ED2/S2/05/8/A

EDINBURGH TRAM (LINE TWO) BILL COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee

8th Meeting, 2005 (Session 2)

22 June 2005 The Committee will meet at 9.30 am in Committee Room 1. 1. Consideration Stage: The Committee will take evidence on the Bill at

Consideration Stage from—

Group 8: New Town, Broughton and Pilrig Community Council

Promoter’s witnesses—

Brian Evans, Partner, Gillespies llp Aileen Grant, Principal Planner, City Development Department, The City of Edinburgh Council Andrew J Oldfield, Divisional Director, Mott MacDonald Steve Mitchell, Principal Consultant, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Stuart Turnbull, Divisional Director, Jacobs Babtie

Objector’s witnesses—

Alan Welsh, New Town, Broughton and Pilrig Community Council David Todd, Treasurer, Dublin Street Residents’ Association

Group 9: Scottish Rugby Union

Promoter’s witnesses—

Gavin Murray, Project Manager, Edinburgh Tram Line Two

ED2/S2/05/8/A

Aileen Grant, Principal Planner, City Development Department, The City of Edinburgh Council

Jim Harries, Project Engineer, Transdev

Objector’s witnesses—

Graham Ireland, Finance Director, SRU Mark Fisher, Director, CarlBro

Group 17: Mr & Mrs R.J. & J.B McLean

Promoter’s witnesses—

Gavin Murray, Project Manager, Edinburgh Tram Line Two

Archibald B Rintoul, District Valuer, Scotland South East Valuation Office

Objector’s witnesses—

John Kennedy, Cowan & Partners Simon Dormer, John MacGregor & Co Keith Watters, Graham & Sibbald Roddy McLean, JB McLean Interiors

Groups 10 - 16 and 18 – 21: Vanguard Rental (UK) Ltd; Murrayfield Indoor Sports Club; Mr Frank Early; Stepgrade Motor Accessories Ltd/Viking International; Mr Mohammed Khalil; Collinsons Ceramics; Mr W Kelly; Ms P Dewar; Mr B Ronald; MRM Coachworks; UGC Properties Ltd and Partco Ltd.

Promoter’s witnesses—

Gavin Murray, Project Manager, Edinburgh Tram Line Two

Archibald B Rintoul, District Valuer, Scotland South East Valuation Office

Matthew Edgar, Director, Colliers CRE, Chartered Surveyors and Property Consultants

John Hyde, Fabermaunsell

Group 22: Jenners

Promoter’s witnesses—

ED2/S2/05/8/A

Gavin Murray, Project Manager, Edinburgh Tram Line Two Geoff Duke, Project Manager, (Tram Line 2) John Hyde, Fabermaunsell

Group 23: Beauchamp

Promoter’s witnesses—

Gavin Murray, Project Manager, Edinburgh Tram Line Two

2. Proposed route changes: The Committee will consider a paper by the clerk.

3. Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill (in private): The Committee will consider evidence taken during the day.

Terry Shevlin

Senior Assistant Clerk Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee

Room T2.60 Scottish Parliament EH99 1EP

terry.shevlin@scottish.parliament.uk

ED2/S2/05/8/A

The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 1

Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 8 ED2/S2/05/8/1Rebuttal Statements from Group 8 ED2/S2/05/8/2Objector’s Witness Statements: Group 8 ED2/S2/05/8/3Rebuttal Statements from the promoter for Group 8 ED2/S2/05/8/4Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 9 ED2/S2/05/8/5Rebuttal Statements from Group 9 ED2/S2/05/8/6 ED2/S2/05/8/6 ED2/S2/05/8/6Objector’s Witness Statements: Group 9 ED2/S2/05/8/7Rebuttal Statements from the promoter for Group 9 ED2/S2/05/8/8Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 17 ED2/S2/05/8/9Rebuttal Statements from Group 17 ED2/S2/05/8/10Objector’s Witness Statements: Group 17 ED2/S2/05/8/11Rebuttal Statements from the promoter for Group 17 ED2/S2/05/8/12Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 10 ED2/S2/05/8/13Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 11 ED2/S2/05/8/14Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 12 ED2/S2/05/8/15Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 13 ED2/S2/05/8/16Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 14 ED2/S2/05/8/17Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 15 ED2/S2/05/8/18Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 16 ED2/S2/05/8/19Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 18 ED2/S2/05/8/20Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 19 ED2/S2/05/8/21Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 20 ED2/S2/05/8/22Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 21 ED2/S2/05/8/23Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 22 ED2/S2/05/8/24Promoter’s Witness Statements: Group 23 ED2/S2/05/8/25 Agenda item 2

Papers from the clerk ED2/S2/05/8/26 ED2/S2/05/8/26A The following objections, while not Committee papers, will be relevant to the meeting’s proceedings. They can all be found at this weblink: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/b18/index.htm —

Patricia Dewar Mr Frank Earley Stepgrade Motor Accessories Limited New Town, Broughton and Pilrig Community Council Mr and Mrs R McLean Collinsons Ceramics (Scotland) Limited

ED2/S2/05/8/A

Mohammed Khalil Gray’s Mill Coachworks (Mr B Ronald) Beauchamp Investments Limited Scottish Rugby Union plc MRM Coachworks Ltd UGC Properties Limited Partco Limited Vanguard Rental (UK) Limited Jenners Princes Street Edinburgh Limited Murrayfield Indoor Sports Club Custom Projects Limited (Mr W Kelly) ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS The following documents, while not Committee papers, may be referred to during the meeting’s proceedings—

Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Environmental Statement Parliamentary Plans and Sections Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill New Town, Broughton and Pilrig Community Council – extract from “Today’s Railway” and letters from A Welsh

New Town, Broughton and Pilrig Community Council - map SRU Operational Safety Manual SRU Safety & Security Officer - Roles and Responsibilities SRU: Murrayfield Stadium - Grounds Contingency Plan P19/1 Systems Report, Faber Maunsell, November 2003 P19/3 Figures showing alternative route options P19/4 Preferred Route Corridor Report, Faber Maunsell, November 2003

P19/5 Talktime Leaflet Line 2 P19/6 Plan 30894/MMH/C107 Revision C P19/7 Route Development Report Part A Design Pause, plan 30894/MMH/C108 Revision A

P19/8 Route Development Report Part B Route Finalisation P19/9 Plan 30894/C18 Revision D P19/10 Plan 30894/C101 Revision A P19/11 Conversion of Guideway to Tram Trackbed, November 2002

P19/12 Figure showing conversion of as built WEBs P19/13 Figure showing route options considered to the east end of the scheme

P19/14 Stop Plan P19/15 Drawing showing access arrangements P19/16 Code of Construction Practice P9/15 Drawing P343 (1) P9/16 Drawing P343 (2) P9/17 Depot Strategy Report P9/18 Design Manual P9/19 Drawing showing revised LOD and LLAU P9/21 Special Events Management at Murrayfield

ED2/S2/05/8/A

P9/25 Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015 P9/26 Central Edinburgh Local Plan 1997 P9/27 Section 50 Agreement P9/28 Classes 14 and 29, Part 11 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992

P9/30 SPP17 Addendum to NPPG 17 Transport and Planning Maximum Parking Standards

P8/1 Design Manual P8/2 Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design, The City of Edinburgh Council City Development Department: Planning and Strategy August 2003

P8/7 System Aspirational Objectives, The City of Edinburgh Council

P8/8 Minute of the Planning Committee 5 February 2004 P8/9 Class 29, Part 11 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992

P8/10 Planning Committee Report 5 February 2004 P8/12 Planning Committee Report 26 May 2005 P8/13 Work Package One Report, Chapter 3 Appendix A P8/14 The City of Edinburgh Council Local Transport Strategy 2001-2004

P8/15 Full Council Report 13 November 2003 P18/17 Noise and Vibration Policy P18/18 British Standard BS5228 P18/19 Calculation of Railway Noise P18/20 Guided Transport Systems) P18/21 British Standard BS7385 P18/22 Assessment of Vibration from Manchester Metrolink P18/23 British Standard BS6472 P22/13 Baird Drive alignments P22/14 Baird Drive alignment P22/23 SDD Circular 21/1984 Part III P22/24 Letter from Andrew Holmes Director of City Development to Geoff Duke tie dated 18 May 2005

ED2/S2/05/8/26

Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill Committee

Alternative Alignments: Promoter’s Memorandum Introduction

1. On 2 June, the City of Edinburgh Council agreed to recommend to the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee certain realignments to the proposed route of the tram, which would take it outwith the limits of deviation. One of these realignments relates to the Haymarket Yards area, the other relates to the Gyle area.

2. The promoter has provided a memorandum (contained in annexe a),

requesting that the proposal is considered and agreed by the Committee. If Members agree that the proposed amendment to the route does merit consideration, there are various procedural decisions the Committee would have to make.

3. It is important to be clear that the promoter does not have the power to

amend the Bill at any stage of the Private Bill process. Only Members of a Private Bill Committee can lodge and agree amendments to a Bill at Consideration Stage.

Implications

4. In the first instance, Members must firstly discuss and agree whether there is merit in examining the alternative alignments suggested by the promoter. If Members do agree, this does not mean that the Committee is stating that it definitely wishes the Bill to be amended in line with the proposal; it simply means that the Committee would need to be aware of any relevant arguments and objections in relation to the route before it could make a decision.

5. To be aware of the relevant arguments, the Committee would be

obliged to seek the views of all those who could potentially be affected by the proposed new alignment. This could include existing objectors, who may have new grounds of objection, and also prospective new objectors, for example a third party individual or organisation which was not previously affected (or was affected differently) by the Bill as first introduced.

6. All prospective objectors would require to be given an equivalent

opportunity to object to the new proposal as was provided to prospective objectors at the time the Bill was introduced. This means that a newspaper advertisement would be required and that prospective objectors would have to be notified by the promoter. A new objection period would also have to be established.

7. If Members agree that the new proposals merit consideration, it is

proposed that advertisement, notification and the objection period all commence on Friday 24 June. This would mean that the objection

ED2/S2/05/8/26

period would end on 23 August 2005. Members are invited to discuss this proposed timetable.

8. At the end of the objection period, the Committee would give

preliminary consideration to any objections on the same basis as was the case at Preliminary Stage. It would also have to consider any revised or supplementary documentation provided by the promoter. It is anticipated that this could be handled at the Committee’s meeting of Wednesday 7 September.

9. Following the preliminary consideration of new objections, all remaining

admissible objections regarding the alternative alignments would need to be considered on the same basis as all other objections at Consideration Stage.

10. Members may wish to consider whether there are likely to be many

new objections, given the areas in question. Further, if existing objectors decide to submit new objections, Members may wish to consider whether it is likely that these objectors would need the same length of time to produce any subsequent written evidence.

11. With this in mind, and given the committee’s existing timetable,

Members may wish to consider whether a truncated written evidence procedure would be appropriate for any subsequent objections. If so, it is proposed that any objectors are given two weeks each for the provision of witness summaries, witness statements and any rebuttals. If the Committee agrees that this is appropriate, it is anticipated that oral evidence on any objection at Consideration Stage would be taken some time in the week commencing 31 October.

12. Only after all objections have been considered and all evidence has

been heard, will the Committee be in a position to decide on the most suitable alignment at Haymarket Yards and the Gyle.

13. Members would also have to consider what material would need to be

provided by the promoter - for example, supplementary accompanying documents - to make it clear to Members and prospective objectors what the proposed amendments would involve. The promoter’s memorandum suggests the supplementary documentation it considers would be necessary. The Committee is invited to consider the promoter’s proposals and decide whether it is content with the approach suggested.

Decision

14. Members are invited to consider whether there is merit in examining the alternative alignments suggested by the promoter. If so, Members are invited to consider:

• the advertisement, notification and objection timetable suggested;

ED2/S2/05/8/26

• the revised or supplementary documentation the promoter considers would be necessary to inform prospective objectors;

• that the provision of written information by any objector is subject to a shorter timetable.

ED2/S2/05/8/26

ANNEXE A

Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSED ALIGNMENT CHANGES AT HAYMARKET YARDS AND THE GYLE

Introduction

1 The Promoter seeks to amend the Bill to authorise a to change the alignment of the tram route in two locations:

• Haymarket Yards; and

• The Gyle.

2 The purpose of this memorandum is to explain to the Committee the nature of the proposed amendments and the reasons for proposing them, and to seek clarification of the procedure for seeking the proposed amendments.

Background to the proposed changes

Haymarket Yards – original alignment

3 As it is currently specified in the Bill the alignment of the tram at Haymarket Yards runs along the front of Rosebery House then on to Haymarket Yards before swinging west along the access road to the north of the recently developed offices at Elgin House and CA House. It then runs along a strip of land reserved in City of Edinburgh Council’s local plan for public transport purposes (the “reserved public transport corridor”) alongside the railway line to the south of Balbirnie Place.

4 This alignment had been selected for a number of reasons, but particularly because of uncertainty over Network Rail’s proposals, in connection with the redevelopment of Waverley Station, for a ‘turnback’ siding on the north side of Haymarket Station, which were incompatible with running the tram south of Elgin House parallel to the railway.

5 Since the Bill was introduced that uncertainty has been resolved and it is now clear that an alignment to the south of Elgin House is feasible. In light of this, and of objections received to the Bill, the Promoter has reconsidered the alignment of the tram in this area.

Haymarket Yards – proposed alignment

ED2/S2/05/8/26

6 The proposed alignment would continue further south along Haymarket Yards and use a much longer section of the reserved public transport corridor alongside the railway line, passing to the south of Elgin House and CA House. The proposed alignment and amended limits of deviation and limits of land to be acquired or used are shown on Drawing Number 203011\EDIN\0680 P1 attached at Annex A to this Memorandum.

7 Consideration of objections and discussions with objectors has indicated that this alignment is preferred by a number of objectors in the area. It is anticipated that the adoption of this alignment may result in a number of objectors withdrawing their objections either in whole or part. This alignment also offers run-time and operational benefits.

The Gyle – original alignment

8 As it is currently specified in the Bill the alignment of the tram in this area crosses South Gyle Broadway and runs diagonally across the car parking area at the north end of the Gyle Shopping Centre before crossing under the A8. This alignment offers a direct route across the Gyle car park, and provides a stop location close to the Centre. The limits of deviation extend over a substantial part of the car park.

9 Since the introduction of the Bill negotiations have taken place with objectors and it has become apparent that the alignment as specified in the Bill is unacceptable to a number of objectors, principally because they consider that it creates a severance between the car park and the shopping centre.

10 Originally there had been wide limits of deviation over the car park at the request of the landlords who wished to retain flexibility for their future plans.

The Gyle – proposed alignment

11 The Promoter has therefore reconsidered the tram alignment in this area and has developed the proposed alignment in response to objectors concerns. The proposed alignment runs between South Gyle Broadway and the Gyle car park, along the edge of a landscaping are and passes under the A8 further west than before. The limits of deviation would be drawn closer to the centre line of the Work and would therefore exclude most of the car park. The proposed alignment has the additional benefit of allowing a major proportion of construction work to be carried out from the north of Gogar roundabout, thereby limiting construction impact on The Gyle. It also avoids additional conflict with external traffic at Gogar Roundabout and follows a more direct route, giving run-time advantages over the alignment proposed in the Bill.

ED2/S2/05/8/26

12 The proposed alignment and amended limits of deviation are shown on Drawing Number 30894/C257 Rev E attached at Annex B to this Memorandum. It is anticipated that the adoption of this alignment may result in a number of objectors withdrawing their objections either in whole or part.

Amendments to the Bill

13 The amendments proposed are as follows:

Schedule 1 of the Bill

a substitution of the description of works 5, 8 and 9 with revised descriptions, indicating the proposed new alignment/new work lengths; and

Schedule 6 of the Bill

consequential amendments to specified land to be acquired and used.

Accompanying documents – amendments

14 The maps, plans and sections will require amendment to reflect the proposed changes in alignment, and a supplementary Book of Reference will be required. No amendment is required to the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

15 The environmental implications of the proposed amendments are being considered. At this stage the Promoter does not anticipate that there will be any significant impacts. If, however, there is an impact it will be reported in an addendum to the Environmental Statement.

16 Subject to any direction from the Committee the Promoter intends to produce an explanatory note which will fulfil the same function in relation to the amendments as the Promoter’s Memorandum and the Explanatory Notes fulfilled in respect of the Bill.

Effect of amendments on third parties

17 Full land referencing is being undertaken in respect of the proposed amendments. However, the Promoter believes that no new landowners will be subject to compulsory acquisition (i.e. that all the additional land required is within the ownership of parties already notified of the Bill and falling within the Book of Reference).

ED2/S2/05/8/26

Affected Persons – Notification

18 As indicated above, full land referencing is currently being undertaken. Subject to any direction from the Committee it is the Promoter’s intention to notify:

• the owner (within the Standing Order definition) of any land proposed to be acquired which was not included in the Bill;

• the owner of any land which, although already included in the Bill, is differently affected by the proposed amendment- for example, because the extent of the proposed acquisition has changed, or the status of the land has changed (from land within the limits of deviation to land to be acquired or use or vice versa) or where the purpose for which land is to be acquired has changed; and

• affected persons- those who may be adversely affected by the revised alignment whether or not have already been notified in respect of the original Bill.

19 The Promoter considers it appropriate that there be a 60-day period for objections, as in respect of the original Bill.

Other procedural issues

20 The promoter understands that the amendments to the Bill will require to be advertised in a similar manner to the Bill itself, i.e. by newspaper notice and display in the relevant partner libraries. The Model notices and notification letters will need to be amended to reflect the fact that they concern an amendment to an existing Bill rather than a new private Bill.

Conclusion

21 The Committee is asked to decide as a matter of principle whether the Promoter may seek the proposed amendments and, if so, the procedure that will be required.

ED2/S2/05/8/26A Our Ref: MKG/JRG/TAR/SAF/2/310 815012_1 Your Ref: 17 June 2005

T Shevlin Esq Senior Assistant Clerk Private Bills Unit Room 2.60 Scottish Parliament EDINBURGH EH99 1SB

Dear Mr Shevlin Safeway Stores Plc Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill Objection 75 We understand that the promoters’ Memorandum recommending, inter alia, an amendment to the tram line at the Gyle will be reported to the Line 2 Committee on Wednesday 22nd June. We write to confirm that the Council’s proposed amended alignment is supported by our clients, subject to agreement on detailed terms for acquisition. The amended route would move the tram much further away from our clients’ store and would substantially address the concerns in our clients’ objection. The revised route would also move the tunnel under the A8 further away and would have the advantage of the works being able to be commenced from the other side of the A8, therefore reducing the impact on our clients’ car park in the construction phase. Our clients also consider that the amended alignment would have significant benefits for the promoters. It will result in improved trip times and has the potential to allow development of a public transport interface. Significantly, the amended alignment would not result in severance of our clients’ car park as would be the case with the current parliamentary alignment. Therefore, the compensation which would be payable by the promoters to our clients in respect of the amended alignment would be substantially less than would be payable under the current parliamentary alignment. Yours faithfully

A8 G

LA

SG

OW

RO

AD

SIT

E O

F P

RO

PO

SE

D

TR

AM

DE

PO

T

transportinitiativesedinburgh

ED

INB

UR

GH

TR

AM

LINE

TW

O

30894 /

30894 /

AF

IRS

T IS

SU

E

LEG

EN

D

TR

AC

K C

EN

TR

ELIN

ES

AN

D C

HA

INA

GE

TR

AM

ST

OP

PLA

TF

OR

M

LIMIT

OF

LAN

D T

O B

E A

QU

IRE

D O

R U

SE

D

LIMIT

OF

DE

VIA

TIO

N

RE

VIS

ED

ALIG

NM

EN

T

TR

AC

K C

EN

TR

ELIN

ES

AN

D C

HA

INA

GE

TR

AM

ST

OP

PLA

TF

OR

M

LIMIT

OF

LAN

D T

O B

E A

QU

IRE

D O

R U

SE

D

LIMIT

OF

DE

VIA

TIO

N

PA

RLIA

ME

NT

AR

Y O

PT

ION

BLLA

U M

OD

IFIE

D. M

INO

R C

HA

NG

ES

.

CLO

D M

OD

IFIE

D

DT

ITLE

, LOD

AN

D LLA

U M

OD

IFIE

D

ED

EP

OT

AN

D D

EP

OT

AC

CE

SS

RE

MO

VE

D