GROUP 29 OBJECTION NO: 045 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 ... · SCOTT MCINTOSH Construction Contents 1....

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 045 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 - INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT

SCOTT MCINTOSH Construction Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Depot – use as a construction site 1. Resume

1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott

MacDonald the Technical Consultants for the Edinburgh Tram. I hold a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Cambridge and various post graduate qualifications, I am a Member of the Permanent Way Institution. I have around 20 years experience in Light Rail, dealing with the planning, promotion, specification, design and commissioning of systems.

1.2 I have been Project Manager for a number of projects, including

Croydon Tramlink and was a member of the Board of the public/private Tramlink Project Development Group. I was a member of the UITP [International Public Transport Association] Light Rail Commission and co-author of the UITP ‘Guidelines for the Design and development of Light Rail Schemes’.

1.3 I am currently a Board member of the UK Tram consortium [the objects of which are ‘to encourage the effective development and use of light rapid transit systems in the UK…by… the development of national guidelines, codes of practice and standards based upon experience in the UK and overseas’]. I have advised on tramways in Europe and the Middle East and I am currently advising on tramways and light rail schemes in Blackpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as Edinburgh.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:

Use of the Leith Depot site as a construction site (i) Need for use of site as a construction compound

1

(i) Likely Activities (ii) Night time Noise due to Depot operations (iii) HGV Noise

3. Use of the Leith Depot site as a construction site Need for use of site as a Construction Compound 3.1 The majority of ETL1 will be constructed either in the road or in a

former railway corridor. The space for work and the mobilising of plant and materials is therefore extremely constrained in these areas. This means that a number of work sites are need along the line of route for temporary storage of plant and materials or for minor fabrication of components.

3.2 The area designated for the new Leith Tram Depot is situated at

chainage 3040m. The nearest potential work site to the west of this is situated at Lower Granton Road - chainage 6000m, the nearest identified work site to the east is situated at the old Edinburgh Corporation Leith Walk Tram Depot site – chainage 1840m. This gives a gap of approximately 3km to the west of the site and 1.2km to the east. It has been found that gaps between work sites of over 2.5 – 3km result in inefficient working, with an increase in constructional LGV and foot traffic between work sites. It can therefore be concluded that there would be deleterious knock-on effects if the new Leith Tram Depot site was not available during at least part of the construction programme.

3.3 The Depot will also act as the receiving station for the trams when they

are delivered. Receipt of the trams, their final assembly and testing will need to be undertaken in the last 6-9 months of the tramway construction programme if the system is to be tested and proven in time for the commencement of public services. This will mean that the Depot buildings and track layout will need to be constructed during the second year of the tramway construction programme, leaving the first year of the construction programme when the depot site may be cleared of existing structures and used as a construction compound.

Likely Activities 3.4 Likely activities during this first year would include the receiving of raw

materials and fabricated components, minor off-site assembly of items, staff mustering and plant and machinery storage.

Night time Noise due to Depot operation 3.5 The Depot will be used to store and service the fleet for Line 1 only

(currently estimated to be 14 cars). The Leith Depot has capacity only for Line 1, it does not have the reserve capacity to accommodate the fleet for line 2. Line 2 has proposals for a separate Depot.

2

3.6 The Line 1 tram service will be progressively reduced in frequency in

the period between the end of the evening peak and the termination of services. This means that a total of 14 car movements into the Depot will take place between approximately 20-00 and 01-00 hours – an average of less than 3 car entries per hour.

3.7 The precise form of the depot has not been decided, but given its

urban context it is probable that it will either form a completely enclosed building

Or it will consist of an open yard, surrounded by solid walls, with an enclosed Maintenance Hall and an enclosed Tram Washing machine.

3.8 In either case the amount of night-time noise will be small and will be

mitigated by the boundary walls. Operational noise is covered by the evidence of my colleague Steve Mitchell of ERM.

HGV noise 3.9 Access to the Depot site when in use as a work site is covered in the

CoCP, sections 3, 4 and 6 cover the relevant issues. When the Depot is being used to service trams during the operation of the Edinburgh Tram the number of deliveries by HGV will be small and will usually take place during the normal working day.

3

3.10 It is accepted that the roadways close to the site for the proposed Depot are currently laid in stone paviours or setts, however this is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council Highways Department and not for the promoter of the Edinburgh Tram.

3.11 The operation of construction compounds is referred to in the following

sections of the CoCP;

• section 3, this covers Hours of Working • section 4. this covers Site Housekeeping Fencing and

Hoardings Access and Loading Security, the prohibition of the use of the site for temporary living accommodation and Clearance of Site on Completion

• section 6. This covers Noise Control 3.12 It is the promoter’s contention that these measures, taken as a

package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum.

Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005

4

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT SCOTT MCINTOSH Building fixings Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Building Fixings 4. Building Fixings - Frequently Asked Questions 5. Wall Fixings technical note. 6. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott


1.2 I have been Project Manager for a number of projects, including Croydon Tramlink and was a member of the Board of the public/private Tramlink Project Development Group. I was a member of the UITP [International Public Transport Association] Light Rail Commission and co-author of the UITP ‘Guidelines for the Design and development of Light Rail Schemes’.


2. Scope of Evidence

1

2.1 The evidence addresses Building fixings, the requirements for their safety, their effects upon building owners and occupiers and the technical questions in arising in connection with their fixing to buildings

. 2.2 The use of wall fixings on tramways is well precedented and has been

in use for over 120 years on tramways throughout the world. Similar fittings are also used on trolleybus systems. There are approximately 380 tramway systems currently in operation, of these 87 have been built in 25 countries since 1978, there are 29 more to be completed in the next 2 years. There are approximately 400 trolleybus systems currently in operation.

2.3 The text for a public information document in relation to building fixings

was prepared earlier this year and it is my belief that a version of this document has been published in the tramtime website. A technical note relating to the actual installation of fixings has also been prepared and it is my belief that tie is proposing to make this document available to relevant parties.

2.4 For the avoidance of doubt, the following text is based upon the two

documents referred to in 2.1 and 2.2 above. I believe that this represents a fair and accurate statement as to the likely effects of employing building fixings on the Edinburgh Tram system.

3. Building Fixings

Graz, Austra. Overhead supported from historic buildings in busy shopping street

2

Background 3.1 Trams are usually supplied with electric traction power from overhead

line systems at a voltage not exceeding 750 Volts direct current [nominal]. This is currently the maximum voltage approved for on-street sections by Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate [HMRI] (1). However operational voltages of 1500Volts direct current are also being considered in the UK and will be reviewed for the Edinburgh Tram. Overhead Line Equipment [OLE] can be supported by poles with cantilever arms. It can also be supported by span wires between poles or building attachments and this minimises the amount of equipment placed in the street (2).

3.2 The height of the contact wire that supplies the electric current to the tram, or any other live part of the overhead electric traction supply system must not be less than 5800mm above the surface of any carriageway except where a lower headroom is necessary beneath existing bridges over the tramway (3). Higher clearances may be used where a road is designated as a High Load Route, or there are technical or aesthetic advantages to be gained by so doing. At other places accessible to the public, the position of the contact wire, or any other live part of the OLE must not be less than 5200mm above the ground. (4)

3.3 The insulation of the live overhead equipment from the span wire

attached to a building is achieved either by the insertion of at least two insulators into a metal span wire, or by the use of non conducting synthetic material for the span. Both systems are currently in use on tramways within the British Isles and meet, or exceed, the requirements set out by HMRI and the appropriate Electricity Regulations.

Use of buildings to support OLE 3.4 The use of buildings to support electric traction systems is well

established, the approach was used in many of the ‘first generation’ electric tram and trolleybus systems and is used at some point on the majority of the ‘second generation’ systems throughout the World.

3.5 The span ‘wire’ (which can be made of metal or a non metallic and non conducting material) is anchored to the buildings on either side of the street by means of a wall fixing. These usually consist of an expanding bolt that is inserted into the façade of the building from the outside. This is set in a grout material in the drilled hole and is expanded to grip the sides of the hole. In the majority of cases the tramway undertaker does not need to gain access to the interior of the building to fix, or maintain, the fitting. Fittings of this type have been used with success on brick, stone and mass concrete buildings.

3

Dublin fixing by simple eyebolt through building ornament on new concrete frame building 3.6 The Tramlink system in Croydon uses wall fixings along two busy

shopping streets – George Street and Church Street - and wall fixings have been applied with complete success to buildings along these streets dating from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

4

Croydon, UK. George Street, aerial view [of one way, central area loop], showing overhead supported by buildings

5

Croydon, UK. George Street [one way central area loop], showing overhead supported by c19 buildings [left] and c20 buildings [right] 3.7 Fixings cause no damage to a building as the stress applied to the

building façade is within the reserve strength of normally sound building. A waterproof seal can be achieved between the fixing and the building and no damage from water penetration or corrosion staining would be expected, given minimal maintenance by the installer. Indeed, many buildings in Glasgow still have wall fixings from the ‘first generation’ tramway – often over 40 years since they were last used or maintained.

6

Amsterdam, Netherlands. Overhead supported from shop/residential buildings in busy city-centre area 3.8 Where buildings incorporate pre-stressed or reinforced concrete beams

and columns, integrity of the beam must not be compromised by drilling into it to provide the fixing. In this case, a band around a structural element has been used successfully to support the wire. This solution is used in Market Street, Manchester. Where a building has an external glass skin, completely enclosing the structure, a flexible grommet may be fitted around a small hole drilled in the glass, allowing the span wire to pass through the outer skin and to be anchored to the building frame.

4 Frequently Asked Questions 4.1 What is the procedure for obtaining powers to affix a rosette to

my building? 4.1.1 The powers to attach equipment to a building can be found in section

15 of the Edinburgh Tram Line One and Edinburgh Tram Line Two Bills. Where a Listed Building is specified in part 2 of Schedule 10, no equipment can be attached to that building without first obtaining Listed Building Consent.

4.1.2 If the Bills are enacted then the promoter will have powers (subject to the prior approval procedure of the local planning authority – vide s.70 of Bill) to affix equipment to any building provided that the promoter

7

gives 28 days notice to the relevant property owners of their intention so to do. There would be an initial structural survey of the building, as required, before a rosette was attached to the building as part of the OLE installation programme.

4.2 How high on my building will the fixing be fitted? 4.2.1 As explained in the Background section of this Note, the height of the

contact wire or any other part of the overhead electric traction supply system should not be less than 5800mm above the surface of any carriageway. It may be higher (up to approximately 6.2m) where a road is designated as a High Load Route, or there are technical or aesthetic advantages to be gained by so doing. The span wire will adopt a catenary shape across the road, with the ends where it attaches to the buildings being higher than the point where it supports the contact wire to accommodate the sag of the span wire. The increase in height will depend on the width of the street, but it can be assumed that for most streets the span wire rosettes will be fitted at about second floor level in a typical building.

8

Orleans, France. Overhead wire supported from buildings [Note nearest span wire on right, between two opening windows].

Dublin, wall fixing by simple eyebolt between 2nd and 3rd set of windows from left

9

Linz, Austria, span wires supported from buildings in wide, formal square 4.3 Is there any chance that the span wire could make the building

live? 4.3.1 No. The span wire will either be fitted with insulators to isolate it from

the live overhead wire, or it will be made of a non-conducting material. This means that the span wire cannot become live.

4.4 Will anyone be able to lean out of a window and touch live

electrical equipment? 4.4.1 No. The live conductor wires are situated over the tram tracks, the

insulators (where they are required) will be provided close to the conductor wire. This means that anyone leaning out of a building will be beyond touching distance from any live electric conductors.

4.5 Will the wall fixing transmit noise or vibration into my building? 4.5.1 No. The overhead line equipment generates very little noise. The only

contact between the moving tram and the wire is made by a self-lubricating sliding contact on the top of the collector equipment mounted on the roof of the tram. This generates minimal noise as it moves along the wire. The overhead wire system is flexible and tends to dissipate any noise and vibration. The insulators serve to break any

10

metal-to-metal path for noise to pass into the building. During operation of the tramway the quantity of acoustic energy transferred through the overhead line equipment will be very small and will not lead to noise or vibration levels that will affect the users of the building.

4.6 Will the presence of span wire fixings interfere with the

maintenance of my building? 4.6.1 The promoters will be seeking powers to make safety byelaws

regulating the maintenance of buildings to which equipment had been attached as part of the general requirements to ensure the safe maintenance of buildings fronting onto the tramway. Since any byelaws would require confirmation by the relevant Minister of the Scottish Executive there is no risk that the owners affected would be subjected to unreasonable o requirements.

4.6.2 The tramway operating company and City of Edinburgh Council will be

issuing advice to people owning or occupying buildings along streets traversed by the Edinburgh Tram. This advice will be issued before the system is completed. It will tell you how work can be carried out safely in the vicinity of the operating tramway. The same general rules will apply to streets where the overhead wires are supported from columns and in streets where the overhead wires are supported from the buildings. This advice will cover the use of ladders, scaffolding, ‘cherry pickers’ and collapsible platforms to maintain the outsides of buildings. They will also give a contact address and telephone number that you must contact to seek advice and approval before you erect any ladder or scaffolding, or undertake any work within a reasonable range of any live electrical equipment.

4.6.3 If building maintenance work needs to be undertaken close to the live equipment you will be required to obtain an agreement from the tramway operator as to a safe method of working. This safe method of working may require the electrical isolation of adjacent tramway electrical equipment and hence the work may have to be done outwith normal tramway operating hours. The tramway operator will be issuing advice notices about safe working adjacent to the tramway before the system becomes live.

4.6.4 New generation tramways have now been operating in the UK for over

12 years and many of them have building-supported overhead equipment. We are not aware of any serious problems arising in respect of the maintenance of buildings fronting the tram routes in these cities.

4.7 Will the presence of wires interfere with the work of the Fire or

Emergency Services? 4.7.1 No. The tramway operator will be liaising with the Emergency Services

to ensure that their employees are fully trained in dealing with an

11

emergency close to the tramway. The Emergency Services will also be consulting their opposite numbers in Birmingham, Blackpool, Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield so that they can learn from experience elsewhere. There will be communications links between the tramway operator and the Emergency services to ensure that the electric traction current can be immediately switched off from sections of the system close to an accident or emergency.

4.8 If the building fixing damages my property will I have any repairs

paid for? 4.8.1 Yes. In the unlikely event that the fixing causes any damage then the

Edinburgh Tram will be required to pay for the damage to be made good.

4.9 Will the fixing to my building of support for the overhead

equipment make my property more difficult to rent or sell? 4.9.1 No. There is no evidence from schemes in the UK, or elsewhere in the

EU, that the attachment of the overhead equipment to a building results in loss of value or amenity to the building.

4.10 My building is of architectural or historic significance. Will the

fixing respect that? 4.10.1 Yes. In the case of Listed Buildings no equipment can be attached to

that building without Listed Buildings Consent, in other cases of buildings with architectural, townscape or historic significance the Edinburgh Tram will take advice from the City of Edinburgh Planning Department and from all other relevant authorities as to the precise location and design of wall rosettes. Wall fixings have been applied sympathetically to many historic buildings elsewhere in Europe [including the Royal Palace in Amsterdam] and the same practices will be followed in Edinburgh.

12

Ghent, Belgium. Building support taken from mediaeval church

Bremen, Germany tramway in World Heritage site, note wires attached to mediaeval Town Hall

13

Bremen, Germany OLE supported from span wires across World Heritage Site square References in the text are from HMRI ‘Railway Safety Principles and Guidance’ part 2 section G, Guidance on Tramways, web version published 2005, http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/rspg/index.htm

1. para. 172 2. para. 177 3. para. 201 4. para. 202

5 Wall fixings – technical note 5.1 General information as to the use of buildings to support overhead line

equipment has been given to petitioners in the tie note ‘Edinburgh Tram - Overhead line system support from buildings’. The purpose of this note is to give a detailed description of a typical form of bolt currently in use for this purpose, the fixing method, representative views of fixings on buildings and a typical example of an overhead line equipment plan for a city-centre location. The illustrations in this Note are taken from work on the two most recent examples of modern tramways in the British Isles – Dublin and Nottingham and can be taken as representative of current best practice.

The wall fixing

5.2 The wall fixing consists of 3 main components; a threaded stud for

insertion in the wall, a screw on cap and attachment ring and a locking nut. The span ‘wire’ – which may be made of metal and fitted with two

14

insulators, or may be made of non-conducting material – ( as has been explained in the earlier tie note) - is terminated with a loop and attached to the attachment ring by a fixing link.

5.3 The illustration above is a photograph of a fixing used in Dublin. Note

(reading from top to bottom) the length of stud for insertion in the wall, the screw cap (obscuring the locking nut) with attachment ring, the fixing link and the termination ‘eye’ in a section of metallic span wire. The pen laid to the right of the assembled unit gives a general impression of the overall size of the unit.

15

5.4 The following sketch shows the stud for insertion into the building fabric. Note that the stud is approximately 22mm in diameter and is inserted into a 24mm [1 inch approx.] diameter hole, drilled 175mm [7 inches approx.] into the building. Fixing into the hole is achieved by the insertion of a special grout into the hole. Some 65mm [2.5 inches approx.] of stud is left exposed from the wall to allow the cap to be screwed home and locked by the nut shown.

Dublin, dimensioned sketch of wall fixing stud

16

. Dublin, stud in place in building awaiting attachment of screw cap and ring

Dublin, wall fixing by simple eyebolt between 2nd and 3rd set of windows from left

17

Construction method 5.5 The Overhead line contractor will inform the building owners and

occupants of the expected date for the attachment of the fixing to the building. Before the appointed date a survey of the route and buildings will have been undertaken and marks made on the building to indicate where the fixing is to be attached. On the appointed date the contractor will gain access to the exterior of the building, either by ladder. Scaffolding tower or ‘cherry picker’, access to the interior of the building is not normally required. The process of drilling the hole is normally completed in less than 10 minutes. The grout and the stud are then inserted and the contractor departs.

5.6 After a suitable period to allow the grout to mature the fixing is subject to a pull-out test. This test applies a load to the stud of approximately 14kN, this is 200% of the normal working load of 7kN on the attachment. If the fitting passes this test it is ready to support the overhead line equipment which will be fitted at a later date. The individual components of the fixing are designed to provide a factor of safety of 20kN, i.e. almost three times the normal maximum working load.

5.7 Subsequent erection of the overhead is normally undertaken in the evening or at weekends to minimise disruption to users of the street and frontagers.

Dublin, pull out test being applied to bolt

18

Example of the number of fixings required along a road 5.8 The precise location of the fixings and the distance apart depends

upon the local ground conditions and the degree of curvature of the road – and hence the track – in both the horizontal and vertical plane. Generally speaking the wire will need support and location every 20-40m. The following sketch shows a typical layout along an urban street;

6 Conclusion 6.1 The use of wall fixings to support tramway and trolleybus overhead is

well precedented, it would be reasonable to assume that any problems associated with this would have been discovered and documented, given the total of over 780 such systems in the World. The benefits of reducing street clutter and possible obstruction to building facades by use of building fixings in place of support columns is obvious. The impact that tramway building fixings will have on the maintenance regime for buildings is no greater than that created by the provision of overhead power supply lines, overhead telephone lines or the use of wall mounted street lighting apparatus.

6.2 It is my belief that the information set out in sections 3 and 4 of this

Witness Statement represent a fair and accurate explanation of the effects of overhead line fixings on buildings. The objective has been to set these out in non-technical terms in a way that can be easily understood by building owners and occupants. It is my understanding that these documents have been made available to the objectors by tie.


19

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT SCOTT MCINTOSH

Construction Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Construction 4. Rate of Construction 5. Experience from other systems 6. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott




. 2. Scope of Evidence

1

2.1 My evidence will cover the construction impacts on public and tenant access and servicing of properties.

The evidence addresses:

Construction

(i) Construction Impacts & Disturbance (ii) Mitigation to preserve Pedestrian and Vehicle

access (iii) Rate of Construction (iv) Information Centre & Website (v) Impact on Businesses (vi) Experience from Other Systems

3 Construction

3.1 Construction Impacts & Disturbance 3.1.1 The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction

project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter’s contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP]. This document has been created by the promoters using current industry best practice. It is my understanding that a copy of the CoCP has been passed to the objector. The promoters contend that the CoCP will answer all the questions raised in section 1.6 of the objection

3.1.2 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects,

particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon (Tramlink), Manchester (Metrolink), Nottingham (Nottingham Express Transit) and planned for Liverpool (Merseytram). The CoCP for Merseytram was recently considered during the Public Inquiry into the Merseytram Draft Order deposited in 2004, under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. At the conclusion of the Inquiry the presiding Inspector reported that the Draft Order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State has subsequently followed the Inspector’s advice. The CoCP has been subject to consultation with all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council, and the technical advisors to the scheme. The Construction Contract will require that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.2 Mitigation during construction 3.2.1 Maintenance of accesses

2

• The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to

Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

• Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using

the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

• Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

• All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of

Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)] At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

• The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.2.2 Working Hours

Working hours are defined in section 3 of the CoCP; ‘Normal hours of working for construction of Edinburgh Tram Lines One and Two shall be: Monday – Saturday 0700 – 1900 hours’ . Exceptional work outwith these hours may only be undertaken with the prior approval of tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. Furthermore ‘Where Sunday or evening/night working has the potential to disturb nearby land users and occupiers they shall be notified seven days in advance, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance and the proposed hours of working.’

3.2.3 Site housekeeping

Section 4 of the CoCP sets out particular standards for maintaining cleanliness and order within work sites and the minimisation of visual impact on the surrounding areas;

3

• All work sites will be surrounded by fences or hoardings which

will painted in a colour and style to be approved by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 4.2 (d)].

• The Contractor shall clear and clean all working areas and accesses as work proceeds and when no longer required for the carrying out of the works.

3.2.4 Noise Control

Strict standards of noise control are set out in section 6 of the CoCP; ‘The Contractor shall have a general duty to take all practicable measures to minimise nuisance from noise. The noise limits specified … shall not be regarded as a licence to make noise up to the stated limit.’ An effective monitoring regime is established at s.6.1 (c) ; ‘In order to ensure that the best practicable means are used to meet the levels set out above, a programme of on-site monitoring by a suitably qualified practitioner shall be agreed between the Contractor, tie and The City of Edinburgh Council. This monitoring programme shall include the location and frequency of readings and will define to whom the results shall be made available. Monitoring will be undertaken at locations identified in the Environmental Statements as those where mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid significant noise disturbance.’ And strict requirements are laid down to ensure that these requirements are adhered to ; ‘In the event that measurements indicate noise has exceeded the limits … the Contractor shall stop the operation in a safe manner and take all practicable measures to prevent recurrence’.

3.2.5 Other emissions

Vibration and dust emission are covered by strict standards in CoCP sections 7 and 8. A requirement to assist frontagers by cleaning parts of their property affected by dust is included at s. 8.1 ( c ) ; ‘Where dust generating works (e.g. excavation, demolition) are undertaken close to buildings such that there is a potential for soiling of windows and ledges with dust the contractors shall clean those windows and ledges as necessary – and at least weekly - during periods of dust generating work and on completion of works.’

3.2.6 Effects of these mitigation measures

It is the promoter’s contention that these measures, taken as a package, will reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum

4. Rate of construction

4

4.1 The rate of construction will depend upon a number of issues, including;

• any particular construction problems encountered within the corridor

• constraints on construction imposed for environmental or wildlife considerations

• weather conditions .

4.2 However what can be said is that the contractors will be required to keep the public fully informed of the progress of the work. Section 2 of the CoCP requires that; ‘The Contractor shall appoint a liaison officer to manage all public relations, information and press related matters, who shall liaise with tie, The City of Edinburgh Council, other statutory bodies, members of the public, press and the media on all matters relating to the works’.

4.3 This is ensured by the requirements set out in the rest of the section;

2.1 Information Centre and Website

The Contractor shall provide and maintain an Information Centre at a location to be agreed with tie and the City of Edinburgh Council. The Information Centre shall be accessible to stakeholders, frontagers, interested third parties and the general public, between the hours of 0900 and 1700, Monday to Friday (excluding local and national Public Holidays). Up to date information on the progress of the works and the current areas affected by construction shall be freely available at the Information Centre. The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a website which shall provide the same information.

2.2 Weekly newsletter

The Contractor shall publish a weekly newsletter every Wednesday, detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s works. This newsletter will be published;

• on the Website, • by Fax and email to; local and national newspapers and other

news media, The City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police, the emergency services and to any other persons or organisations that have requested receipt of the newsletter.

5

Sufficient free-distribution, take-away hard copies of the newsletter shall be placed in the Information Centre by 0800 every Thursday morning. No charge will be made for this service.

2.2.1 Complaints Hotline

The Contractor shall also provide and maintain a Freephone Hotline to deal with any complaints, comments or queries received in connection with the Edinburgh Tram Works. The Hotline will be answered by the Liaison Officer, a deputy or by another designated competent operator between the hours of 0700 and one hour after work terminates for the day, on every day when construction work is being undertaken. Outwith these hours an automated call recording service will be provided. The telephone number, fax number and website address of the hotline shall be publicised through the press and the Weekly newsletter and clearly displayed on hoardings around every worksite and at other suitable locations within and in the vicinity of every worksite.

2.2.2 Contacts Log

All complaints, comments and queries received shall be registered in a suitable Log and appropriate action in response instigated within 24 hours by the Contractor. A record of remedial action shall be logged, in the event of a complaint a follow up letter or electronic communication shall be passed to the complainant within 48 hours of the initial complaint, outlining their complaint and the remedial action being undertaken by the Contractor. All comments, questions and complaints shall be logged in writing together with any response and a record of any actions taken, including a record of the time when that action is completed. An up to date copy of the Contacts Log shall be compiled daily, together with a report on the progress of any actions. The Contacts Log shall be inspected and signed daily by a nominated senior representative of the Contractor and shall be counter signed by the Contractor’s Project Director at least once per week. and the Weekly newsletter A copy of each week’s Contacts Log shall be placed every Friday in the Information Centre, where it will remain until completion of all construction works. All deposited copies of the Contacts Log may be freely inspected by any person during the normal opening hours of the Information Centre. An additional copy of the Contacts Log shall be forwarded to tie once per week and the master register shall be available for tie to inspect at any other time during normal working hours.

3.4.4 Communications Regarding Noise

6

(a) The Contractor shall give seven days notice to local residents who may be adversely affected by noise from the proposed programme of work, providing a description of the work to be carried out, measures that will be taken to control noise or other disturbance, and the proposed hours of working.

(b) The Contractor shall provide the City of Edinburgh Council

Department of Environmental and Consumer Services with a list of contacts who will be responsible for investigating and resolving noise issues during the construction phase of the project.

5. Experience from other systems 5.1 The promoters accept that the introduction of a major public work such

as the Edinburgh Tram will cause some disruption and would point out that Edinburgh has coped with a number of major disruptions over the last few years as major new buildings, such as the Conference Centre, the Scottish Parliament etc are added to our city. The promoters accept that some of the earlier tramway schemes – such as Sheffield -caused unacceptable disruption. The promoters of schemes have learned from these experiences and the 1997-2000 construction of Croydon Tramlink and the 2001 – 2004 construction of the first line of Nottingham Express Transit have benefited from the tighter controls on construction now incorporated in the Edinburgh Codes of Construction Practice.

6. Conclusion 6.1 The Edinburgh CoCP builds upon the positive experience of the

development of appropriate Codes on other tramway schemes. It seeks to identify all likely risks of nuisance and to control them before they occur. If, notwithstanding the best endeavours of the promoter, such nuisance does occur then the CoCP established a way by which aggrieved parties can seek alleviation of the nuisance. The promoters contend that it will minimise disturbance and result in a major public work of lasting benefit to the city.


7

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 045 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 – INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT SCOTT MCINTOSH Property values Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Property Values - Croydon TramLink 4. Property Values - Nottingham Express Transit 5. Property Values - Dublin 6. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott




2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 The evidence addresses the effect of the introduction of tramways on residential property values, based on the results of independent research into the effects of the three most recent tramways in the British Isles; Croydon, Nottingham and Dublin, Eire.

3. Croydon Tramlink 3.1 The South London Partnership is a voluntary forum which promotes the

interests of the south London sub-region. 3.2 The South London Partnership (SLP) comprises 15 partners, including;

• the London boroughs of: Bromley, Croydon, Merton, Richmond,

Sutton, Wandsworth, the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

• Business Link for London • London South - Learning & Skills Council, • South London Council of Chambers of Commerce, • Kingston University, • the SW London Health Authority.

3.3 SLP is Chaired by Joanna Simons, Chief Executive London Borough of Sutton.

3.4 The SLP reports that the effect that trams have on image and perception of an area make the schemes important for generating growth and investment. Trams generate civic pride and facilitate urban renewal. They provide an image of dynamism and efficiency that is key to attracting outside investment. Trams can raise the profile of the entire area, attracting higher rents, new developments and private sector investment. Marginal businesses dislodged by construction are replaced with dynamic enterprises.

3.5 The success of Croydon Tramlink in raising the profile of the area in this way is shown by the greater increases in property prices in wards along the route (Figure 1). The Report prepared by Colin Buchanan and Partners (an independent transport consultancy) on behalf of the South London Partnership found, by reference to Her Majesty’s Land Registry residential transaction data, that in Croydon property prices have risen by 4% more in wards served by the tram than those that are not, while in the other Boroughs served there has been no discernible difference.

3.6 The price of property in Croydon on the Tramlink line was found to have risen faster than that off-line both during construction and after opening.

Figure 1: Property prices in Croydon wards

3.7 It is to be noted that property prices in the area served by Tramlink

were slightly lower than the general level of prices at the beginning of the survey (this possibly reflects poorer accessibility and higher motor car congestion in these areas), but that they were higher post-Tramlink.

3.8 This study also found that Estate Agents used Tramlink as part of their marketing. The estate agents interviewed suggested that properties located close to public transport nodes did attract a premium, with rail the highest, followed by the tram, while few felt that bus routes added value. These premiums were noticeable up to 20 minutes journey time from stations by foot.

Tramlink Impact Study The independent Tramlink Impact Study, undertaken for Transport for London, included a questionnaire survey of local Estate Agents to gain their opinions of the effect of Tramlink on property values, their responses were mainly anecdotal, however, most respondents considered Tramlink to have had a beneficial effect on property values.

"Easy access from Wimbledon to East Croydon has created much greater interest in the area. The new tram has seen prices increase by about 10% above the national trend". Ingletons, Mitcham

"It has made a difference. Demand for the area has gone up and prices have

risen by up to 10%. … people can get to East Croydon in about 5-6 minutes. This will add considerably to the attraction of this part of Croydon". Benson and Partners, Addiscombe

4. Nottingham Express Transit

4.1 Even before Nottingham Express Transit opened, there were

discernable regeneration impacts in the city. During 2003 six months before the scheme was due to open, local Estate Agents were reporting an upturn in the market specifically in those areas through which the tram now runs. Nottingham estate agents have been using proximity to the tram as a selling point. Letting agents now have a regular advert in the Nottingham Evening Post ‘Homes for Rent’ supplement with a box stating “All properties within 10 minutes walk of a tram stop are marked with a NET logo.’ As this has been shown to have a beneficial effect on values and the ability to market property

5. Dublin 5.1 The Dublin – LUAS tramway scheme was opened in 2004 and consists

of sections of new street running, new green field alignment and sections built upon abandoned railway alignments.

5.2 The LUAS ‘Green’ Line runs for the majority of its route along an old railway corridor through the south of the city. The line, which runs through a relatively prosperous area of the city, is similar in many respects to the Roseburn Corridor. Housing along the route is mixed but comprises a mix of large single occupancy Georgian terraces and detached houses, 20th century semi detached properties and some new build apartments and town houses.

5.3 The route is partly on brick built retained embankment 5-6m high, part deep cutting and on or two short sections it runs at grade. Gardens backing onto the line range in length from nothing to 40m. It is believed that the majority of properties in the area are owner occupied.

Dublin green Line

The LUAS Effect - Positive Influence on prices confirmed - Extract

from Douglas Newman Good, Market Analysis 2004 - 2005 www.dng.ie

5.4 An analysis of property price increases along the two Luas lines to

Tallaght and Sandyford confirms that those properties within a five minute walk of a Luas station have seen higher increases in value than other comparable properties with no immediate access to the tram system. Price changes between January 2002 during the early stages of the construction work and January 2005 were analysed for a wide selection of different property types. In Dublin 24 properties close to a Luas station increased on average by 54% between January 2002 and January 2005 whilst the average increase was 37% in areas not within easy walking distance of a station, a differential of 17%. Closer to the city centre in the Dublin 8 area the difference was even more marked with properties close to the Luas seeing an average increase of 65% compared to a 45% increase for properties with no immediate access to the tram system. In South County Dublin on the Sandyford Luas Line there was a differential of 15%, with properties within 5 minutes walk of the line increasing by 70% on average whilst those properties with no immediate pedestrian access rising in value by 55% on average. The figures suggest that over the course of the construction period and during the first few months of Luas opening, the system has added a premium of between 15% and 20% to property values, depending on location.

Article from Sunday Business Post, Sunday, July 04, 2004 http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost - Luas `effect' driving house

prices By Gillian Nelis. 5.5 Less than a week after it began running, the Luas light rail system is

already having an impact on the Dublin property market. Estate agents are reporting an increase in enquiries about property along the St Stephen's Green-Sandyford line, and expect the service to have a similar effect on prices to the Dart in the 1980s.

5.6 Louise O'Reilly of Sherry FitzGerald in Dundrum believes that the Luas

is contributing to a higher than average rate of capital appreciation in the Dublin 14 and 16 areas. We anticipate that, by the end of the year, second-hand house prices throughout Dublin will have risen by around 10 per cent,'' she said. But in Dundrum that figure is likely to be 15 per cent.

5.7 There is an amazing buzz around the place now that the Luas is finally

up and running - people are extremely impressed with it and with the standard of service. This time last year, three-bedroom semi-detached houses in the Broadford and Ballaly areas of Dundrum were selling for €330,000.

5.8 According to O'Reilly, prices in Broadford have now risen to €380,000

and to €400,000 in Ballaly. `In Woodpark, you are now looking at paying around £420,000 for a three-bed semi,'' she said. `This time last year, we would have been quoting between €360,000 and €370,000 for that type of house.''

5.9 The Luas is also significantly boosting property prices in parts of Dublin

8 and Dublin 12, according to Stephen O'Grady of Lowe and Associates in Rathmines. `The arrival of the Luas has meant that people are looking at places which, ten years ago, they simply would not have considered,'' he said.``There is an expectation that Luas is going to have a very positive impact on areas such as Rialto, Drimnagh and Inchicore, and prices in these areas are performing very well as a result.''

5.10 According to O'Grady, small one-bedroom cottages in Rialto are now

selling for between €180,000 and €190,000, figures, which he said, would previously have been unattainable. ``This type of unit is very popular with investors who know that the Luas is likely to boost values and should make their property easier to rent out,'' he said.

5.11 HOK Residential is currently quoting over €254,000 for a 55-square-

metre two-bedroom house at 114 Rialto Cottages. The property is around the corner from the Rialto Luas stop. On Mourne Road in Drimnagh, Stephen O'Grady recently sold a two-bedroom house in very poor condition for €231,500. ``Prices on Mourne Road have really given a jump, and now range between €225,000 and €300,000,

depending on the condition of the house and whether it has been extended,'' he said.

6. Conclusion 6.1 Independent evaluation of the effects of tramway system introduction in

Croydon, Nottingham and Dublin indicates that such developments have had a beneficial effect upon house prices. There is no reason to believe that Edinburgh should be any different to these other successful cities.


GROUP 29 OBJECTION NO: 156 – CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 45 – KEEN OBJECTION NO: 207 – INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT AILEEN GRANT Background to preparation of Schedule 10 (Listed Buildings) WITNESS NAME: Aileen Grant TITLE: Principal Planner and Planning Officer 1. Introduction

1.1 I am Aileen Grant, Principal Planner in Planning and Strategy within the

City Development Department of Edinburgh City Council. I am a qualified planner, with a Diploma in Town & Regional Planning and am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have been in my current post since July 2002. Prior to this I was Principal in charge of the Central Edinburgh Development Quality Team (1998-2002) and Initiatives Manager for Edinburgh North (1996-1998). I have more than 30 years’ experience of working in planning, the majority of these gained within Edinburgh City.

1.2 I took on the role of co-ordinating a planning response to the emerging

Tram proposals for Tram Lines 1 and 2 early in 2003. This role requires me to liaise closely with various colleagues in Planning and Strategy, identifying planning issues to be considered and addressed, putting relevant matters before the Planning Committee. I have extensive knowledge of development control issues gained from 12 years’ direct experience of processing planning applications and leading development control teams. I also have experience of leading multi-disciplinary teams, bringing engineering and landscape considerations together with planning and regeneration issues, as well as experience of drafting various local plans, and supplementary planning guidance. I attended the Tram Study Visits for representatives of the Planning Committee in October 2003 when we viewed Tram systems in Strasbourg, Montpellier and Lyon and discussed with officials in these cities the planning, design and transport issues relating to the introduction of a new tramline into a historic city centre. I also subsequently attended a trip to Nottingham after the Tram Line had opened there in May 2004 and have discussed planning and design issues experienced by that city with a key planning officer there on several occasions.

1.3 The role of Planning Authority in considering Tram proposals was

distinct from that of Council as promoter of the Project. The view of the

Planning Committee as the local planning authority was considered to be of importance in establishing the Council’s position on a range of matters. A series of reports was placed before the Planning Committee. On 7th August 2003 (AMG9/1) a report presented the emerging tram proposals and gave the first opportunity for Planning Committee to respond to these providing a formal planning response to the consultation on these proposals. A second report to the October Planning Committee (AMG9/2)reported back on the outcome of the consultation exercise and tie’s responses, and a third report to Planning Committee on 27th November 2003 (AMG9/3)presented tie’s proposals for Lines 1 and 2 as were to be put forward to Scottish Parliament, seeking to address earlier points raised by Planning Committee and eliciting a final comment by Planning Committee to Council prior to formal submission of the proposals to the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence I am giving covers the following matters.

• Planning purpose of including the buildings in Schedule 10 – reference

to paragraph 3.36 of Planning Committee report of 27th November 2003, the powers set out in the Bill and the restrictions inherent in the process of “prior approvals”. Clarification that for buildings not listed in Schedule 10, all proposals for fixings will require to go through the “Prior Approval” procedure (as defined in Planning Committee report on Design Manual and Planning Approval Procedures on 5th February 2004). For buildings which are listed in Schedule 10, a full application for listed building consent will be required (and planning permission may be required, depending on the details).

• Background to and explanation of the criteria used to identify the buildings in Schedule 10 – this took into account the number of listed buildings along the route of Line 1, the nature of these buildings, and which buildings should be afforded a higher degree of protection. This will include an explanation of why 38 Queen Charlotte Street is not included within the Schedule.

• Provisions set out in the Draft Tram Design Manual for building fixings

(Pages 104-107) and how these will be put into practice.

2.2 My role is therefore to represent the interests of Council as Planning Authority. That role is in responding to proposals presented by tie and considering the planning implications. I have not been directly involved in negotiations with objectors; nor am I am dealing with the reasons behind tie’s choice of routing in particular locations.

3. Planning Purpose of Including the Buildings in Schedule 10 3.1 The Bill includes provisions for fixings to buildings outwith the limits of

deviation. Included within these provisions are fixings of brackets,

cables, wires, insulators and other apparatus required in connection with the tramways. Such power is sought over all buildings, if necessary, including listed buildings.

3.2 Once the Bill has been passed, Class 29 of the Town & Country

Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 will grant certain permitted development powers for developing Tram, and thus no further planning permission will be required for fixings to buildings. However, the terms of Class 29 are such that alterations to buildings will require the “Prior Approval” of the Planning Authority before any work can commence. The implications of these powers are that in general terms fixings to buildings – regardless of whether or not they are listed – will be subject to detailed control in terms of exact position on the building and the type of fixing through “Prior Approval” process and guidance is given in the Draft Tram Design Manual in this regard.

3.3 The difference between prior approvals and planning permission is that the planning authority shall not refuse prior approval nor make approval subject to conditions unless they are satisfied that

• the development ought to be and could reasonably be carried out

elsewhere on the land designated in the Act,

• Or - in relation to buildings and structures - the design and appearance would cause harm to the amenity of the neighbourhood and such harm could be avoided through reasonable modifications.

Hence the practical effect is that there is a presumption in favour of fixings to buildings.

3.4 In addition, the Bill also includes powers in respect of Listed Buildings seeking a general exemption from any Listed Building enforcement procedures with regard to building fixings. In essence, normal listed building consent procedures would not apply and so the only consent required will be through the “Prior Approval” process. Given the terms of the above provisions, it would be possible for the Planning Authority to withhold approval for fixings on any one building (if it is considered that such fixings might cause harm to the amenity) provided alternative arrangements can be identified (such as fixings on another building or using poles). In assessing harm to amenity, the Planning Authority will take into account any impacts on the character of the building and, if within a Conservation Area, on the character of that Conservation Area. 3.5 However, within Schedule 10 to the Bill there is a list of particular listed

buildings where this exemption from Listed Building enforcement procedures would not apply. In other words, for the buildings in the Schedule, proposals for fixings will require to be the subject of full applications for listed building consent as well as being subject to “Prior Approval” procedures. The implications of this are that listed building consent may be granted with conditions, or it may be refused. In other

words, the Planning Authority has greater freedom in considering the acceptability or otherwise of such fixings.

3.6 If a building fixing is considered unacceptable on a Schedule 10

building, then it is likely that a pole or poles would be proposed. These would be subject to prior approval procedures, and the provisions of the Design Manual will come into play as part of this assessment.

4 Criteria Used to Identify Buildings in Schedule 10

4.1 Planning officers were involved in compiling the list contained in Schedule 10, and it was included as an appendix to the Committee report of 27th November 2003. The list was therefore endorsed by that Committee.

4.2 The Schedule 10 buildings are primarily individual monumental buildings or statues, many of which are of outstanding significance. Also included are buildings which are set back from the main building line of a block where there were concerns that overhead wires might be more intrusive. The majority are also included in the Edinburgh Statutory List of Buildings of Historic or Architectural Interest at Category ‘A’, the highest category of Statutory Listing and defined as buildings of national importance. In general terms, those excluded from the list are those within the main tenemental façade or forming the main street block where it was considered that fixings were more likely to be acceptable, providing the provisions of the Design manual are met.

5 Provisions in draft Tram Design Manual for Building Fixings

5.1 The provisions of the Draft Design manual presented to Parliament include the following. • Minimise unnecessary clutter by adopting building fixings in

narrower streets • As a general rule, building fixings are preferred to new poles within

the street, especially in narrow streets (Page 104)

“The decision to introduce additional poles into the streetscape must be given serious consideration and avoided where possible.” (Page 105) The Draft Design manual also includes detailed provisions on page 106 about how fixings should be designed in relation to

• Location • Form • Material • Load tolerance

5.2 The Mark 2 Version of the Draft Tram Design Manual (now on

consultation) amends these provisions. There is a better explanation about the preference for a “wire-free” system and how a decision will be made about this. There is also a focus on the visual impact of

overhead lines and about ensuring this is assessed at both a strategic level and a detailed level. The Checklist of design guidance seeks evidence of structural suitability and requires that building fixings positions respect the building features – for example fenestration and ornamentation.

5.3 This is about to go on consultation with members of the public and with

planning consultees, such as Historic Scotland and the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust. In addition the Department has commissioned a report from Bob Heath, the Council’s independent stone consultant, to ensure that fixings result in minimum disturbance to the fabric of the buildings. It is therefore intended that additional text be added on this aspect. In addition, comments received will be addressed in finalising the provisions.

5.4 The final version of the Design Manual will therefore address

comments from all parties who respond to the consultation on the Design manual. It will also focus the current provisions into clearer planning principles to be used in assessing fixing proposals.

6 Conclusions

6.1 The degree of control over proposals to attach fixings to buildings is considered appropriate. The Planning Authority has sought to adopt an approach which will provide for a rigorous assessment of the details of building fixings, but avoid unnecessarily onerous procedures. The identification of certain buildings in the Schedule will allow for fixings to be resisted if these are considered inappropriate.

6.2 There are provisions in place guiding the detailed design of fixings and

these are currently the subject of a public consultation. AVAILABILITY: On holiday 22nd August to 9th September (inclusive) (AG). JG will provide back-up specialist advice about listed buildings – he is on holiday 8th to 23rd July.

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT ARCHIE RINTOUL Compensation 1 QUALIFICATIONS 1.1 I am Archibald Brown Rintoul, a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors (RICS). I am also a Member of the RICS Scotland Valuation Faculty Board.

1.2 I am at present the District Valuer in charge of Scotland South East Valuation

Office with overall responsibility for all valuations and property advice provided by a team of 12 Valuers, plus Technical and Support Staff, covering an area extending from the Scottish Borders to the south, to Perthshire in the north and Stirlingshire to the west.

1.3 I have 30 years experience in valuation, working in Edinburgh for most of the

last 17 years. I have been involved in Compensation and Compulsory Purchase throughout the whole of my working life, much of my work in the early years involving acquisitions of houses and businesses as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of large areas of Glasgow. I have continued this work throughout my career, much of my recent experience being in acquisitions for Road Schemes on behalf of the Scottish Executive and Local Authorities. I have also appeared as Expert Witness at Lands Tribunal and other Hearings.

1.4 I have provided consultancy advice on the Edinburgh Tramline 1 and 2 (ETL

1 and ETL 2) projects since 2003. 2 EVIDENCE 2.1 My evidence covers the principles underlying the ascertainment of

compensation to claimants affected by the scheme which are: 2.1.1 In cases where land is acquired, compensation is payable for the

value of the subjects acquired, reduction in value of any contiguous or adjacent subjects owned by the claimant, and compensation for disturbance, including items such as removals, loss of profits (in the case of a business) and any other loss directly attributable to the scheme, all in terms of the Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.

2.1.2 In cases where no land is required, compensation is payable for reduction in value caused by the physical factors associated with the scheme, in terms of Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended.

Archie Rintoul District Valuer 4 July 2005

GROUP 29

OBJECTOR NO: 45 – KEEN OBJECTOR NO: 156 – CRASKE OBJECTOR NO: 207 - INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT PROF BRIAN M EVANS The visual impact of OLE Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Setting the Context – production of the Design Manual 4. Achieving an appropriate Urban Fit

4.1 Alignment 4.2 Reducing clutter

5. Conclusion 1. Resume 1.1 I am Prof Brian M Evans MSc, BSc (Hons), Dip URP, MRTPI, FCSD

I am a Chartered Town Planner, Chartered Designer, and a Partner of Gillespies - Urban Designers, Landscape Architects and Architects. The Practice has extensive experience of modern tram systems in UK in particular Nottingham.

1.2 I was Gillespies Project Manager/Director for award winning public realm strategies and projects in Glasgow, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Middlesbrough and I am the Gillespies Project Director for ongoing work on the Capital Streets Programme of public realm improvement within the World Heritage Site in Edinburgh. I have contributed to projects in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Italy and Russia.

1.3 I have experience with light rapid transit projects including a study of

European Tram Systems and a study of the integration of the extended tram system & new development opportunities in Gothenburg. I led the team that produced the Draft Design Manual (11th March 2004) on behalf of tie, working closely with the City of Edinburgh Council (City Development Department), Historic Scotland and the World Heritage Trust.

1.4 Qualifications • Partner Gillespies – 25 years experience of urban design & landscape

planning • Master of Science – Urban Design • Postgraduate Diploma – Urban & Regional Planning • Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute • Fellow of the Chartered Society of Designers

1 3811 Edinburgh Tram Line 1/ ETL1 Post Recess Responses/ Brian Evans Witness Statement ETL1 Group 29 045 Issue 4 Keen L1- FINAL 04.07.05

• Professor of Urban Design, School of Architecture, Chalmers University,

Gothenburg 1998-2004 • Evidence to public inquiry under Planning, Ancient Monument & Electricity

legislation • Adviser to CABE (Commission for Architecture & The Built Environment)

on the production of Design Codes for design quality in new development, Member of CABE Enabling Panel

• Deputy Chair: Architecture & Design Scotland. • Founder Member: the Academy for Urbanism

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses

The visual impact of OLE

3. Setting the Context – production of the Design Manual

The proposals for the tram system have been subjected to very careful scrutiny through the STAG and EIA processes with every effort made to minimise intrusion.

Edinburgh is a very special place in respect of its architectural and cultural heritage – World Heritage Site, conservation areas, listed buildings etc.

In order to ensure that effects are minimised and indeed that the system makes a positive contribution to these special qualities, it is necessary to design the system before it is engineered, constructed and then operated.

Hence tie had the foresight to commission the production of the Design Manual which • Firstly - sets out the issues of design, townscape and environment which

must be addressed through sensitive design; • Secondly - identifies design principles which can address these issues

and which the planning authority can use to evaluate the emerging design; • Thirdly - sets out guidelines which can be used to apply the design

principles in the development of the system and which can be used in partnership with third parties to ensure wider integration (e.g. in wider public realm/development projects beyond the scope of the tram system); and

• Fourthly - sets out requirements which mandate the contractor & operator to detailed requirements for the design of the system and of the immediate area for which it is responsible.

Whilst I understand from team members that the Draft Design Manual (11th March 2004) is currently being refined and updated by CEC, I have not been involved in this process.

4. Achieving an appropriate Urban Fit


One of the key impacts of the proposed tram system will be visual. 4.1 Alignment

(With reference to Draft Design Manual, P27, PART TWO: Design Parameters, Alignment)

Visual intrusion will be mitigated by ensuring that the alignment of the tram

route complements existing buildings and the current spatial use of the public realm. The tram line will run parallel to the predominant building line and/or to existing transport corridors as appropriate, with care being taken to ensure that important visual axis are not broken. This is of particular relevance given the long vistas afforded along Constitution Street.

An appropriate urban fit will be achieved by addressing the existing volume of

space in a holistic way, respecting the overall form and coherence of the places affected.

The detailed alignment of the tram line has to be a balance between many

different and sometimes conflicting pressures and constraints: engineering, aesthetic, financial, political and operational. The final alignment will provide an equitable balance between these issues whilst respecting and protecting the formality and informality of the city’s distinctive spatial pattern/ structure, the integrity of important spaces and axial views.

4.2 Reducing Clutter Overhead Line Equipment (OLE)

(With reference to Draft Design Manual, P105, PART TWO: Design Parameters, OLE)

The aspiration set out in the Design Manual is to mitigate potential visual intrusion by reducing clutter in the public realm. This is achieved by ensuing that the number of OLE poles is kept to the minimum necessary. Where OLE is required visual mitigation is provided by quality design. OLE will be positioned to relate positively to key views, landmarks and historic buildings. This is of particular importance given the long vistas afforded along Constitution Street. The localised positioning, final height and spacing of the OLE poles will be considered in relation to their specific context at the detailed design stage. The promoter undertakes to consult with the objector prior as part of the detailed design and construction processes. Building Mounted Fixings (With reference to Draft Design Manual, P106, PART TWO: Design Parameters, Building Fixings)


In Constitution Street a shared running is proposed for the tram. In this particular location building fixings are being considered where space is constrained in order to mitigate impact on the public realm.

5. Conclusion 5.1 The Draft Design Manual sets out the way in which good design can help

make a positive contribution to Edinburgh’s public realm mitigating the visual intrusion of the proposed tram system at both the strategic and detailed level.

In accordance with Prior Approvals, the promoter undertakes to consult with

the appropriate statutory consultees and the objector as part of the detailed design and construction processes.

Brian Evans Partner Gillespies llp 4 July 2005


GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 INNES PROMOTER DOCUMENT LIST

The following documents (in hard copy) may be referred to during the Committee meetings —

1 Code of Construction Practice

2 Environmental Statement

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/17-edinburghTram1/index.htm

3 Noise and Vibration Policy

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/apr05/noise+vibration(Mar05).pdf

4 Planning Committee Report 7 August 2003

5 Planning Committee Report 2 October 2003

6 Planning Committee Report 27 November 2003

7 Design Manual

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/design/Cover-Intro-Scope-Content.pdf

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/design/Part1-Strategic-Aspirations.pdf

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/design/Part2-Design-Parameters.pdf

8 Updated Design Manual

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=66480


E-copy available from Private Bills Unit

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/17-edinburghTram1/index.htm#envStatement

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/apr05/noise+vibration(Mar05).pdf

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/design/Cover-Intro-Scope-Content.pdf

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/design/Part1-Strategic-Aspirations.pdf

http://tt.tiedinburgh.co.uk/downloads/design/Part2-Design-Parameters.pdf



GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 - INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT GARY TURNER Loss of Parking Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Loss of Parking 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald

Edinburgh. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have been in my present post for 2 years. Prior to that I was a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald Newcastle and have a total of 17 years working in the Highway and Transportation field. I have built up an expertise in tram schemes through projects in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Tees Valley as well as Edinburgh.

1.2 The projects I have been instrumental in include highway schemes,

heavy rail schemes and light rail. Within the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 (ETL1) scheme I have taken the role of Stakeholder Manager for the technical support team. I have been actively involved with liaison groups aimed at informing the community and stakeholders on the process and progress of the proposed tram scheme currently before the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Loss of Parking

3. Loss of Parking Current Parking Arrangements

3.1 The proposed tramway will result in the reorganisation of the current formal parking and loss of informal parking arrangements on Constitution Street. However, where possible, the tram proposals include the provision of formalised parking bays at locations along Constitution Street. This will replace the current parking arrangements which can often impede the flow of traffic. In order to inform this process the promoter has already undertaken a frontager survey of parking and servicing requirements in Constitution Street and is collated this data to form the basis of mitigation during detailed design.

3.2 At present there is estimated to be 90 vehicles using Constitution Street for parking, despite there only being a few formally marked out spaces (approximately 10).

Parking Proposals Post Tram 3.3 The survey, referred to above, will build a picture of the requirements

for this area and inform the detailed design development process allowing formal provisions to be included into the final design. At present the current proposals make provision for approximately 40 formal spaces to be provided.

3.4 Parking in side streets is currently limited and there is therefore a

natural maximum number of cars that will be displaced from Constitution Street to adjacent side streets. Moreover, it is anticipated that the enhanced public transport provision for Constitution Street will reduce the numbers of car journeys/parking provision required, particularly as the current proposals include for a tram stop.

4. Conclusion 4.1 Formal parking provision will be continued to be made although to a

lesser extent following the introduction of the tram project. The detailed design of this will be undertaken during the design process. At present it is anticipated that provision can be made for 40 formal parking spaces.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 - INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT GARY TURNER Restriction of Access Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Restriction of access to property 4. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Gary Turner and I am a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald

Edinburgh. I have a BSc in Civil Engineering. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have been in my present post for 2 years. Prior to that I was a Divisional Director with Mott MacDonald Newcastle and have a total of 17 years working in the Highway and Transportation field. I have built up an expertise in tram schemes through projects in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Tees Valley as well as Edinburgh.

1.2 The projects I have been instrumental in include highway schemes,

heavy rail schemes and light rail. Within the Edinburgh Tram Line 1 (ETL1) scheme I have taken the role of Stakeholder Manager for the technical support team. I have been actively involved with liaison groups aimed at informing the community and stakeholders on the process and progress of the proposed tram scheme currently before the Scottish Parliament.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Restriction of access to property 3. Restriction of access to property

No requirement to permanently acquire access.

1

3.1 The area of land specified in Plot 30 will not be required as a permanent acquisition. The land is identified so that roadworks associated with the tram can be undertaken at the entrance to Tower Street. The promoter is prepared to give an undertaking that the land is not to be permanently acquired.

Proposals for access during construction

3.2 The objector is also concerned that access to Tower Street will be impacted upon by the construction works for the tram.

3.3 Disruption during construction works, including the issue of accesses to

properties and businesses, including footways, is addressed by the promoter by the establishment of suitable codes and contractual requirements. The promoter recognises that the carrying out of a large construction project such as the Edinburgh Tram has the potential for causing disruption to residents and businesses. It is the promoter's contention that the long-term benefits of the scheme will far outweigh any short term inconvenience, nevertheless the promoter has sought to minimise inconvenience and to mitigate problems by creating a Code of Construction Practice [CoCP].

3.4 The CoCP is based on experience of other large construction projects,

particularly the tram schemes built in Croydon, Manchester, Nottingham and planned for Liverpool. The CoCP for Merseytram (Liverpool) was considered during the Public Inquiry of the Merseytram Draft Order deposited under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure. The inspector subsequently reported that the draft order, including the CoCP, should be confirmed and the Secretary of State subsequently followed the inspectors advice.

3.5 The CoCP has been subject to appraisal by all the parties involved in developing the project including tie, the City of Edinburgh Council and the professional advisors to the scheme.

3.6 The CoCP requires that the Contractor shall comply with the CoCP and with all relevant Legislation, Codes, Standards and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive and HM Railway Inspectorate.

3.7 The CoCP sets strict requirements on the Contractor in relation to Roads, Footpaths and Cycleways. S.5.2 of the code states ‘Pedestrian access to properties shall be maintained at all times where practicable unless otherwise agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council and the owners and tenants of affected properties’ . It goes on to state ‘Wherever…works interfere with…ways over which the public have a right of way… the Contractor shall construct diversion ways as necessary’.

2

3.8 Diversions will have to be ‘suitable in all respects for the…traffic using the existing ways’ and ‘the widths of the diversions shall not be less than that of the existing way’

3.9 Diversions to footways that are currently suitable accessible to wheelchairs and pushchairs shall continue to be useable by such users where reasonably practicable [s 5.4 (a)]. Other footways shall be of standards equal to current best standards.

3.10 All diversions will be lit and signed to standards set by the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.1/5.4 (f)]

3.11 At the end of diversions the roads and footways will be restored to a standard agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council [s. 5.5]

3.12 The Contractor will provide an Information Centre and Website to provide information on diversions. They will also publish a weekly newsletter, in hard copy and electronically ‘detailing works to be undertaken in the forthcoming week and outlining, with appropriate maps and diagrams, any alterations to road traffic circulation patterns required by the coming week’s work’ [s. 2.1/2.2].

3.13 Additionally s. 4.4 (b) requires the setting up of a complaints Hotline to ensure that any problems are quickly attended to [ s. 2.3].

3.14 Compliance with CoCP will be a requirement of all the construction contracts.

3.15 My colleague Scott McIntosh can provide further information on measures taken to address potential impacts during construction, if required.

4. Conclusion 4.1 The promoter is prepared to give an undertaking that the land will not

be permanently acquired. 4.2 The Promoter does not intend to permanently stop up access to the

Tower Street and is prepared to give an undertaking to that effect. 4.2 It is believed that the measures in the CoCP, taken as a package, will

reduce interference to adjoining frontagers and businesses to an absolute minimum and will enable access during construction to be maintained at all times, as far as is reasonably practical, and arrangements will be made in consultation with the residents concerned.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005

3

GROUP 29

OBJECTOR NO: 45 KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 -JOHN CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 - INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT RAHUL BIJLANI

Compensation, planning and listed building controls

1 Resume

1.1 I am Rahul W Bijlani. I am a lawyer with Bircham Dyson Bell, Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents who drafted the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill. I am a qualified barrister with 6 years experience in major projects work, including planning, compulsory purchase and compensation issues, and I have particular experience of transport projects. At Bircham Dyson Bell I have worked on a number of light rail and tram schemes in England, as well as being involved in the Edinburgh Tram project since its inception.

2 Scope of Evidence

2.1 My evidence addresses:

(a) whether the Bill contains adequate mechanisms for compensation; and

(b) whether the Bill unfairly avoids planning and listed building controls.

3 Bill contains inadequate compensation provisions

3.1 The Bill provides for compensation to be paid on the same basis as it is available under the general law in Scotland in similar circumstances. In respect of those persons having land or rights in land acquired, the Bill adopts the standard procedure for assessing compensation, which is contained in existing legislation, particularly the Lands Clauses Acts and the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. This means that the Bill is subject to all the same procedural rules, safeguards and requirements regarding compensation as apply in respect of any other compulsory purchase in Scotland. Disputes about the amount of compensation are referred to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, again in accordance with the usual procedure.

3.2 Where a person is not having land acquired, the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 applies. This makes provision for the payment (in certain circumstances) of compensation to landowners in respect of the diminution in value of their land by certain physical factors including noise, vibration, fumes, smoke and lighting, caused by the use of public works (i.e. works operated or used in pursuance of statutory powers). This position applies in respect of the

construction of the tram as it does in respect of other public works, including roads, airports and the like, and the Promoter is not seeking to modify or exclude its liability under this Act.

3.3 Moreover, the Promoter is applying a number of safeguards to minimise potential nuisance during construction and operation of the tram, as set out in the Environmental Statement, the Code of Construction Practice and the Noise Policy. In addition Section 61 of the Bill allows a scheme for the insulation of buildings against noise caused by the use of the tram system.

3.4 Insofar as a person is affected by having equipment attached to their property under section 15 of the Bill, the Bill provides (in addition to a notice procedure whereby the owner of a building may object to the attachment of apparatus) that the owners of such a building will be compensated for loss suffered as a result of the attachment, to be assessed in accordance with the usual provisions for determining the amount of compensation and disputes about compensation.

4 The Bill unfairly avoids planning controls

4.1 By virtue of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 any development specifically authorised by private Act is, subject to approval by the local planning authority of certain matters of detail, deemed to be granted planning permission. Section 70 of the Bill makes it clear that, save in respect of this deemed planning permission, and any other specific restrictions in the Bill (in particular, listed buildings and conservation controls, which I discuss below), the general planning regime applies. As regards planning, therefore, the Promoter is simply seeking to apply the general law. Any objector is able to raise planning issues as part of their objection and have these issues considered as part of the private Bill process.

5 The Bill unfairly avoids listed building and conservation area controls

5.1 Section 69 of the Bill deals with works required to listed buildings for the construction of the tram. The effects of the section are threefold. The principal exclusion of listed buildings controls is in respect of the buildings or structures (of which there are four) specified in Schedule 10 of the Bill. In respect of these structures, specified works may be carried out without seeking a separate listed building consent, and such works will immune from listed building enforcement action. In only two cases under Schedule 10 (steps and lamp at Haymarket Terrace and the Caledonian Ale House) is demolition permitted, the other works being the alteration of the former railway bridge at Roseburn Terrance and the repositioning of the Heart of Midlothian War Memorial at Haymarket. This provision has been used previously in England and Wales, and was enacted in similar form in the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements (Scotland) Act 2004.

5.2 Secondly, the affixing of apparatus to listed buildings pursuant to Section 15 of the Bill is generally permitted, and made immune from enforcement action, save in respect of any listed buildings set out in Part 2 of Schedule 10 of the Bill. The owner of an affected building is entitled to compensation as described above.

5.3 Thirdly, conservation area consent will not be required in respect of the demolition of (the four) buildings set out in Part 1 of Schedule 10, and any building included in a conservation area after the Bill is enacted.

5.4 Any other works not falling within the scope of the above three exemptions will therefore have to be the subject of an application to the local planning authority for listed building consent or conservation area consent respectively.

5.5 In the Promoter’s submission it is right that these issues be dealt with during the private Bill process. Any objector is able to raise such issues as part of their objection and have those objections considered. Were these matters dealt with separately to the private Bill process, not only the Promoter, but the Parliament as decision-making body, and objectors, could be disadvantaged.

5.6 Parliament would be asked to authorise the construction and operation of a tram scheme without assessing the implications for listed buildings. Parliament would also be faced with the possibility of its will being thwarted if, once the Bill was enacted, the Promoter failed to achieve the required listed building consents.

5.7 In addition, those wishing to object on listed buildings issues may find themselves faced with what appears to be a “fait accompli”. If power to demolish a listed building in the route of the tram were not sought by the Bill, but left to the general law, there would be no opportunity for to object on those grounds as part of the private Bill process. In a subsequent listed buildings application those wishing to object would find the demolition of the building required for a scheme which already had statutory authority.

Rahul Bijlani Lawyer Bircham Dyson Bell 4 July 2005

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 045 KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT ROGER JONES Impact of OLE

Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Recognition of the importance of appropriate and unobtrusive design of

the OLE within sensitive urban environments 4. Alternatives to traction supply via overhead line 5. How the visual impact can be mitigated 6. Lessons learned from other projects 7. How the visual impact will be mitigated in Edinburgh 8. Conclusions

1. Résumé

1.1 I am Roger Jones and I am employed by Transport Initiatives Edinburgh as Acting Design Manager for the Implementation of the Edinburgh Tram Project. I have a BSc (Hons) in Mechanical Engineering, having graduated in 1977. I am an Associate Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I am currently seconded to tie from Transdev plc, who I joined in early 2005 from Parsons Brinckerhoff, the Consulting Engineers. I have previously been employed by Gibb Ltd, Kennedy & Donkin, London Transport and the Docklands Light Railway, in design and implementation of light rail transit systems and tramways.

1.2 I have recently been acting as the Lender's Technical Adviser for the Nottingham Express Transit Project, part of the procurement team for the proposed South Hampshire Rapid Transit and Merseytram projects and am currently developing engineering solutions for the Edinburgh Tramway project.

1.3 As part of my work on various tramway schemes, I have been part of the teams producing the integrated design for the infrastructure and have reviewed those designs on behalf of the client. I have acquired

Page 1 of 17

considerable knowledge of the issues surrounding the production of Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) layouts and detailed designs.

2 Scope of Evidence

2.1 My evidence concerns the visual impact of the Overhead Line Equipment (OLE), the design process and the opportunities to minimise the visual impact.

2.2 I do not address any specific location in my evidence; rather I illustrate the approach to be taken which tie and the promoter believe will achieve the best result for Edinburgh Line One.

3 Recognition of the importance of appropriate and unobtrusive design of the OLE within sensitive urban environments

3.1 Operation of the trams on the system requires electricity to be supplied to them. Virtually every tramway system around the world uses power transmission by overhead contact wires, energised at around 600-750 volts direct current.

3.2 These contact wires and their supports clearly have a visual impact on the streetscape through which they pass. Depending on the system, attempts may or may not have been made to mitigate the impact in the design approach adopted. The approach taken where an extension to an existing, long established system is constructed may be different to that adopted on a brand new system. Equally, the approach in an area sensitive for historic, or contemporary, architectural reasons may be different to each other and from locations without these sensitivities. The system promoter may wish the overhead line equipment to be unobtrusive or to make a positive statement about the system.

3.3 tie recognises that Edinburgh has many areas of sensitive historic urban environment and that the OLE design must be appropriate to its setting in these areas. It is also the case that there are a number of different settings through the route of Line One and that, accordingly, alternative approaches respecting these different areas will be required.

3.4 It is widely agreed that the second generation tramways in the UK have achieved a varying degree of success with the OLE design and its integration into the streetscape and other areas. I am aware of all these examples and many of the reasons why the OLE has been constructed to the design which can now be seen.

Page 2 of 17

3.5 There are many reasons for a perceived failure to produce the most appropriate design. These include lack of appropriate experience on the part of the designers, cost, insufficient control through the contractual structure, and lack of identification or specification of the required result. These reasons and the lessons to be learned are discussed in more detail in Section 6.

4 Alternatives to traction supply via overhead line

4.1 A number of recently-constructed and planned systems in French have considered so-called "wire-free" traction supply equipment for areas where the visual intrusion of conventional OLE has been considered unacceptable. Alternative approaches have been and continue to be considered. The only system currently in normal service is in Bordeaux. The areas involved only relate to small sections of each project.

4.2 The range of technical options under consideration and/or development can be broken down into three broad categories; alternative current collection, energy storage, and the use of an alternative prime-mover.

4.3 The best known approach in alternative current collection has been the adoption of the APS (Alimentation par Sol) ground level current collection system for a number of sections of the network in Bordeaux, France. This works by providing an additional continuous steel plate between the rails, sections of which are energised underneath the tram as it passes over and current is then picked up by a collector underneath the vehicle. The principal issues of concern with this system are safety, reliability, increases in journey time, and in procurement, since it is a proprietary solution.

4.4 Safety concerns relate to the absolute assurance that sections of surface-mounted metal plate can only be energised when fully underneath a tram; and to the presence of the metal plate in sections of track where general traffic shares the lane with trams. Reported reliability figures have improved but still fall far short of equivalent figures for equivalent systems with OLE. The provision of a highly reliable service is one of the key aims of the Edinburgh Tram scheme. One key difference between Bordeaux and Edinburgh is the weather, with more frequent rain, and the application of road "salt" in the winter. There is some increase in journey time due to the need to change between the two current collection systems when stationary, although this is limited as it would normally be carried out when at a tramstop, assuming the layout design permits this. The technical product is proprietary to one manufacturer (Alstom). This would eliminate the competition in the procurement process for this element of the equipment. Apart from the

Page 3 of 17

intrinsic substantially greater cost of the equipment, the lack of competition means that prices will be higher, not only for the initial supply, but also and possibly more significantly for the provision of further equipment for extensions and for the supply of spare parts. This issue in procurement affects not only the current supply and collection equipment, but potentially also the tram vehicles.

4.5 An alternative approach to a similar concept was developed by Ansaldo in Italy (Known as "Stream"), with separated, rather than continuous, surface-mounted steel plates. Continuous current collection was to be supplied by the current collector on the vehicle being in contact with two such plates at all times. All the concerns raised with the APS system also apply to this system, with an additional concern over the continuous current carrying capacity. A trial was carried out with a trolleybus in Trieste in Italy but I understand that this has been discontinued and the system is not being pursued further.

4.6 The second category of proposed technical approach is to adopt on-board energy storage so that the vehicle can operate independently of the OLE over a section of the route. Batteries can be used for such energy storage and I understand that the new tramway being constructed in Nice, France is to use this approach, albeit over a short and relatively level section of no more than 600m. The principal issues of concern with this approach are increases in journey time, lack of performance and the results of failures.

4.7 The concerns are effectively all linked to the low storage capacity available. There is only limited space and weight available on board the vehicle. Only a limited distance, a limited speed and with limits to the gradients are available and there is the possibility of a vehicle being stranded away from the current supply system.

4.8 One alternative to batteries is a flywheel unit. Such a unit has been trialled on an Alstom tram in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, all the same issues of limited energy storage capacity apply equally to this approach.

4.9 The final alternative to batteries is the use of capacitors for the energy storage. This is at a relatively early of development, although a trial has been carried out by Bombardier on a tram in Mannheim, Germany. Again the same concerns apply and it is too early to comment on whether the approach will prove better than the others. It should be noted that the installation is intended initially to achieve economies in the overall traction power supply system and not to replace current collection from OLE.

Page 4 of 17

4.10 The third approach is to provide an alternative prime mover on board the vehicle; that is to provide dual power sources. This would normally be a diesel engine, coupled to a generator of electricity that can take the place of the electricity supplied by the OLE. There is clearly a significant cost in providing another power source and the available performance will be restricted by the weight, cost and space penalties, in relation to the small proportion of the route over which the alternative power source will be used. In addition there is the pollution from noise and exhaust that will result in the location where it is used, negating one of the advantages of an electrically-driven vehicle in a city environment.

4.11 To my knowledge, no city is contemplating the use of dual-powered vehicles to replace OLE in the city; rather the application is to allow services from long or infrequent regional routes access over a city tramway, where a diesel vehicle would not be acceptable, to provide better links to central areas.

4.12 tie has been keeping developments in this area under review and will have to make a decision in principle on whether any of the approaches outlined would be appropriate to be followed in the design process at the correct point in the project programme in relation to both design tasks and decisions on the procurement process. At the time of preparation of this statement, it is tie's view that none of the systems offer a practicable alternative to OLE for the Edinburgh Tram project.

4.13 The factors taken into account in the decision may be summarised as:

• Safety, particularly for other users of the street area

• Reliability, as a key target in the service to be offered, including when there are faults

• Run time, also as part of offering a fast, attractive service

• Capacity and Performance, affecting run time and to minimise delays to buses and other traffic

• Ability to procure equipment competitively, reducing both initial and ongoing costs

5 How the visual impact can be mitigated

5.1 The principal elements of the OLE are the contact wires along the tracks and the support system. The supports may be cantilever arms mounted on poles or wires strung across the alignment between poles and/or fixings to buildings. There are also a large number of individual

Page 5 of 17

components that are assembled to create the complete OLE system, including insulators, contact wire sectioning insulators, cables to feed the contact wire, tensioning and adjustment devices, etc.

5.2 The OLE taken as a whole, in combination with the substations, feeder cables, and the rails themselves forms a complete electrical system and it is important to optimise the system from a number of viewpoints including visual impact. Many components are only available economically in standard sizes and designs and the aim must be to select the optimum combination of these components. For instance, a smaller standard cross-section of the contact wire can be selected if the current carrying capacity required along the route is provided by a combination of the contact wires and an electrically parallel feeder cable running in underground ducting along the route and periodically connected to the contact wires.

5.3 In any particular localised area, the support for the contact wires may be provided from poles directly, cross-span wires or a combination. Tramway junctions and curvature, both horizontal and vertical, create a need for more supports than a straight section of route. Cross-spans may be supported from poles or building fixings. Minimising the number of poles is not necessarily the right approach since this will lead to poles of larger cross-section. The best result for a particular location will be determined by taking all these options into account in reaching the most appropriate balance.

5.4 The poles themselves may have different shapes and be painted in colours appropriate to the location.

5.5 Where there is a choice of materials for components, is also important to take visual intrusion as one of the selection criteria.

5.6 The OLE forms just part of the equipment located in a section of street or other area through which the tram route runs. An integrated approach to the design of the area, incorporating the tramway equipment and, where possible, equipment for other purposes is also very important in minimising visual intrusion. Two groups of equipment are particularly relevant. Streetlighting may be combined with OLE poles, although the spacing and height requirements of streetlighting are often different to that of the overhead line and compromises have to be made. There is however only a limited possibility to integrate highway signage with OLE poles due to the very specific locations required for such signage.

6 Lessons learned from other projects

Page 6 of 17

6.1 The specification of what is required must be made in considerable detail in advance if a desired result is to be achieved.

6.2 The OLE design must be considered initially as part of the overall electrical system for traction power supply.

6.3 There must be a strong control on the approvals process for the design, but without introducing undue delays into the project programme.

6.4 The designer must have appropriate experience of the type of route being implemented. The selection of the designer cannot however be made independently in an overall consortium approach to procurement.

6.5 The designer must also understand the overall design and approval approach being taken for the project and must typically commit to an iterative, staged approach, of which they may not have experience.

6.6 To maximise the number of building fixings achievable in construction, where these are desired, negotiations must commence well in advance so that agreements can be reached.

6.7 The designers must apply the most appropriate form of OLE to the location and anticipated operating requirements, thereby avoiding over-design. Similarly, the design standards adopted should be reviewed critically for their appropriate application to the system.

6.8 There are also a number of specific technical lessons that have been learnt. The most relevant to the visual impact are the form of the poles and their painting, and the integration of streetlighting and OLE poles. In general, round section poles, with those of larger diameter stepped with reducing diameters for the higher parts have been regarded as preferable visually, although other options have, I believe, been used successfully. Painting may be either light or dark, depending on the context. Successful integration with streetlighting usually requires a comprehensive design approach in a particular location to achieve the best results.

7 How the visual impacts will be mitigated in Edinburgh

7.1 The detailed design of the Edinburgh tram is to be contracted directly by tie, and carried out in a priority sequence so that the maximum amount of detail will be established and approved before a contract is let for construction.

Page 7 of 17

7.2 Each individual pole has been defined by CEC as requiring prior planning approval. This will ensure that the design is assessed in detail through the approvals process.

7.3 The Design Manual [P50/21] sets out general requirements for the OLE design. A revision to the document has been prepared and is to be considered by the City of Edinburgh Planning Committee with the intention of release for further consultation. The aims of the revision include making the requirements and the approvals process clearer.

7.4 The application of the Design Manual will be considered by a Design Working Group involving tie and the promoter, the planning authority, the transportation department of the Council, the designers, and key third parties such as Historic Scotland.

7.5 The design process will be staged with localised areas defined and considered as a whole to determine the most appropriate format for the OLE layout including the potential for the use of building fixings,

7.6 The guidance to the designers and the subsequent design reviews and approvals will be carried out within tie by staff who have had experience of the process in other UK systems and understand the lessons learned and the options for mitigation of the visual intrusion.

7.7 The resulting designs will be defined in detail to the contractors as part of the tender process and the site works will be monitored for compliance with the design.

7.8 tie also intend to make the best use of experience, through the appointed operator (Transdev), from recent new systems constructed in France such as Nantes, Orléans, Grenoble and Strasbourg. We believe it is generally acknowledged that some very good results have been achieved on these systems.

8 Conclusions

8.1 The concerns raised these objections to the Line One Bill are acknowledged and understood.

8.2 We trust that the foregoing gives sufficient information to show that tie and the promoter take the issue of the visual intrusion of the Overhead Line Equipment seriously and is approaching the design and procurement in a way that will allow the best result to be achieved.

Page 8 of 17

Annex of Photographs to illustrate a selection of issues in the application of OLE on recently-constructed tramways

Sheffield: Tramstop in a pedestrianised area. Relatively heavy contact wires with suspension from a mixture of poles and building fixings. Poles painted black in this location outside the Cathedral, as with the streetlighting (visible pole) and other fittings.

Page 9 of 17

Croydon: A single track section on a steep downgrade in a pedestrianised area. Heavy contact wire suspended from cantilever on pole where building fixing option not available on the one side. Pole of round section, painted in a dark shade and placed at the back of the pavement.

Page 10 of 17

Nottingham: Route near tramstop in an area with limited traffic access. Lighter contact wires, mostly supported from building fixings.

Page 11 of 17

Dublin: Terminus and tramstop in an architecturally-sensitive area. Poles of round section in light colour. Contact wires supported from long cantilevers over both tracks. Additional complication due to track crossovers for the terminus. Poles placed in line with newly-planted trees.

Page 12 of 17

Grenoble, France: Pedestrianised area with curvature. Again, relatively heavy contact wires, mostly supported form building fixings.

Page 13 of 17

Nantes, France: Tramstop in segregated area. Central pole with cantilevers each side to support the contact wires. Pole is of H section and is painted black.

Page 14 of 17

Strasbourg, France: Tramstop on bridge with road traffic to the outside. Simple contact wire supported from long span cross wires.

Page 15 of 17

Orléans, France: Tramstop in historic street, shared with limited road traffic. Simple contact wire suspended from cross-spans attached to building fixings.

Page 16 of 17

Montpellier, France: Tramstop in pedestrianised historic square. Contact wires suspended from long cross-spans from poles (out of view).

Page 17 of 17

1

GROUP 29

OBJECTION NO: 45 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 - CRASKE OBJECTION NO: 207 – INNES PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT STEVE MITCHELL

1 Resume

1.1 My name is Steve Mitchell. I hold an Honours Degree in Physics with Modern Acoustics. I am a Member of the Institute of Acoustics and I serve on the committee of the Institute’s Environmental Noise Group. I have worked in the field of environmental noise for 17 years specialising in the effects of transportation noise and vibration. I have published 10 academic papers on various aspects of transportation noise. I have lectured on the effects of transport noise at South Bank University, London. I have also managed major community noise research projects for the UK government.

1.2 I am a Principal Consultant with Environmental Resources Management

(ERM). In that capacity I am responsible for a team of acousticians assessing environmental noise impacts from a wide range of developments. I have assessed noise impacts from over 30 railway systems including 8 new light rail or tram proposals for the Docklands Light Railway in London, Centro in Birmingham, Merseytravel in Liverpool, and Nottingham Express Transit in Nottingham.

2 Scope of Evidence

2.1 Group 29’s Witness Summary is very specific. It suggests that there is insufficient information from the promoter on noise and vibration effects and directly requests that further investigations are carried out to demonstrate whether or not noise generated by the tram will elevate existing noise levels by 3dB or more inside and outside the windows at the following addresses:

• 38/2 Queen Charlotte Street, on the junction of Queen Charlotte

Street and Constitution Street; and • 8 Constitution Street.

2.2 My evidence addresses this. I consider tram noise and noise from the

depot at these two locations. 3 Further Work Carried out Since the Environmental Statement (ES)

3.1 It is not possible for the promoter to carry out specific noise impact

assessments for every property along the route. Neither is it necessary since large groups of receptors will experience very similar impacts. This is

2

why the accepted approach to environmental impacts assessments in such circumstances is to consider a selection of representative noise sensitive receptors along the route; each representing a group of similarly affected receptors. This is the approach my team took in the ES, to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers.

3.2 The houses in Constitution Street are some of the closest to the proposed

tramway and, following discussions with Mr Craske, further assessment work has been carried out focusing on the early morning and late evening time periods when impacts are most likely. 38/2 Queen Charlotte Street will be closer to the tram track than 8 Constitution Street, so I report on tram noise levels at this location. 8 Constitution Street will be closer to the depot, so I report on depot noise at this location.

4 Tram Noise at 38/2 Queen Charlotte Street

4.1 The noise assessment reported in the ES, considers two representative receptors in this part of Constitution Street, Number 30 and Number 137. Number 137 is closer to the tracks, it will be exposed to higher tram noise levels, and hence greater potential noise impacts. The assessment results from the ES for this location are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 137 Constitution Street: Ambient and Tram Noise Levels (From

ES)

Noise Metric Ambient Level (dB)

Tram Noise Level (dB)

Change due to Tram (dB)

Daytime LAeq, 1 hour 65 63 1.9 Night-time LAeq, 1 hour 63 60 1.7 Daytime LAmax, 10 minute 76 – 80 82 +2 Night-time LAmax, 10 minute 81 – 82 82 No Change

LAeq, T This metric is called the continuous equivalent sound level. It is recommended noise metric for railway noise that represents a varying noise level by calculating the constant noise level that would have the same energy content over the measurement time period. The letter ‘A’ denotes that ‘A’-weighting has been used and ‘eq’ indicates that an equivalent level has been calculated. Hence, LAeq, T is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level, measured over time period ‘T’.

LAmax This is a measure of the ‘peak’ in a varying sound signal and is the maximum A-

weighted noise level, LAmax. For tram noise, it is the highest level experience when the vehicle passes directly in front of the receptor location.

4.2 The greatest predicted changes in LAeq, 1 hour or LAmax noise levels are up to

2dB. Given that changes in environmental noise levels of less than 3 decibels are generally not perceptible, these small increases will not lead to significant noise impacts at this location.

4.3 In response to Mr Craske’s particular concern over noise levels in the first

and last hours of service; 0500-0600 hours and 2330 to 0030 hours, and

3

the known variance in LAmax levels in particular, further baseline noise surveys were carried out on Constitution Street in the vicinity of the junction with Queen Charlotte Street in these periods. Further tram noise predictions were also carried out at the same distance from the tracks as Mr Craske’s property and at the lower tram speed through the junction. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Constitution Street/Charlotte Street Junction: Ambient and Tram Noise Levels

Noise Metric Ambient

Level (dB) Tram Noise Level (dB)

Change due to Tram (dB)

Night-time 2330-0030 LAeq, 1 hr 63 58 1.1 Night-time 2330-0030 LAmax 67-86 84 No change Night-time 0500-0600 LAeq, 1 hr 63 58 1.1 Night-time 0500-0600 LAmax 54 – 89 84 No change

LAmax measurements between the period 0000 – 0100 consisted of 10 x 1 minute samples LAmax measurements between the period 0500 – 0600 consisted of 30 x 1 minute samples

4.4 This assessment of tram noise at the junction of Constitution Street and

Queen Charlotte Street shows the same result as reported at the representative receptors in the ES; noise increases of less than 3dB, and hence no significant noise impact. The results of this further investigation into ambient noise levels in the first and last hour of operation during the night also further illustrated that ambient noise conditions in the first and last hour of operation are similar, and that whilst ambient LAmax levels are variable between sample periods they are higher than those predicted from the tram.

5 Depot Noise at 8 Constitution Street

5.1 The ES reported a preliminary assessment of noise impacts from the depot based on preliminary information on the depot layout and facilities. In particular it assumed that in the worst case the noisiest facilities could be located in the part of the site closest to the residential receptors in Constitution Street and it also made no allowance for mitigation measures in the design of the facility. The ES also noted that a further noise assessment would be required when the design has progressed in order to develop mitigation measures to reduce noise levels at sensitive receptors.

5.2 The noise sources within the depot can be considered in two categories;

those within buildings and those outside. This is an important distinction because internal noise sources will be mitigated by careful design of the buildings and their services, whereas for external noise sources mitigation measures are more limited. It is therefore the outside sources that are the main concern at this stage. The main external noise sources are tram movements and washing facilities.

4

5.3 Tram noise within the depot will be centred around the stabling sidings, at least 150m from the houses on Constitution Street. I have carried out further noise measurements at a tram depot since the publication of the ES, and these indicate a noise level of approximately LAeq, period 40 dB at the nearest house in Constitution Street, assuming there is no screening from intervening structures. I would expect the noise level at 8 Constitution Street to be lower than this due to screening. The ES reported measurements of ambient noise levels taken at hourly intervals throughout the night at Constitution Place, near the entrance to the depot and representative of the noise climate at Number 8 Constitution Street. The lowest LAeq, 10minute levels were 57-59 dB between 0230 and 0430 hours.

5.4 Noise from the stabling sidings at approximately LAeq, period 40 dB would make no significant addition to this ambient noise level. I would expect the design of the buildings to attenuate internal noise sources to achieve similar levels, so that the increase in LAeq period noise levels at Number 8 Constitution Street will be very small, and certainly will be less than 3dB.

6 Proposed Amendments to the Bill

6.1 Paragraph 3.4 of the objector’s Witness Summary suggests a requirement to investigate complaints quickly, and gives as an example, the need for night noise complaints to be investigated within, say, 24 hours. Section 2.4 of the (now published) CoCP gives exactly that requirement.

6.2 The Witness Summary includes further proposed amendments to the Bill

(paragraphs 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7) that support use of the CoCP (not issued at the time of the Witness Summary) and the N&V Policy including the Noise Insulation Scheme.

GROUP 29 OBJECTION NO: 045 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 ... · SCOTT MCINTOSH Construction Contents 1....

Documents

Transcript of GROUP 29 OBJECTION NO: 045 - KEEN OBJECTION NO: 156 ... · SCOTT MCINTOSH Construction Contents 1....