group 31 objection no: 210 port greenwich ltd … · holdings ltd (sph) and port greenwich ltd(pg)....
TRANSCRIPT
GROUP 31
OBJECTION NO: 210 PORT GREENWICH LTD OBJECTION NO: 202 SECONDSITE PROPERY HOLDINGS LTD (LEAD OBJECTOR)
OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT
MYRA BARNES
Contents Section 1 Summary of Key Objection Points Section 2 Qualifications and Experience Section 3 Introduction Section 4 SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd Section 5 Proposals for Forthquarter Section 6 Landtake outwith Scope of Bill Section 7 Loss of Development Sites Section 8 General Access and Post Construction Reinstatement Section 9 Conclusions
1 Section 1- Summary of Key Objection Points
1.1 The promoters have not formally agreed to restrict the proposed land take to the previously agreed 7m reservation, utility strip, and landscaping strip as set out in the s75 Agreement between Port Greenwich Limited and the City of Edinburgh Council. This is despite having agreed in principle that there is no need for the extent of the land indicated in the Bill.
1.2 As a result of the unnecessary change in land take as the proposed in the Bill the redevelopment and regeneration proposals of sites adjoining the tram route have been compromised by delay and uncertainty.
1.3 The promoter has not given satisfactory reasons as to why the provisions of the s75 Agreement regarding general access and post construction reinstatement cannot be given as undertakings.
2 Section 2 - Qualifications And Experience
2.1 I am a partner of Salisbury Jones Planning, planning and development consultants of 33 Bassein Park Road, London W12 9RW.
2.2 I hold a BA(Hons) degree in Geography and a Diploma in Town Planning and am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have nearly 30 years experience as a planner.
2.3 I worked at Surrey County Council between 1975 and 1977 before moving to London Borough of Southwark. I then worked for the London Docklands Development Corporation from 1982 until 1988 firstly as a Senior Planner and then as Assistant to the Chief Executive.
2.4 In 1988 I started to work for Olympia & York as development manager working on all planning matters relating to their developments in the Docklands. In 1992 I moved to British Gas to deal with planning matters relating to their surplus land portfolio and subsequently became Head of Planning.
2.5 Since January 2002 I have been working as a planning consultant working primarily on large regeneration projects in the UK.
2.6 I have been involved in the Granton project throughout the preparation of the masterplan, submission of the planning application and during the implementation of the development.
3 Section 3 - Introduction
3.1 This planning evidence has been prepared on behalf of SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd (SPH) and Port Greenwich Ltd(PG). It is to be presented to the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee which will consider objections into the construction of the tram in Edinburgh.
3.2 SPH/PG is the owner of 110 acres( x hectares) of land at the former gasworks at Granton, known as the Forthquarter site. The alignment of the tram runs through the south east corner of the site adjacent to Waterfront Broadway and Waterfront Avenue with a proposed tram stop in front of the Scottish Gas Building.
3.3 Whilst SPH/PG supports the principle of the tram it has concerns over the impact of the detailed alignment on the regeneration proposals for the Forthquarter site.
3.4 This evidence:
• explains who SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd/Port Greenwich Ltd are(Section 4)
• outlines the proposals for the Forthquarter site(Section 5) • deals with objections regarding landtake outwith the scope of the Bill (Section
6) • deals with objections regarding loss of development sites(Section 6) • deals with objections regarding general access and post construction
reinstatement(Section 8) • draws conclusions(Section 9)
3.5 Whilst SPH/PG does not object to the principle of the tram, the evidence
demonstrates that the Bill should not be approved without appropriate amendments.
4 Section 4 - Secondsite Property Holdings Ltd And Port Greenwich Ltd
4.1 Who is SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd and Port Greenwich Ltd?
SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Grid Transco with responsibility for managing the retained former gas manufacturing sites inherited from British Gas. Port Greenwich Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd and is the owner of the Granton site. SPH’s portfolio comprises some 1445 buildings and land spread across 653 sites throughout the UK covering an area of about 4250 acres (1720 hectares).
4.2 SPH has extensive experience of the management of contaminated land and
is widely regarded as leader in the field. It is constantly investing in ways to improve the technology and approaches to ensure that all brownfield land in the UK is remediated in accordance with best practice for the end use and it shares its expertise across the industry.
4.3 Additionally, SPH has extensive experience in preparing development
proposals and submitting planning applications on its landholdings. SPH then either sells the site with the benefit of planning permission, exemplified by the retail proposals at Richmond, Kingston upon Thames and Swansea, or enters into Joint Ventures to bring forward the development proposals or develops out the infrastructure to prepare sites for sale, as exemplified in the case of the Granton site.
4.4 Track Record SPH has over the years reclaimed more than 1500 acres (600 hectares) of land and brought it back into beneficial use.
To date more than £290m has been spent by SPH on cleaning up sites out of an overall provision of £500m. More than 250 clean up projects have been embarked upon since January 1996. The company has invested £10m over the past four years on research and technology to ensure the latest and best clean up methods are in use.
SPH has achieved more than 860 land or building sales since January 1996.
5 Section 5 - Proposals For Forthquarter
5.1 In December 2000, the City or Edinburgh Council published the Waterfront Masterplan with a vision to regenerate 345 acres ( x hectares) of land, including SecondSite Property’s 110 acre ( x hectares) former gasworks Forthquarter site as a key element of this regeneration project.
5.2 Outline planning permission was granted for the mixed use development, including retail, food and drink, public house, residential, education, business, leisure/assembly/hotel, open space and associated landscaping by City of Edinburgh Council on 13 October 2003.
5.3 As part of the permission PG entered into a Section 75 Agreement including a number of obligations. The obligations to be incorporated in the Section 75 Agreement as requirements of granting planning permission are set out in Condition 9 of the Planning Permission, namely:
• Housing affordability
• Education
• Transportation
5.4 The requirements of Sportscotland
5.5 That the applicant or subsequent developer shall not let any comparison retail unit to a retailer who is at the time trading at the Muirhouse shopping centre for a period of five years following the opening of the local centre
5.6 The need to make provision for the proposed tram route was not included in the obligations imposed by City of Edinburgh Council. However, during the course of negotiations on the Section 75 Agreement the Council requested PG to include a commitment to transfer the land required for the tram route.
5.7 PG voluntarily agreed to this provision in the Section 75 Agreement despite there being no policy background to warrant this commitment.
5.8 In order to identify the land required there was extensive discussion with TIE and City of Edinburgh Council over both the route and the width of land that was required to be safeguarded. It was agreed that a strip of land of 7m width should be safeguarded and the route indicated on a plan attached to the Agreement. The inclusion of the clauses and alignment were important for PG since certainty was essential as the development proposals would proceed in advance of the tram being approved or implemented.
6 Section 6 - Landtake Outwith Scope Of Bill
6.1 PG’s development proposals have progressed over the last few years with a new building being constructed and occupied by Scottish Gas, the first two phases of road infrastructure completed and the major central park of x acres(x hectares) just completed. Additionally a new campus for Telford College is under construction. Planning permission has been granted for the first phase of residential on the site and a planning application is with the City Council for the first phase of the Local Centre including a foodstore for Morrisons.
6.2 These development proposals have incorporated the tram alignment into the design of the infrastructure. After lengthy discussions with City of Edinburgh Council and their approval both in terms of planning permission and road construction consent it is a major concern to PG that the Edinburgh Tram Bill indicates a different land take to that agreed with TIE over two years ago. The issue of the alignment of the tram and the land take was never raised with the objector at any time in drawing up the terms of the Bill.
6.3 The tram safeguarded route has been reserved as part of the Waterfront Broadway road construction and is available to see on site.
6.4 As part of the construction of the road there was a change in the location of the reserved strip for the tram from that shown in the Section 75 Agreement and this was agreed with the City of Edinburgh. The reserved land was moved so that the cross section of the road is road, landscaping strip, tram reservation, pavement and then development site rather than road, landscaping strip, pavement, tram reservation and development site. This change retains the agreed (with TIE and City of Edinburgh Council)12m infrastructure strip between road and development plot, of which 7m is reserved for the tram.
6.5 PG has now had several meetings with TIE to discuss the issue of landtake required for the tram. TIE have agreed in principle that there is no need for the extent of land indicated in the Bill. TIE have agreed that the limits of deviation should be along Morrisons plot boundary to the west and on the eastern kerb line to the east of Waterfront Broadway. This will provide sufficient land for the construction of the tram. Furthermore, TIE have agreed in principle that the area for permanent land acquisition will be confined to the 7m reservation and a utility strip of xm to the west of the reserved land and the landscaped verge to the east of the reserved land. Despite this agreement in principle TIE have not provided PG with the requisite documentation to secure this agreement.
6.6 The objector is concerned that the Section 75 Agreement that PG entered into sets out the promoter’s full entitlement to the land and that the Bill goes outside this. PG is prepared to accept some variation to the landtake to accommodate the tram but not that incorporated in the Bill as this will prejudice the regeneration of this important brownfield site.
7 Section 7- Loss Of Development Sites
7.1 PG’s development proposals have fully accommodated the requirement of the City Council and TIE in relation to the tram route as agreed in the Section 75 Agreement.
7.2 The promoter has extended his land requirements in the Bill and he has agreed these are unnecessary for the successful implementation of the tram scheme. As it stands the Bill prejudices the development proposals for the first phase of the local centre since the limits of deviation for the tram impinge on the development site. TIE’s objections to the planning application for the local centre and Morrison’s store on this site are holding up the grant of planning permission unnecessarily since TIE have agreed, at meetings with PG, that to construct the tram they do not require any of the Morrison’s landholdings and that the building can be maintained without any impact on the operation of the tram.
7.3 The Bill also prejudices the redevelopment of the site of Phase 2 of the local centre to the east of Waterfront Broadway as the limits of deviation take part of this site. TIE have agreed that this area of land is unnecessary for the construction or operation of the tram.
7.4 The delay and uncertainty produced to the regeneration proposals of this Waterfront Edinburgh site are unnecessary as PG have accommodated TIE’s requirements voluntarily at every stage in the process even when there was no policy backing to the proposals.
8 Section 8 - General Access And Post Construction Reinstatement
8.1 PG agreed to the requirements of TIE and City of Edinburgh in relation to access and reinstatement within the Section 75 Agreement. These clauses were agreed by all parties after extensive discussion with TIE.
8.2 PG are concerned that this agreement is now being superceded in a way which removes the certainty that PG need to progress the development proposals. The achievement of certainty for PG was the reason that the various clauses were included into the Section 75 Agreement as it was clear that the development was going to proceed in advance of the tram proposals being either approved or implemented. A copy of the relevant section of the Section 75 Agreement is included as Appendix 1.
8.3 There seems no satisfactory reason given by TIE as to why these clauses cannot be used.
9 Section 9 - Conclusions
9.1 The regeneration of the Forthquarter site is well underway and the infrastructure adjoining the tram route has already been constructed.
9.2 The objector does not object in principle to the tram but is concerned that the Section 75 Agreement entered into voluntarily by PG sets out the full entitlement of the promoter and the Bill goes outside this. The promoter has accepted that they do not require all the land allocated in the Bill and PG is prepared to accept some variation to the landtake to accommodate the tram.
9.3 The limits of deviation in the Bill impinge on certain development sites and thus prejudices the development of the sites adjoining the tram route. The delay and uncertainty to the regeneration proposals produced by the Bill are unnecessary as PG have accommodated TIE’s requirements voluntarily even when there was no policy backing to the proposals.
9.4 PG agreed to the requirements of TIE and the City of Edinburgh in relation to access and reinstatement in the Section 75 Agreement and there seems no satisfactory reason given by TIE as to why these clauses cannot be used are being superceded by the Bill.
GROUP 31
OBJECTION NO: 210 PORT GREENWICH LTD OBJECTION NO: 202 SECONDSITE PROPERY HOLDINGS LTD (LEAD OBJECTOR)
OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT DAVID ROBERT BIRD
CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY OF KEY OBJECTION POINTS 2 INTRODUCTION 3 GRANTON DEVLOPMENT 4 SAFEGUARDING FOR TRAM ROUTE 5 DESIGN OF TRAM SCHEMES 6 THE TIE PROPOSALS AND PORT GREENWICH LTD’S OBJECTION 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Figure 2 - Granton Site, Eastern Area Figure 3 - Stage 1 Road, General Agreement Figure 4 - Cross Sections APPENDICES Appendix A - Tie Ltd Comments on Morrison’s Planning Application
1 SUMMARY OF KEY OBJECTION POINTS 1.1 A Section 75 Agreement between PGL and CEC appended to the
outline planning consent for the tram route allowed for a 7m strip of land to be transferred to CEC (now tie Ltd) when that land was required for construction of the tram route.
1.2 On the basis of this agreement, the detailed planning and construction
of this area has taken place. The Spine Road and Scottish Gas Headquarters building have been constructed, Telford College is under construction and a detailed planning application has been made for the Morrisons building to the immediate west of the Spine Road.
1.3 The Tram Bill shows potential acquisition of land beyond that agreed
within the Section 75 Agreement. This would have a direct impact on the Morrisons development site, which is totally unacceptable to PGL.
1.4 There is sufficient land between the western kerb of the Spine Road
and the Morrisons development site to accommodate a tram and associated footways and landscaping strip is a safe and efficient manner. This is a width of 12m comprising 6.5m for the tram a 2.75m footway and 2.75m landscaping strip.
1.5 The land acquisition proposed in the Bill should be amended to limit
acquisition to land between the north/south Spine Road and the development site as set out in the Section 75 Agreement. Introduction
1.6 My name is David Robert Bird. I am a Chartered Engineer and a
member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I am a founding Director of Savell Bird & Axon (SBA), a firm of transport consultants specialising in the assessment of all forms of development. I have over 20 years experience specialising in the transport impact of development on behalf of both private sector clients and local authorities. I undertake work for a range of major companies in the transport, housing, retail and commercial sectors, and have extensive experience of presenting evidence at public inquiries.
1.7 SBA currently act for a broad range of clients, including Hammerson,
Stanhope, ING, Prologis, Burford, Church Commissioners, Persimmon, J Sainsbury, SecondSite Property (formerly British Gas), Prudential Portfolio Managers, and the Department for Transport, as well as local planning authorities.
1.8 I have extensive experience of working on sites owned by SecondSite
Property Holdings (SPH) and the complex issues involved in bringing forward for redevelopment heavily decontaminated, brown field sites. Examples of projects include Beckton Gasworks, Chelmsford, Reditch and High Wycombe.
1.9 Beckton Gasworks has a number of similarities to Granton and at that site I have been involved in detailed negotiations with the various statutory authorities over the masterplan for the site. This has included negotiations with the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in order to agree the line of the Barking Extension through the site. I have also been negotiating with the Thames Gateway Bridge team at Transport for London over provision of appropriate construction works site within the SecondSite landholding. I am therefore fully aware of the requirements of both promoting authorities of major infrastructure schemes and landowners planning development in the area of those schemes.
1.10 As set out in the Proof of Evidence of Myra Barnes, the land at Granton
is actually owned by Port Greenwich Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of SecondSite Property Holdings Ltd. Therefore, throughout this Proof of Evidence, I have referred to refer to my client/landowner as Port Greenwich Ltd (PGL).
1.11 I have been personally involved on the Granton project since the early
days of planning the project and have advised PGL on all transport matters related to the scheme. I have therefore been involved in the negotiations with City of Edinburgh Council (CEC), tie Ltd, bus companies and other relevant authorities.
1.12 As has been set out in the evidence of Stewart MacIntyre and Myra
Barnes, PGL do not object to the principle of the tram route through the PGL site but do object to the details within the bill covering the section of the tram route through the PGL site.
1.13 In this Witness Statement, I cover the following: • In Section 3, I give a brief description of the Granton
development, focussing on the transport aspects and the integration of the tram route within those proposals.
• In Section 4, I describe the safeguarding process and how the requirements of CEC and tie were incorporated into the scheme design.
• In Section 5, I give a brief description of the appropriate design philosophy for tram schemes within urban areas.
• In Section 6, PGL’s objection to the bill, the alternative proposals put forward by tie Ltd and the reason these are not necessary. I also describe the level of agreement reached with tie which PGL would be content with if turned into a formal agreement.
• In Section 7, I conclude my evidence.
2 GRANTON DEVLOPMENT 2.1 The proposals for the Granton site, owned by PGL, are for a mixed use
development comprising residential, business, retail, food and drink, leisure, open space etc. which fits within the overall masterplan for the Waterfront area (known as the Fourth Quarter) and adopted by Edinburgh City Council in December 2000. The location of the site is shown at Figure 1.
2.2 The aim of the proposals, from a transport perspective, has been to
bring forward an urban quarter which is highly accessible by non-car modes e.g. walk, cycle and public transport. The provision of on-site facilities, and in particular the District Centre, means that many day-to-day facilities required by residents will be within walking distance.
2.3 In relation to cycling, provision throughout the site has been made for
both on-street and segregated off-street cycle routes. In particular, the segregated cycle route, which passes from the city centre up to the Waterfront area (via the Northern Access Road) is fully incorporated into the site, close to its eastern boundary.
2.4 Good quality bus services already pass along West Granton Road
along the southern boundary of the site. However, as development proceeds and demand is generated, then it is expected that a significant number of services will divert through the site thus enhancing its accessibility.
2.5 Provision of the tram proposals through the site will enhance the
accessibility of the scheme. Similarly, the additional patronage generated by the Granton Waterfront proposals will enhance the viability of the tram scheme and make it more likely to come forward. There is therefore a common objective between PGL, CEC and tie Ltd to agree a route for the tram through PGL site, which is suitable for tram operational purposes but also allows the planned development of the PGL site to proceed.
2.6 It is important to recognise that the PGL masterplan proposals have
been developed as an urban quarter and therefore urban design standards (rather than rural) have been applied in terms of road widths, footway provision, distance between buildings etc.
2.7 This is particularly the case at the District Centre. The District Centre,
comprising food and non-food retail development, leisure and other community facilities is a key location within the masterplan area facing the main road access into the area as shown at Figure 2. This is the north/south access road, known as Waterfront Broadway. Very careful planning and design has been required in order to accommodate all the land uses within the proposed road layout, building plots, and adjacent land ownerships, Caroline Park etc.
3 SAFEGUARDING FOR TRAM ROUTE 3.1 During formulation of the masterplan for the Granton site, proposals for
the tram route (Line 1) to the north of Edinburgh City Centre were emerging. A major study was commissioned and jointly funded by a number of parties including CEC, Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd and PGL. I personally represented PGL on the steering group, which was formed to monitor the progress of the study.
3.2 At that stage, the tram route through PGL’s land at Granton had no
formal status sufficient to require safeguarding of the route. However, PGL were content for the tram route to pass through their site due to the improved accessibility the tram would provide both to the Granton site individually and the Waterfront area as a whole. Therefore, PGL offered to make provision within the Section 75 Agreement for what was seen as the preferred option through the District Centre and adjacent to the proposed Scottish Gas headquarters building.
3.3 Discussions took place between ourselves on behalf of PGL, CEC (prior
to the formation of tie Ltd) and CEC’s consultants over appropriate provision for the tram route within the Section 75 Agreement. It was agreed that a width of 12m would be provided between the main north/south Spine Road (Waterfront Broadway) and the building plot to the west earmarked for the District Centre foodstore.
3.4 This 12m comprised the following:
• 7m for the tram route itself • 3m footway • 2m landscaping strip
3.5 The provision of 7m was in accordance with design standards and at the time there was no suggestion that a greater width was required and that CEC were compromising the tram requirements in any way.
3.6 As I have indicated in the previous section of this statement, the design
of the masterplan layout in the southeast corner around the District Centre has been a complex task due to the constraints. In particular the following requirements needed to be accommodated: i) Retention of Caroline Park house and in particular Caroline Park
Avenue to the east of the PGL site. ii) Retention of the listed station building on the eastern boundary of
the PGL site. iii) Provision of a north/south access road that had the potential to link
through to Westhore Road. iv) The fact that PGL’s land ownership boundary was to the
immediate east of the station site. v) The desire to create a good quality urban environment and urban
square around the District Centre that made full provision for pedestrians.
3.7 Therefore, it was important to fix the tram route with as much certainty as possible to allow the detailed planning of this part of the masterplan to proceed.
3.8 Following agreement to the provision of the tram route and the CEC’s
resolution to grant outline planning permission for the masterplan on PGL Ltd’s land, detailed planning proceeded. The early phases of the development were planned to be the Scottish Gas building and the District Centre. To allow these elements to proceed, the initial section of infrastructure and in particular, the Waterfront Broadway needed to be constructed. This represents a very significant up front investment in infrastructure on the part of PGL.
3.9 Following detailed design of the Waterfront Broadway undertaken by
White Young Green in association with Savell Bird & Axon, an application was made for Road Construction Consent from CEC. Such consent is, in essence, approval to the detailed design of the highway works which then allows them to be constructed. This therefore involves significant detailed design effort and liaison with the various statutory bodies e.g. CEC, Public Utilities etc.
3.10 Road Construction Consent (RCC) was granted by CEC in June 2002. 3.11 During all of the discussion leading up to grant of the RCC the basic
width for the tram route remained at 7m and the overall width between the building plot and Waterfront Broadway carriageway remained at 12m.
3.12 During this period negotiations had also been proceeding between PGL
and CEC on the Section 75 Agreement and the agreement was signed in September 2003. Schedule 6 of the Agreement includes a plan of the Stage 1 roads clearly showing the 7m reservations for the tram route. This plan is included as Figure 3 of this statement.
3.13 In addition to procuring RCC for the road, PGL were also progressing at
this time with detailed planning of the Scottish Gas (Centrica) Headquarters site and this led to grant of detailed planning consent in April 2002.
3.14 It can therefore be seen that by summer 2002 Road Construction
Consent had been granted for the road, and detailed planning consent had been granted for the Scottish Gas site. These approvals were of critical importance and fixed certain elements of infrastructure and development, which allowed detailed planning of further elements of the masterplan to proceed.
3.15 For example, by fixing the Waterfront Broadway road line and cross
section this allowed detailed planning of the District Centre site and the Telford College site further to the west. PGL has reached agreement in
principle with Morrisons to develop the District Centre site and a detailed planning application has been submitted to CEC. Similarly, by fixing the Scottish Gas Headquarters site, this allowed planning of the primary school to the north and other infrastructure including the parkland to the west.
3.16 As is clear from an inspection on site, since that time, construction of
the Waterfront Broadway and Scottish Gas Headquarters has been completed in accordance with the detailed consents and Telford College is under construction. (Detailed planning consent was granted in January 2004). design of tram schemes
3.17 In this section, I give a brief overview of the general design principles
for tram schemes running through urban areas. This is based on detailed examination and input to the design of the Liverpool tram scheme and study of other tram schemes in the UK and mainland Europe.
3.18 One of the key benefits of tram schemes is that they can provide good
penetration in urban areas whilst providing the speed and reliability more commonly associated with rail schemes. By passing along existing and proposed urban streets, tram routes are able to take people to and from the places that they wish to go.
3.19 Therefore, in general, good design will not create segregation between
the tram route, people and places. 3.20 If one looks at schemes in the UK (e.g. Croydon, Manchester, Sheffield)
and Europe, routes pass through busy town centre streets where people and trams mingle without significant segregation (e.g. pedestrian barriers).
3.21 Furthermore, ancillary features such as underground services and
overhead electric supply wires will be integrated into the urban environment and do not need segregated areas.
3.22 These principles apply to new urban streets in the same way as
existing. The danger with providing dedicated areas for features such as maintenance routes, overhead wire, stanchions etc. is that an extensive cross section is produced with no activity, which is not consistent with a dense urban design.
3.23 Applying these principles to Granton, the area around the District
Centre is an urban area where people, traffic and the tram will mix in an integrated way. The cross section, pedestrian control, footways, landscaping etc should all be designed to create this urban atmosphere.
4 THE TIE PROPOSALS AND PORT GREENWICH LTD’S OBJECTION 4.1 PGL do not object in principle to provision of Line 1 of the Edinburgh
tram through their site. In fact they support provision of the tramline as enhancing the accessibility of the site. However, it is essential to ensure that the detail of the proposal is appropriate and does not prejudice the ongoing development of this important site.
4.2 Specifically, PGL object to the provisions within the draft bill for
compulsory purchase of land, which goes beyond the agreements within the outline planning consent Section 75 Agreement.
4.3 The PGL objection can be summarised as follows:
i) The Section 75 Agreement should form the basis of determining land to be acquired by tie Ltd.
ii) The land within the draft CPO (i.e. the Limits of Deviation) goes beyond that specified within the Section 75 Agreement.
iii) The additional land (beyond the Section 75 Agreement) is not required to provide a safe and suitable tram route.
4.4 The starting point for considering the issue of the appropriate provision
for the tram route within the PGL land is the Section 75 Agreement. 4.5 The relevant provisions within this agreement are at Clause 8 and
Schedule 6 and in particular the plan attached to Schedule 6 (White Young Green drawing number A009297/01 revision P3 – Figure 3 of this proof of evidence.
4.6 This drawing shows the Road Construction Consent for the Stage 1
roads. In essence these are the main north/south Spine Road along with the eastern link towards the Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd land and the access road into the Scottish Gas Headquarters land.
4.7 This drawing shows a 7m wide reservation strip for the future public
transport route abutting the development site to the west. To the east of the reservation strip there is the footway (3m)/landscaping strip (2m) before the kerb line of the Spine Road. This layout is shown at Cross Section 1 at Figure 4.
4.8 The main provisions within the Section 75 Agreement are given below.
These only relate to the 7m strip of land shown on the plan. This land is referred to as the LRT land. i) The Council can acquire the LRT land up until January 2020. ii) The proprietor is not permitted to build on the LRT land without
consent from the council. iii) The proprietor is entitled, without requiring further consent from
the Council, to construct the Spine Road, form a pedestrian boulevard, and such roads, associated services and other works approved by the council.
iv) The proprietor can also, without requiring further consent from the council other than necessary statutory consents, construct permanent road crossings, alternate ground levels, local service media etc. within the LRT land, provided the proprietor minimises the impact on the LRT land and proposed LRT route.
4.9 As design developed, PGL elected to swap the footway and the tram
route such that the footway was adjacent to the building plot with the footway on the eastern side. This is illustrated at Cross Section 2 of Figure 4.
4.10 During 2005 detailed discussions have taken place with tie Ltd over the
layout of the proposed tram route through the PGL land ownership. 4.11 In particular, these issues were discussed at a meeting held on 14th
May 2005, which I attended. At that meeting, tie advised that only a 6.5m width was required for the tram route itself, and this included the kinematic envelope (i.e. allowing for any movement of the trams whilst in transit etc.). This is on a straight section of tramline.
4.12 This would therefore allow for a 3m footway adjacent to the building
line, 6.5m tram route and then a landscaping strip of 2.5m in order to fit within the 12m that PGL had allowed between the Spine Road kerbline and the District Centre building plot.
4.13 However, at the meeting tie Ltd expressed some concern over the width
of the landscaping strip and in particular allowance for pedestrians to wait before they crossed the Spine Road with the possibility of these pedestrians spilling onto the tram route. Notwithstanding any comments PGL had on this concern (see my comments below) it was agreed that a revised cross section could be provided as shown at Cross Section 3 of Figure 4 i.e. a 2.75m footway, 6.5m tram reserve and then a 2.75m landscape strip allowing sufficient space for pedestrians. This cross section was agreed at the meeting and CEC also confirmed that they were content with it.
4.14 At the meeting, tie Ltd also expressed some concern in relation to
maintenance of the proposed buildings adjacent to the tram route. They considered it desirable to have a 3m maintenance strip beyond what is known as the Electrical Clearance Zone which would allow maintenance to take place at the same time as the trams were running. However, it was suggested that maintenance activities would be very infrequent (especially if the building was appropriately designed) and therefore such a strip was not required. Introduction of a 3m maintenance strip would have required moving of the building line.
4.15 Subsequent to the meeting, I received a copy of Mott McDonald’s
drawing 20311/EGIN/0657 revision P2. This drawing shows a number of alternative cross sections. In particular it shows the cross section
agreed on the 14th May 2005 i.e. 6.5m for the tram route with 2.75m footway/landscaping strips either side. As indicated above, this can be accommodated within the 12m between the Spine Road kerbline and the building line.
4.16 However, the drawing also shows an alternative cross section as shown at Cross Section number 4 at Figure 4. In essence, this takes the 6.5m tram route and then adds 993mm to allow for the Electrical Clearance Zone. From this point 3m is allowed for maintenance vehicles. Therefore, as can be seen, the required reservation would encroach 1.243m into the District Centre site.
4.17 This is considered totally unacceptable by PGL since the District Centre
site is fixed as set out earlier in this statement. The maintenance strip would go virtually up to the Limits of Deviation.
4.18 On the 18th May 2005, tie Ltd passed on their comments on the
Morrisons planning application to CEC (email from Raymond McMaster to Alison Patterson, included at Appendix 1). However, the memo advises that the problems that tie Ltd had with the application could be overcome if a number of conditions are met. Under sub paragraph (ii) it is suggested that a legal agreement is entered into such that “the buildings can only be maintained: out with tram operating hours; at a time and a manner approved by the operator; and, at no cost to the operator”.
4.19 It is therefore clear that, provided maintenance takes place outside
operating hours, there is no requirement for the maintenance strip to extend into the Morrisons plot. PGL is content in principal to accept a condition limiting the hours of maintenance of the building since the frequency of maintenance is likely to be very low.
4.20 The conclusion from the above analysis is that the tram route can be
properly accommodated within the 12m available between the Spine Road western kerbline and the District Centre building plot (Morrisions). This is for the reasons set out below:
i) A width of 6.5m is provided for the tram route as suggested by tie
Ltd. ii) A footway width between the tram route and the building plot of
2.75m is sufficient. This will provide a generous footway width (the minimum standard design footway width is 1.8m) and also allow sufficient width for maintenance to take place outside operating hours. In any case, as noted earlier in this evidence, the aim is not to produce segregated footways and tram routes and therefore pedestrians can spill out from the footway onto the tram route as happens in existing schemes in the UK and Europe.
iii) The width of 2.75m between the tram route and the western kerb of the Spine Road is also sufficient to allow for landscaping and pedestrians. Pedestrians can congregate on this width of
pavement before crossing the Spine Road if necessary. In any case, when a tram is approaching the signalised junctions (at the south and north of Spine Road) it is likely that the pedestrian phase of signals would be on red and therefore pedestrians would not start to cross the tram route/Spine Road and would not need to wait between the two. However, even if they do cross tram routes and have to wait at the Spine Road, there is more than sufficient area for this to take place in a safe manner.
4.21 The tie Ltd comments on the Morrisons planning application raised a
number of other issues, which I cover below. These refer to the required conditions and Section 75 obligations suggested by tie.
i) It is suggested that no fire exits with direct access to the pathway
adjacent to the tram corridor are provided within the Morrisons planning application. This is acceptable to PGL
ii) It is suggested that the façade is low maintenance and that suitable glazing units are used. These conditions are acceptable to PGL.
iii) The Section 75 is to include provision for the building to be only maintained outside tram operating hours. This is acceptable to PGL.
iv) It is also suggested that the Section 75 Agreement allows for the transfer at no cost to the Council of “sufficient land for the tram and a tram stop at this location and also the right to fix overhead wires to the building at no cost to the council”. This suggestion does not specify the quantum of land to be altered, and is therefore unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, there is no need to fix overhead wires to the buildings since there is sufficient allowance within the 2.75m landscaping strip for overhead wire scanchions.
v) It is suggested that any additional costs imposed on the tram project as a result of the proximity of the proposed buildings to the tram corridor are met by the developer. It is also suggested that any cost involved in replacing the proposed tree line within the landscaping strip with suitable landscaping is also met by the developer. Neither of these conditions are acceptable to PGL. As I have set out earlier in this statement, the detailed planning of this area has been based on the agreements within the Section 75 Agreements appended to the outline planning consent. It is therefore unacceptable for tie Ltd to seek to impose costs due to their desire to change what was in the original Section 75 Agreement.
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The Granton Waterfront site, owned by PGL represents an important
brown field site, which is being brought forward for a mixed-use development in accordance with the overall masterplan for the Waterfront area developed by CEC.
5.2 The masterplan has been designed as an urban quarter to provide a
mix of residential, commercial, retail and community uses. 5.3 The southeast corner of the site, adjacent to West Granton Road, and
the new north/south Spine Road (Waterfront Broadway) is to be developed as a District Centre. This will be a critical part of the development providing facilities for the remainder of the site and providing a gateway to the area.
5.4 PGL are supportive of the tram route passing through their land and
adjacent to the District Centre, since this will enhance the accessibility of the site.
5.5 Extensive negotiations have taken place between PGL, CEC and others
over provision of the tram route through the site. This has been with the aim of ensuring sufficient provision for the tram whilst allowing for appropriate development in this part of the site.
5.6 Provision was made within the Section 75 Agreement appended to the
outline planning consent for the tram route. This allowed for a 7m strip of land to be transferred to CEC (now tie Ltd) when that land was required for construction of the tram route.
5.7 On the basis of this agreement, the detailed planning and construction
of this area has taken place. The Spine Road and Scottish Gas Headquarters building have been constructed, Telford College is under construction and a detailed planning application has been made for the Morrisons building to the immediate west of the Spine Road.
5.8 The Tram Bill shows potential acquisition of land beyond that agreed
within the Section 75 Agreement. This would have a direct impact on the Morrisons development site, which is totally unacceptable to PGL.
5.9 There is sufficient land between the western kerb of the Spine Road
and the Morrisons development site to accommodate a tram and associated footways and landscaping strip is a safe and efficient manner. This is a width of 12m comprising 6.5m for the tram a 2.75m footway and 2.75m landscaping strip.
5.10 Therefore, the land acquisition proposed in the Bill should be amended
to limit acquisition to land between the north/south Spine Road and the development site as set out in the Section 75 Agreement.
GROUP 31
OBJECTION NO: 210 PORT GREENWICH LTD OBJECTION NO: 202 SECONDSITE PROPERY HOLDINGS LTD (LEAD OBJECTOR)
OBJECTOR WITNESS STATEMENT
STEWART MACINTYRE
CONTENTS Section 1: Summary of Key Objection Points Section 2: Qualifications and Experience Section 3: Introduction Section 4: SecondSite Property Holdings Limited and Port Greenwich Limited Section 5: Proposals for the Fourth Quarter Section 6: Impact on redevelopment proposals
1 SECTION 1- SUMMARY OF KEY OBJECTION POINTS
1.1 SecondSite Property has made significant investment in the regeneration of the Forth Quarter, on the basis of the Section 75 Agreement with the Council with the Council.
1.2 The Section 75 Agreement reflects an agreement reached with TIE and
CEC to safeguard the tram route.
1.3 Subsequent negotiations with TIE have confirmed that the requirements contained within the Bill go beyond that required to implement the scheme.
1.4 Regeneration of this important brownfield site is being frustrated by the
requirements of the Bill.
2 SECTION 2: QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
2.1 I am Head of Sales for SecondSite Property, the property subsidiary of National Grid Transco.
2.2 I hold a BSc (Hons) degree in Estate Management from Heriot Watt
University and I am a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I have 20 years experience as a surveyor.
2.3 I worked at Edinburgh City Council Estates Department between 1984 and
1985 and then for an Edinburgh Property Consultancy from 1985 to 1986.
2.4 In 1986, I moved to Knight Frank & Rutley in Glasgow as a Commercial Agency Surveyor, becoming an Associate Partner in 1988. In 1989, I moved to Neale House as Development Manager for new build, refurbishment and regeneration projects.
2.5 In 1990, I moved to British Gas Scotland as Development Manager,
becoming Estates & Development Manager in 1991. Following reorganisation in 1993, I have held a number of senior posts within the Company and I am now a member of the Senior Management Team with responsibility for property planning, development and sales within National Grid Transco.
2.6 I have been responsible for the Granton site management and
redevelopment since 1991.
3 SECTION 3- INTRODUCTION
3.1 This evidence has been prepared by SecondSite Property Holdings Limited (SPH) and Port Greenwich Limited (PGL). It is to be presented to the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee which will consider objections into the construction of the tram in Edinburgh.
3.2 SPH/PGL is the owner of 110 acres (x hectares) of land at the former
gasworks at Granton, known as the Forthquarter site. The proposed alignment of the tram runs through the south-east corner of the site adjacent to Waterfront Broadway and Waterfront Avenue with a proposed tram stop in front of the Scottish Gas Building.
3.3 Whilst SPH/PGL supports the principle of the tram, it has concerns over the
impact of the detailed alignment on the regeneration proposals for the Forthquarter site.
3.4 This evidence:
• explains who SecondSite Property Holdings Limited/Port Greenwich Limited are (Section 4)
• outlines the proposals for the Forthquarter site (Section 5) • explains the impact of the tram on the proposed development (Section 6)
3.5 Whilst SPH/PGL does not object to the principle of the tram, the evidence
demonstrates that the Bill should not be approved without appropriate amendments.
4 SECTION 4 - SECONDSITE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED AND PORT GREENWICH LIMITED
Who is SecondSite Property Holdings Limited and Port Greenwich Limited?
4.1 SecondSite Property Holdings Limited (SPH) is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Grid Transco with responsibility for managing the retained former gas manufacturing sites inherited from British Gas. Port Greenwich Limited (PGL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of SecondSite Property Holdings Limited and is the owner of the Granton site. SPH’s portfolio comprises some 1445 buildings and land spread across 653 sites throughout the UK covering an area of about 4250 acres (1720 hectares).
4.2 SPH has extensive experience of the management of contaminated land
and is widely regarded as leader in the field. It is constantly investing in ways to improve the technology and approaches to ensure that all its brownfield land in the UK is remediated in accordance with best practice for the end use and it shares its experience across the industry.
4.3 Additionally, SPH has extensive experience in preparing development
proposals and submitting planning applications on its landholdings. SPH then either sells the site with the benefit of planning permission, exemplified by the retail proposals at Richmond, Kingston upon Thames and Swansea, or enters into Joint Ventures to bring forward the development proposals or develops out the infrastructure to prepare sites for sale, as exemplified in the case of the Granton site.
Track Record
4.4 SPH has over the years reclaimed more than 1500 acres (600 hectares) of land and brought it back into beneficial use.
4.5 To date more than £290m has been spent by SPH on cleaning up sites out
of an overall provision of £500m. More than 250 clean up projects have been embarked upon since January 1996. The Company has also invested £10m over the past four years on research and technology to ensure the latest and best clean up methods are in use.
4.6 SPH has achieved more than 860 land or building sales since January
1996.
5 SECTION 5- PROPOSALS FOR FORTH QUARTER
5.1 The Granton site was purchased by our predecessor company in 1896 for the construction of a new gasworks to serve the City of Edinburgh. Since opening in 1904, the site has undergone continual change, most notably in the 1960’s when the discovery of North Sea gas triggered the gradual phasing out of gas manufacture. By the late 1980’s, all that remained were the three prominent gas holders and associated equipment together with the headquarters of British Gas Scotland. A large proportion of the site was derelict and contaminated with the by-products of coal gas manufacture.
5.2 The costs involved in rationalising the gas plant and regenerating the site
are considerable and, until the late 1990’s, the economics were unviable. The planning policy shift at that time recognised the redevelopment opportunities in the Granton area, which led to the commissioning of a masterplan from Llewellyn Davies by the City of Edinburgh Council, and to the SPH masterplan prepared by Foster and Partners. Planning consent was granted in October 2003.
5.3 SPH strategy for the site is to invest in the provision of infrastructures and
to create serviced development plots for direct development or for sale. Works on site to date include rationalisation of gas plant, demolition of two gas holders, extensive site remediation works, installation of the primary road and service infrastructure, 20 acres of parkland and public open space and the development of the award winning 93,000 sq.ft. Scottish Gas Headquarters, all at a cost to date of £47m. A new Telford College is under construction. Contracts have been exchanged with Morrison Foodstores for a new Local Centre, and with various housebuilders for 740 new dwellings. A site is being sold to the City of Edinburgh Council for a new Waterfront Primary School.
5.4 It is anticipated that the next phase of development will incorporate an
extension to the Local Centre, the Primary School, the provision of office accommodation and further housing development.
6 SECTION 6- IMPACT ON REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
6.1 At an early stage of development of the tram proposals, provision was made in the Section 75 Agreement and the layout of the SPH site was amended to incorporate the construction of the tram. SPH has been supportive of the principle and keen to work with TIE to enable the tram line through the Forth Quarter site.
6.2 On the basis of this amended s75 Agreement, and the resulting site layout,
SPH entered into contracts with Morrison Foodstores Limited for the development of a Local Centre, incorporating a supermarket, petrol filling station, café, shops and offices. A Planning Application is currently being considered by the City of Edinburgh Council.
6.3 The Limits of Deviation and land take in the subsequent Bill is considerably
greater than that originally envisaged by the S.75 agreement and also by the subsequent agreement reached with TIE. The Limits of Deviation now extend into the development plots to the east of Waterfront Broadway and the land take now extends into the development plots to the west side of Waterfront Broadway. TIE have lodged an objection to the local centre planning application which has put the entire scheme on hold. This effectively halts the proposed development of this important local centre and frustrates a major element of the entire Granton Waterfront regeneration.
6.4 As a result of various meetings with TIE, a further agreement has been
reached to amend both the Limits of Deviation and the land take to enable the SPH and Morrison’s development to proceed. The intention was to have this agreement formally documented to enable SPH and PHL to withdraw the objection to the Bill, however progress has been particularly slow and TIE have delayed in producing the promised documentation which has only recently been received. Accordingly formal agreement has not been reached with TIE as at the date of preparing this witness statement (1 July 2005).