Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, 28 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Official Report 255KB pdf

---

Proposed Alternative Alignments

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you to the 12th meeting this year of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee. We have received apologies from Jeremy Purvis, who is unable to attend today's meeting. I ask everyone who is present to switch off their mobile phones and pagers.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of proposed alternative alignments. The committee will consider a number of witness lists and summaries that we have received from the promoter and certain objectors and will decide which witnesses we will invite to provide witness statements, rebuttals and oral evidence.

The witness summaries relate to the new objections that we have received to the alternative alignments that the promoter has proposed. I point out that we have received no communication from Haymarket Yards Ltd. When such circumstances have arisen in the past, the committee has decided that the objector should be treated as though it has agreed not to provide any further evidence. That would mean that Haymarket Yards would not be able to provide witness statements and oral evidence. Do members agree that we should treat Haymarket Yards in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

I remind members that issues that are covered in witness summaries must have been raised in the relevant original objections. I have looked at the witness summary that objector 96—Safeway Stores Ltd and Wm Morrison plc—has provided and feel that it raises several issues that were not mentioned in the original objection. Those issues are compensation issues; the impact of the airport rail link on the tram route; transport issues relating to level-crossings; transport issues associated with temporary tramways; the transport impact of tram prioritisation measures; and consideration of Scottish transport appraisal guidance assessments. I suggest that, because those issues were not raised in the initial objection, they cannot be raised in any subsequent evidence that the objector provides. Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Now that I have highlighted my specific concerns about those two objectors, I invite members to indicate whether they are content with all the witnesses that the lead objectors and the promoter propose in their respective witness lists and summaries.

Members indicated agreement.

Those witnesses will be invited to provide further written and oral evidence to the committee. The next deadline for the provision of witness statements is 12 October. Thereafter, rebuttals should be provided by 26 October. Oral evidence on those objections that are identical to both tram bills will be taken at a joint meeting with the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee on 1 and 2 December.

Finally, do members agree that any oral evidence taking on the remaining objections—those from Safeway and Wm Morrison, and the Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd—should be held on Wednesday 16 November?

Members indicated agreement.