculations make an allowance for a reduction in the speed limit from 70mph to 40mph?
Yes. In fact, the reduction in the speed limit will cause a reduction of about 2dB in the existing noise level. It is not something to make a lot of fuss about, but there will be a small reduction in noise.
Thank you, Mr Hyde.
Do members have any questions for Mr Hyde?
No.
As there are no further questions, I invite Mr Thomson to make any closing remarks.
On the basis of Mr Hyde's written and oral evidence, there is nothing for the objector to worry about in relation to noise. I simply invite the committee to reject the objection.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. That concludes oral evidence from the promoter for group 56.
I was going to ask Mr Sim to give us an update. Perhaps it would be more convenient to hear that first.
Yes. That would be tidier. We go straight to Mr Sim.
Mr Sim, you have drawn the short straw. I ask you to give us an update.
Certainly. Mr McNee has a concern in relation to plot 414. The plot is vacant at present but it has been earmarked by the objector as the site for a garage, which would be an extension of his business. The promoter recognised that early in the process and we met Mr McNee to see whether we could assist him with his difficulty. At that point, it was recognised that the other land in the area is owned by the EDI Group, which is a property company that is owned by the City of Edinburgh Council.
So, it is purely an issue of compensation.
It would appear that that is the case.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Sim.
How do you wish to proceed, Mr Thomson? Do you wish to go to Mr Murray?
Yes, please. However, I have no questions for him.
Does the committee have any questions for Mr Murray?
No.
Thank you, Mr Murray. That was fairly easy. The next witness is Mr Rintoul.
Similarly, I have no questions for Mr Rintoul.
Does the committee have any questions for Mr Rintoul?
No.
We move forward once again. The next witness is John Hyde, who will address noise and vibration.
I wonder whether you can remind us, Mr Hyde, what the noise issues are in both the construction and the operation stages and what can be done to mitigate that noise.
This relates to 74 Station Road, which is Mr McNee's property. During the construction phase there will be some impact—what we would class as minor to moderate impact; however, it will be a different matter when the trams are operating. The ground level of 74 Station Road is 3m or 4m below the level of the track and there is a retaining wall along the edge of the works, which will have a small barrier reinstated. The wall is about 1m to 1.5m high. That in itself will act as quite an effective noise screen because of the ground level difference between the track and Mr McNee's property. I would not anticipate any operational noise impact at that property, which will be very effectively screened from the track. The property is too far away from the track to be affected by vibration either from construction or from operation.
The new wall is to be no higher than the existing wall.
Yes, that is correct.
Does the committee have any questions for Mr Hyde?
No.
There being no questions, we can move on. We have already heard from Mr Sim.
I will be brief. In my submission, there are no serious issues here. Noise has been explained by Mr Hyde and is not an issue. At the end of the day, if a deal cannot be struck with EDI or anyone else to provide a swap for a compensating piece of land, then, as the convener has indicated, it will become purely a compensation issue. There is the offsetting element of betterment because of the proximity of the tram stop as a result of the project. In these circumstances, I invite the committee simply to reject the objection.
Thank you, Mr Thomson. That concludes the hearing in respect of group 53 and ends the taking of oral evidence today. We now move into private session to consider the evidence that we have heard. In the meantime, I thank counsel and the witnesses who have attended today's business.
Meeting continued in private until 11:14.
Previous
Proposed Alternative Alignments