Inspector's Report

Report to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government By Robert M Barker BEng(Hons) CEng MICE FIHT

The Planning Inspectorate 4/09 Kite Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372

An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 15 August 2008

Assisted by Alan Novitzky BArch(Hons) MA(RCA) PhD RIBA

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

THE NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM ORDER

APPLICATION FOR DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION

APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING

AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

Inquiry opened: 6 November 2007

Refs: TWA/3/1/304; EMP 3035/271/77 & 78; EMP 3035/443/30 & 31 & 32; EMP 3015/443/4 & 5; EMP 3015/271/5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY 1

CASE DETAILS 4

1 PREAMBLE 4

Purpose of the Proposals 5

Site Inspections 5

The Order 6

Statements of Matters 6

Public Open Space 9

Inspector’s Questions 9

Witness Integrity 9

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES AND THE SURROUNDINGS 9

The Routes – Common Section 10

The Beeston/Chilwell Route 10

The Clifton/Wilford Route 10

3 THE CASE FOR NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT 11

The Aims and Objectives of, and the Need for the Proposed NET Phase Two (Matter 1)

11

Scheme Justification (Matter 2) 22

The Case for CPO Powers (Matter 3) 43

The Likely Traffic Impact of Constructing and Operating the Scheme (Matter 4)

45

The Likely Impact on Local Residents, Local Businesses and the Environment of Constructing and Operating the Scheme (Matter 5)

49

The Temporary and Permanent Effects of the Scheme on Open Space (Matter 6)

55

Proposed Mitigation Measures (Matter 7) 57

The Adequacy of the Environmental Statement (Matter 8) 60

Conditions (Matter 9) 60

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FILE REFS: TWA/3/1/304; EMP 3035/271/77 & 78; EMP 3035/443/28 & 30 & 31 & 32; EMP 3015/443/4 & 5; EMP 3015/271/5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) Considerations (Matter 10) 60

Statutory Undertakers (Matter 11) 62

Funding (Matter 12) 64

Changes to the Draft Order (Matter 13) 65

4 THE CASE FOR THE SUPPORTERS 67

5 THE CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS 76

General Matters 76

Objections to the Beeston/Chilwell Route 84

Objections to the Clifton/Wilford Route 93

Other Scheme-Wide Objections 97

Written Representations of Objection 97

6 REBUTTAL BY NET 98

General Matters 98

Rebuttal of Objections to the Beeston/Chilwell Route 112

Rebuttal of Objections to the Clifton/Wilford Route 126

Other Scheme-Wide Objections 132


7 CONCLUSIONS 135

Matter 1 135

Matter 2 136

Matter 3 143

Matter 4 144

Matter 5 148

Matter 6 156

Matter 7 157

Matter 8 160

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FILE REFS: TWA/3/1/304; EMP 3035/271/77 & 78; EMP 3035/443/28 & 30 & 31 & 32; EMP 3015/443/4 & 5; EMP 3015/271/5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matter 9 161

Matter 10 162

Matter 11 163

Matter 12 163

Matter 13 164

Other Matters 165


Summary of Conclusions 167

Overall Conclusions 169

8 RECOMMENDATIONS 170

APPENDIX A - APPEARANCES 171

APPENDIX B – INQUIRY DOCUMENT LIST 180

APPENDIX C – DRAFT PLANNING CONDITIONS 222

APPENDIX D – REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 230

REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FILE REFS: TWA/3/1/304; EMP 3035/271/77 7 78; EMP 3035/443/28 & 30 & 31 & 32; EMP 3015/443/4 & 5; EMP 3015/271/5

1

GLOSSARY

ALA Acquisition of Land Act 1981

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

ASA Advertising Standards Agency

BACIT Beeston and Chilwell for Integrated Transport

BBC Broxtowe Borough Council

BCBRA Beeston and Chilwell Business and Residents Association

BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio

BC The Beeston/Chilwell Route

BLP Broxtowe Local Plan (2004)

BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern

CNLP City of Nottingham Local Plan

CoCP Code of Construction Practice

CQD Queen’s Drive via Clifton Route (Alternative Route Option)

CW The Clifton/Wilford Route

DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government

DfT Department for Transport

DSL Deborah Services Limited

EA Environment Agency

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMDA East Midlands Development Agency

ENT Environment Not Tram

ES Environmental Statement

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNLRTAC Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Advisory Committee

GNP Greater Nottingham Partnership


2

GNTP Greater Nottingham Transport Partnership

ha hectare

HA Highways Agency

HMRI Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IOA Institute of Acoustics

IQ Inspector’s Question (written question to the parties, see INQ/6)

IRS Integrated Regional Strategy

JSP Joint Structure Plan

LTP Local Transport Plan

NAO National Audit Office

NATA New Approach to Appraisal

NCC Nottingham City Council

NET Nottingham Express Transit (the Promoter)

NIR Noise Insulation Regulations

NMRC Nottingham Moderns Rugby Club

NSC Neville Sadler Court

NTU Nottingham Trent University

NU University of Nottingham

NVP Noise and Vibration Policy

NWT Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

OLE Overhead Line Equipment

PFI Private Finance Initiative

QMC Queen’s Medical Centre

RBC Rushcliffe Borough Council

RBNSLP Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy


3

RTS Regional Transport Strategy

SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument

SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPV Special Purpose Vehicle

TROs Traffic Regulation Orders

TWA Transport and Works Act 1992

TWAO Transport and Works Act Order

ULDS Urban and Landscape Design Statement

WCG Wilford Community Group

WHO World Health Organisation

WPL Workplace Parking Levy


4

CASE DETAILS

The draft Order, which is known as The Nottingham Express Transit System Order, would be made under Sections 1, 3 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA).

In connection with the application, a direction is also being sought for deemed planning permission under Section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Three applications for listed building consent and seven applications for conservation area consent are made under Section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. One of the applications for conservation area consent (CAC2) has subsequently been withdrawn.

The applications for the Order, for deemed planning permission and for the listed building and conservation area consents were all made on 26 April 2007.

The Order if made and the applications if granted would authorise and enable the Promoter1 - Nottingham Express Transit (NET) - to construct and operate two extensions (known collectively as NET Phase Two) to the existing tramway system (known as NET Line One). These extensions would run from Nottingham City centre to Clifton via Wilford and from the City centre to Chilwell via the Queen’s Medical Centre (QMC) and Beeston. The Order would also authorise for the above purposes, compulsorily or by agreement, the acquisition of land and rights in land and the use of land.

The Order would also make provision in connection with the continued operation and maintenance of NET Line One and would accordingly make provision for the repeal of certain provisions of the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act 1994 by which the construction, operation and maintenance of NET Line One was authorised.

Summary of Recommendations: I make no recommendations.

1 PREAMBLE

1.1 The Assistant Inspector and I have been appointed pursuant to Section 11 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) and Section 13(2) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act

1 Inspector’s Note: Although much of the evidence, the representations and the statement of matters

refer to ‘the Promoters’, in this report I have adopted the singular form as set out in the draft Order where the following definition is employed; ‘ “the promoter” means the County Council and the City Council, or either of them.


5

1990 to hold concurrent public inquiries into the above draft Order and Applications, and to report to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. For ease of reference, I propose hereinafter to refer to the concurrent public inquiries as “the inquiry”.

1.2 The Assistant Inspector, Mr Novitzky, has been appointed to consider and report on the listed building consent and conservation area consent applications and the objections thereto. He also assisted me in the consideration of some of the townscape and urban design issues.

1.3 The inquiry was held at the Britannia Hotel, St James’s Street, Nottingham. I opened the inquiry on 6 November 2007 and sat for 28 days, closing on Friday 21 December 2007. I also held two evening sessions of the inquiry, the first on 15 November at College House Junior School, Chilwell, the second on 6 December at The Becket Roman Catholic Comprehensive School, Wilford.

1.4 After sitting with me on the opening two days of the inquiry Mr Novitzky conducted day 21 of the inquiry, Tuesday 11 December 2007, to listen to the objections to the listed building and conservation area consent applications.

1.5 I held a pre-inquiry meeting on Thursday, 6 September 2007 at the Britannia Hotel. The administration and programming of the inquiry were dealt with by the independent Programme Officer, Ms Carmel Edwards.

Purpose of the Proposals

1.6 The Promoter (NET) indicated that the purposes of the proposed NET Phase Two are: to provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys in order to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including the A453 and A52; to increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham; to improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion and realise further investment in NET Line One; to contribute to integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange; to support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the City Centre, the district centres of Beeston and Clifton and other important employment and residential areas and to extend use of an environmentally friendly mode of transport.

Site Inspections

1.7 I made unaccompanied inspections of the sites affected by the proposals on Wednesday 5 September 2007. The Assistant Inspector and I also made further separate unaccompanied inspections in the


6

course of and after the inquiry. I also made formal site inspections, accompanied by the parties, from 7 to 10 January 2008 and from 14 to 17 January 2008, the Assistant Inspector accompanied me during the first of these weeks.

The Order

1.8 Application for the Order was submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport on 26 April 2007 as was a request for a direction for deemed planning permission under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Prior to the inquiry some 1115 objections had been received, of which 8 were late objections. By the close of the inquiry there were 1076 un-withdrawn objections. A list of withdrawn objections as at the close of the inquiry is set out in NET.R1/26.

1.9 Some 151 letters of support and 14 other written representations were received prior to the inquiry [NET.R1/26].

Statements of Matters

1.10 A statement of matters about which the Secretary of State for Transport particularly wishes to be informed was issued by the TWA Orders Unit in August 2007. They are as follows:

1. The aims and objectives of, and the need for, the two proposed extensions to the existing Nottingham Express Transit system ("NET Line One") from Nottingham city centre to Clifton via Wilford and from the city centre to Chilwell via the Queen's Medical Centre and Beeston ("the scheme").

2. The justification for the particular proposals in the draft TWA Order, including:

a) the extent to which they are consistent with national, regional and local planning, transport and environmental policies;

b) the anticipated transportation, regeneration, environmental and socio-economic benefits of the

scheme; and

c) the main alternatives considered by the Promoters for achieving the objectives of the scheme and the main reasons for selecting the proposed routes of the extensions, including the locations of the proposed tram stops, park and ride sites, electricity substations and worksites.

3. Whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for conferring on the

Promoters powers compulsorily to acquire and use land for the purposes of the scheme, having regard to the guidance on the making of compulsory purchase orders in ODPM Circular 06/2004, paragraphs 16 to 23; and whether all of the land over which the Promoters have applied for such powers is required in order to secure implementation of the scheme.

4. The likely impact on traffic of constructing and operating the scheme, including:


7

a) the effects of allocating road space to the proposed tramway on other public transport services, highway capacity, traffic flow, vehicle parking, pedestrian movement and road safety;

b) the effects of closing, diverting or altering the layout of the streets as detailed in Schedules 3, 4 and 5 to the draft TWA Order;

b) the effects of the traffic regulation measures specified in Schedule 10 to the draft TWA Order, including the proposed restrictions on parking, loading and access;

c) the justification for the general power in article 48(2) of the draft TWA Order for the Promoters to introduce traffic regulation measures in addition to those specified in Schedule 10;

d) any complementary traffic management or other measures proposed by the Promoters to mitigate the effects of the scheme on road users.

5. The likely impact on local residents, businesses and the environment of constructing

and operating the scheme, including:

a) the effects of noise, vibration and dust; b) the impact of the scheme on air quality; c) the impact of the scheme on flood risk; d) the impact of the scheme on the built environment; e) the proposed demolition of properties, including any proposals by the Promoters to provide

alternative temporary or permanent accommodation for those affected; f) the impact of the scheme on rights of access to property; g) the impact of the scheme on the landscape and townscape, including the effects of the scheme on

the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas;

h) the impact of the scheme on archaeological remains; i) the effects of the scheme on flora and fauna, including the loss of trees; and j) whether the proposed development in the Green Belt would be inappropriate development within

the terms of PPG 2 on Green Belts (including whether the proposed park and ride sites meet the tests in paragraphs 3.17 to 3.20 of PPG 2) and if so, whether there are any very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption against such development.

6. The temporary and permanent effects of the scheme on open space and the

Promoters’ proposals for providing replacement open space, including whether the Borough of Broxtowe and the Borough of Rushcliffe have agreed to dispose of open space in their areas to the Promoters for the purposes of the scheme.

7. The measures proposed by the Promoters for mitigating any adverse impacts of the scheme, including:

a) the proposed Code of Construction Practice; b) the provisions in the proposed Order for the protection of the interests of statutory undertakers,

highway authorities and other affected bodies; c) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major adverse environmental impacts of the

scheme; d) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any other significant adverse environmental impacts of

the scheme; and e) whether, and if so to what extent, any adverse environmental impacts would still remain after the

proposed mitigation measures had been put in place.

8. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the TWA Order and whether the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with.

9. The conditions proposed to be attached to deemed planning permission for the

scheme, if given, and in particular whether those conditions meet the tests in DOE


8

Circular 11/95 of being necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable.

10. In relation to the proposal to attach overhead line and other equipment to buildings

a) the justification for the powers in articles 19 and 34 to attach such equipment to buildings on the land specified in Schedule 8 to the draft TWA Order and to acquire compulsorily easements and other new rights for that purpose;

b) whether the draft TWA Order should expressly entitle the owners of buildings affected by those powers to require the removal of such equipment to allow for demolition, reconstruction or repair of a building, as provided for owners of buildings fronting onto NET Line One in paragraph 5(d) of Schedule 16 to the draft TWA Order; and

c) the justification for the power in article 51(2)(h) of the draft TWA Order to make byelaws regulating the way maintenance and other works are carried out to the facades of any buildings fronting onto the tramways comprised in the scheme and NET Line One, including the restrictions which the Promoters would impose and the steps that would be taken to inform those who would be affected.

11. In any case where the Promoters and a statutory undertaker have not reached agreement on the measures necessary to protect the undertaker’s interests, whether the scheme as proposed would compromise the ability of the undertaker to carry on its undertaking effectively, safely and in compliance with statutory and contractual obligations.

12. Whether the proposals are reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funding.

13. Whether the Promoters have proposed any substantive changes to the draft TWA Order

since the application was made; if so, whether anyone likely to be affected by such changes has been notified.

1.11 A further statement of matters, relating to the applications for listed building consent and conservation area consent, about which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government particularly wishes to be informed, was issued on 31 August 2007. These matters are set out below:

1. The extent to which the proposals are consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, in particular, the issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of listed building consents as set out in Paragraph 3.5(i) – (iv) and conservation area consents as set out in Paragraph 4.14.

2. Whether all the applications for conservation area and listed building consent in the precise form applied for would be necessary to the Nottingham Express Transit System to be implemented, or could impacts be mitigated by varying the design.

3. If the development proceeds, whether any harm to the conservation area and listed buildings would ensue, and how significant would that harm be. In this regard, section 66(1) of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for a development, which affects a listed building or its setting, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest, which it possesses. The desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas is also required by section 72(1) of the same Act.


9

4. Whether there is a compelling case for the Nottingham Express Transit System in the public interest, which justifies any unavoidable harm that would result to the conservation areas and listed buildings in consequence of the necessary consents.

5. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the applications for the listed buildings and conservation areas consent.

6. The form of any conditions that should be attached to any consent.

7. Any other matters that the Inspector considers relevant.

Public Open Space

1.12 The Promoter made an application dated 27 April 2007 to the Secretary of State for a Certificate in respect of Open Space and Exchange Land under s19(1)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 [NET.A24]. This related to land at the former Wilford Power Station, Lenton. This has been advertised and the one objection received was subsequently withdrawn.

1.13 A second application for a Certificate in respect of Open Space and Exchange Land was submitted on 7 November 2007. This relates to land at Silverdale and at Inham Road, near Clifton. This was subsequently advertised and attracted a number of objections after the close of the inquiry. I have not considered these objections.

Inspector’s Questions

1.14 Before and during the inquiry I set out a series of written formal Inspector’s Questions (IQs). These questions and the Promoter’s responses can be found in document INQ/6.

Witness Integrity

1.15 During the inquiry Mr G Court, appearing on behalf of Environment Not Tram (ENT) (OBJ/627), apologised2 for questioning the independence and integrity of one of the NET witnesses3. He confirmed that he was not impugning the integrity of the witness.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES AND THE SURROUNDINGS4

2.1 NET Phase Two would consist of two lines running for a total of some 17.5kms from the city centre through the south and south west

2 Mr Court in cross examination and in response to Inspector’s questions on Day 22.

3 OBJ/627/PE/5, Section 4

4 The routes of NET Phase Two, in relation to the existing street pattern, are set out in Figures 3 & 4

of the Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary [NET.A13].


10

suburbs; the Beeston/Chilwell route and the Clifton/Wilford route.

The Routes – Common Section

2.2 Both lines would share the initial section of route at their northern end, commencing at the current southern terminus of the existing NET Line One, the Station Street stop, immediately north of Nottingham station. The new route would pass over the railway station on new viaduct, on the line of the former Great Central Railway, and continue southwards, at ground level, through the Southside Regeneration Zone. The two routes would separate at Sheriff’s Way, at the northern end of Queen’s Walk, where it meets Meadows Way.

The Beeston/Chilwell Route

2.3 The Beeston/Chilwell route would run along Meadows Way, skirting the northern edge of the Meadows residential area. It would cross A453, Queen’s Drive and pass through the relatively recent ng2 commercial development site and would serve residential areas at Abbey Street/Gregory Street, Lenton before heading in a general south west direction at elevated level through the Queen’s Medical Centre (QMC), a large teaching hospital.

2.4 It would continue at high level across the A52 Clifton Boulevard dual carriageway before dropping to street level and running along Science Road, then turning to the rear of the University Arts Centre and crossing and running parallel to the south east side of University Boulevard (A6005), a busy radial route into the city. In this area it would serve the University of Nottingham, Nottingham Tennis Centre and Highfields Sports Club. After passing along residential streets, Lower Road and Fletcher Road, it would serve Beeston town centre, Chilwell Road/High Road shopping area and Castle College (formerly Broxtowe College).

2.5 The route would travel along the green corridor amenity area (Chilwell Greenway) through the heart of the residential area of Chilwell between Cator Lane and Inham Road before terminating at the proposed Toton Lane Park & Ride site; currently pasture land within the Green Belt.

The Clifton/Wilford Route

2.6 The Clifton/Wilford route would pass in a southerly direction along the tree-lined Queen’s Walk, serving the residential area of the Meadows. It would cross the River Trent via the Wilford Toll Bridge, which would require deck strengthening and widening. It would skirt Wilford village and, at the Nottingham Emmanuel School, would run southwards adjacent to the east side of the former railway embankment, through Compton Acres and Wilford residential areas. Approaching Wilford Lane, the route would move onto the line of the embankment, which would be removed. The affected length of


11

embankment is regarded as a wildlife corridor.

2.7 After passing beneath Clifton Boulevard via an existing under-bridge, the tramway would turn westwards across fields as far as Farnborough Road, passing over the Fairham Brook on a new bridge, and running around the southern edge of the Silverdale residential area.

2.8 Entering Clifton, the tramway would run on street with other road users, north west along Farnborough Road for a short distance and then south west along the full length of Southchurch Drive, through the heart of the Clifton shopping centre and housing areas. The alignment would then turn westwards and rejoin Farnborough Road, continuing on street as far as Nottingham Road. After crossing Nottingham Road, the route would continue westwards into the proposed Park & Ride site, on land that is currently arable farm land in the Green Belt.

3 THE CASE FOR NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT

Inspector’s Note: In the following sections NET’s case is put with respect to each of the matters set out in the Statement of Matters issued by the TWA Orders Unit at the Department for Transport - i.e. those matters about which the Secretary of State for Transport particularly wishes to be informed for the purposes of his consideration of these applications (see para 1.10 above). For ease of reference Document NET.A31 cross refers the Promoter’s pertinent evidence to the Statement of Matters.

The material points are:


3.1 In recognition of the policy context and the economic and transport challenges facing Nottingham, six key aims of NET Phase Two have been identified5:

Aim 1: To provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys in order to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including the A453 and A526.

3.2 The Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) Delivery Report 2006 demonstrated excellent performance in terms of containing traffic growth (2000/01-2005/6) below 1% and increasing the use of public transport by 8% [NET.C23].

3.3 However, a recent East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) report estimated that congestion in Nottingham still costs the economy

5 The aims are included in application document NET.A2; Concise statement of aims of the proposals.

6 NET.P1/A, Section 4.1


12

around £160m per annum and is expected to increase. It concluded that there is a strong economic case to pursue measures to tackle congestion [NET.C24].

3.4 Congestion and junction delays are experienced in a much wider area than just the city centre with some of the highest flows and slowest average journey speeds occurring on the key radial routes (A52, A453 and A6005) approaching the Ring Road in the southwest quadrant of the conurbation. Each of these would be served by NET Phase Two. This local road network is now almost at capacity with minor incidents often causing significant disruption to the network [NET.P1/B, Appendices 3 & 4].

3.5 With increasing travel demand and future growth predicted, the challenge of tackling congestion is one of the Government’s priorities for local transport authorities. Increasing and expanding the road network is considered to be both too intrusive and environmentally damaging. The strategy is therefore based on a package of measures including better public transport.

3.6 The success of NET Line One has demonstrated the ability of light rail to attract substantially more people out of their cars7. This would be continued with Phase Two expected to reduce the growth of peak hour car journeys to and from all central area locations by one third between 2006 and 2021 from around 15% to less than 10%.

Aim 2: To increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham8

3.7 Over recent years the changes in the Greater Nottingham economy have been marked. Between 2000 and 2005 there was a net increase of 16,700 jobs to over 300,000. The local economy, worth more than £10.7 billion, is growing at a faster rate than the East Midlands and England [NET.P1/B, Appendix 7].

3.8 Nottingham is one of only six cities to be awarded Science City status by the Government. This has acted as a focus to encourage the growth of this sector, with further hi-tech premises proposed, including an extension to the Nottingham Science and Technology Park situated on the Beeston/Chilwell route [NET.P1/B, Appendix 8].

3.9 The city centre has been a particular economic success, undergoing significant redevelopment and employment growth with the NET system a central element in supporting transformation. The Broadmarsh and Regeneration Zone developments would provide a further impetus for growth [NET.P1/B, Appendix 9].




13

3.10 Nottingham is a key retail destination centre and is consistently ranked in the top five UK shopping centres, attracting an annual spend of nearly £1.3 billion [NET.P1/B, Appendix 10].

3.11 The strong performance of Nottingham, with more than half of jobs based there taken by people living outside the city, has helped the wider economy but it has also created additional travel pressures.

3.12 Furthermore, the economy is expected to grow; office based jobs by 21% (2003-2016) and overall employment by 11% (2000-2021). Much of this would be concentrated in the city centre, increasing net inward commuting and the need for transport developments [NET.P1/B, Appendix 12].

3.13 A substantial increase in the planned number of households is also expected – nearly 2000 new dwellings per annum (2001-2026) in or adjoining the currently built up area [NET.C46]9.

3.14 A significant enhancement in public transport capacity is therefore essential if these employment, commercial and housing developments are to be accommodated in a sustainable manner, and if a significant ‘transport gap’ is to be avoided.

3.15 Analysis of existing transport capacities and forecast demand growth, without NET Phase Two, shows that despite small capacity increases as a result of initiatives supported by the LTP, a divergence between demand and supply, the ‘transport gap’, emerges around 2011 and widens further over time [NET.P1/A, 4.2.15-4.2.17].

3.16 This imbalance threatens the economic vitality of the city as individuals and business would be likely to conclude that it is too much effort to travel into Nottingham. NET Phase Two would be the single most important initiative in addressing the transport gap, providing at least 50% of the capacity required over the longer term to around 2030. This additional capacity is essential to maintain economic vitality and would provide the bedrock for further initiatives that are likely to be required from around 2020-2025 to supplement NET.

Aim 3: To improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion, and realise further the investment in NET Line One10

3.17 Transport is primarily a means to enable people to move between locations to undertake different activities and benefit from facilities and services that are geographically separate; the activities associated with the home and those usually found elsewhere such as

9 Inspector’s Note: The East Midlands Regional Plan Panel Report was published during the Inquiry

and a note on its pertinent recommendations is included at NET.P6/J



14

employment, education, medical facilities, shopping, sports and leisure. The routes of NET Phase Two, fully integrated with Line One, would link main areas of population and provide improved access to and between a number of important locations and a wide variety of activities.

3.18 There is a strong link between improving transport provision, accessibility and reducing social exclusion. The socio-economic impacts of NET Phase Two would be likely to be beneficial both in terms of job creation and increased accessibility to centres of employment.

Access to jobs, education, health and leisure11

3.19 Nearly 30% of the population of Greater Nottingham would live within 800 metres of a tram stop on Line One or Phase Two. Access for a wider area would be provided through park and ride and existing and potential feeder bus services. Users would experience fast frequent services to a range of destinations and the largely segregated operation would ensure that a reliable service would be provided and give confidence that published journey times would be achieved. Through services between Line One and Phase Two would also ensure very competitive times for cross-city journeys.

3.20 NET Phase Two would provide access to about 1270 City workplaces, to which about 55,000 employees commute. These include some of the area’s largest employers including QMC and Nottingham University. Similarly, over 600 workplaces would be served in the Beeston/Chilwell area.

3.21 Both routes would provide access to a further range of primary healthcare facilities, primary and secondary schools, multiple sites of South Nottingham and Castle Colleges and significant leisure destinations. Two of the secondary schools, Becket and Nottingham Emmanuel, are being expanded in a £69m development under construction on open land at Gresham Park, Wilford Lane, which would be well served by NET tram stops at Main Road and Wilford Lane.

Social Inclusion12

3.22 Despite Nottingham’s economic successes, not all have benefited; in common with most big cities, economic success and deprivation exist side by side.

3.23 Promoting equal opportunity by tackling social exclusion for groups such as the elderly, disabled and those on low income is a

11 NET.P1/A, 4.3.3-4.3.45

12 NET.P1/A, 4.3.46-4.3.58


15

cornerstone of Nottingham’s transport strategy [NET.C22]. Many residents remain out of work or are in the low skilled, low paid jobs which may be threatened as the economy changes and becomes more knowledge-intensive. Perhaps the biggest challenge for the future is to redress this, and ensure ‘progress’ does not disenfranchise residents. Improved accessibility through high quality public transport is an important means of connecting deprived communities to opportunities

3.24 Within the City of Nottingham, the 7th most deprived authority in England, many residents in the inner city and outer estates remain disconnected from the opportunities that have been created. Some of the most deprived areas lie to the south of the City centre [NET.C51]. The Meadows area is within the worst 3% of deprived wards in England, parts of Clifton are within the worst 8% and some areas in Beeston and Chilwell in the worst 25%. Within a 500m catchment area around the proposed NET Phase Two lines, 40% of households have no access to a car and are reliant on public transport.

3.25 Expansion of the NET system would maximise the benefits arising from the investment in NET Line One, opening up a range of new direct travel opportunities for people living in similarly deprived areas in the northwest corridor. For residents living along both Phase Two and Line One the cross-city network would offer a significant difference to their quality of life, improve opportunities to access work, learning, healthcare, retail, leisure and essential services.

3.26 The NET system has level platforms, wide doors and entirely low floor trams with wheelchair spaces and audio and visual passenger information. Expansion of the system would therefore significantly improve travel opportunities for the mobility impaired including the elderly and parents with young children.

3.27 Surveys of mobility impaired users on NET Line One identified that the system has increased accessibility to an extent that people who struggled with existing transport facilities can now travel around the city freely and independently.

Aim 4: To contribute to integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange13

3.28 A critical element in the provision of good public transport is easy and efficient interchange between modes and integrated systems, such as ticketing and timetabling. Increasing the network of interchange facilities in Nottingham is important because a large number of jobs are not located in the city centre.

3.29 An important part in this integration would be the provision of park



16

and ride facilities that combine the flexibility of the private car for the rural or suburban part of a journey with the use of public transport for the more congested city end of the journey. Although much of Greater Nottingham is well served by seven park and ride sites; five NET Line One and two bus-based, totalling almost 5,000 spaces, the southern and western areas of the conurbation are not as comprehensively served. The two proposed NET Phase Two sites would provide 2,400 additional spaces and would contribute to congestion relief to Clifton Bridge, A453 & A52 Trunk Roads and other local roads. Thus all three routes into Nottingham from the three M1 junctions would be served by tram-based park and ride.

3.30 Another LTP initiative is the provision of a high frequency orbital bus service on Nottingham Ring Road. This would interchange with NET Line One at Wilkinson Street and with NET Phase Two at the QMC, increasing accessibility and reducing the number of journeys which have to pass through the city centre.

3.31 NET Phase Two would also provide direct links to Nottingham Railway Station and thus connectivity to the national rail network.

3.32 Development of further public transport hubs14 would allow easy interchange between NET and existing or new bus services, providing the opportunity to develop bus feeder networks to widen the areas served, as has happened on Line One. The further development of integrated and smart card ticketing systems would facilitate easy transfer between public transport services. Approximately 45% of existing NET passengers use multi-modal tickets.

3.33 Implementing high capacity tram services in the key corridors would also relieve bus stop and junction capacity congestion in the city centre, allowing further bus service growth on other corridors.

Aim 5: To support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the city centre, the district centres of Beeston and Clifton and other important employment and residential areas15

3.34 Investment in fixed transport links provides a focus for development and the regeneration and renewal of surrounding areas, ensuring that deprived communities and regeneration areas are accessible and attractive to residents and investors.

3.35 There are strong indications that NET is supporting investment decisions, with NET Line One and Phase Two being used extensively in publicity material aimed at attracting inward investment for both

14 Inspector’s Note: More information regarding public transport hubs is set out in answer to my

written Inspector Question 23 (IQ23) [INQ/6]



17

residential and commercial properties [NET.P1/B, Appendices 14 & 15]. A qualitative study by Nottingham Development Enterprise of development activity along Line One has also identified increases in developer confidence and a significant amount of activity and land value enhancement related to the proximity of tram stops, in the city centre, inner city and outer areas, particularly at Hucknall [NET.P1/B, Appendix 16].

3.36 NET Phase Two would be beneficial to the local business community because it would allow staff to travel efficiently to employment sites, improve the efficiency of supply chains and access to markets and thus support business competitiveness. Furthermore research has reported that NET Phase Two and the redevelopment of the Nottingham Railway Station could help retain a number of employers [NET.B3].

3.37 There are a significant number of development sites that would potentially benefit from the development of NET Phase Two, and it would help to regenerate and transform local areas. In particular:

• the three regeneration zones to the south of Nottingham city centre: Southside (and its impact on the Meadows Neighbourhood Transformation area), Waterside and Eastside;

• the ng2 commercial development site; • Beeston town centre; • Land south of Chilwell Road; • Clifton town centre; and • The two local centres at either end of Southchurch Drive.

Aim 6: To extend the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transport16

3.38 One of the main sources of air pollution is road transport, particularly in urban areas. In the Nottingham conurbation a number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been identified (in Nottingham city centre, on the A52 Clifton Boulevard in Nottingham and Rushcliffe, on the main approaches to Trent Bridge and an area close to the M1 motorway in Broxtowe) and the majority of these are primarily transport-related. The Nottinghamshire Air Quality Strategy identifies the need to reduce air pollution by encouraging alternative travel modes and promoting sustainable development through the LTP and development plan processes.

3.39 Over time the quantity of emissions for a given number of vehicles can be expected to reduce through stricter vehicle emission control standards. However, the benefits would only be realised if the growth in the total volume of traffic and the levels of congestion are contained. Consequently, introducing measures to tackle congestion and reduce car use would contribute towards achieving local air quality objectives.



18

3.40 Running on steel rails and carrying large numbers of passengers per vehicle, trams are a particularly energy efficient mode of transport, notably beneficial in areas of high concentrations of some pollutants. Operation of the tram may also give rise to reduced traffic flows and hence reduce emissions from road vehicles; the reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of NET Phase Two would be likely to be in the region of 1000 tonnes per year. Reduced pollution levels would contribute to improving public health.

Objectives17

3.41 One of the key objectives of NET Phase Two is the provision of a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys. This would help to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including the A453 and A52, which have been identified as essential in the government-commissioned multi modal studies.

3.42 NET Phase Two is expected to reduce the growth of peak hour car journeys to and from all central area locations by one third between 2006 and 2021 to only 9%.

3.43 The A453 and A52 routes are crucial to maintaining the accessibility of Nottingham to its national and regional markets via the M1 motorway and were specifically identified as suffering from recurrent delays in the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) report [NET.C24]. These two principal routes into the conurbation from the M1 would be served by the NET Phase Two routes, including accessible park and ride sites at Clifton and Toton Lane.

3.44 Another key objective of NET Phase Two is to create a significant increase in the capacity of the public transport network that would enable increasing numbers of people to access employment and facilities in the region, so avoiding travel by car with its consequent impacts on congestion and the environment.

3.45 NET Line One currently carries 10 million passengers per annum and has contributed to a growth in public transport usage in Nottingham of 8% over 5 years, which is in stark contrast with most other UK cities. The wider network that would be developed with NET Phase Two would further enhance the use of public transport and the contribution that sustainable transport modes can make to maintaining the economic vitality of Greater Nottingham.

3.46 NET Line One has demonstrated that trams can attract people from cars, with around 30% of users having changed from car or using park and ride sites, and the NET Phase Two routes, with the associated park and ride facilities, represent an essential component of the wider integrated transport strategy for Greater Nottingham to meet local transport needs and broader conurbation demands.

17 NET.P8/A, 2.1.17-2.1.22


19

3.47 Further objectives of NET Phase Two include improving accessibility and assisting in reducing social exclusion. “Accessibility” is the extent to which a wide range of places and opportunities can be accessed within a reasonable time. The low floor trams and design of the system make it particularly easy to use by people with disabilities, the mobility impaired, the elderly and parents with young children. In providing a cross-city network linking key employment, health and education sites, both for residents living on the NET Phase Two routes and those served by NET Line One, the extended NET system would offer enhanced journey opportunities and improved community participation.

3.48 Assisting regeneration is another fundamental objective; the wider NET network would support new commercial and residential developments. NET is regarded by developers and their investors as an asset and they are keen for tram stops to be located in close proximity to their developments. The use of NET images to promote development opportunities along the proposed routes of NET Phase Two, such as at the ng2 business park, illustrates this.

3.49 The strong linking of land use and transport planning, in concentrating developments around high capacity, and high quality public transport facilities would provide for sustainable economic growth. Other examples of this strategy can be seen at sites served by NET Phase Two including Highfields Science and Technology Park and Beeston town centre.

Need for NET Phase Two18

3.50 Whilst Nottingham’s public transport is currently recognised as award winning it is not realistic to maintain a short-term perspective. In order to understand the need for NET Phase Two it is crucial to recognise the key issues facing Nottingham as a conurbation.

3.51 Nottingham as a city has a particular and important status in national and regional terms. Since 2001 Nottingham has been one of the eight “Core Cities” 19, recognised by the Government as the most important drivers of the national economy outside London [NET.C56].

3.52 The city benefits from one of the highest GDPs per capita of cities in the UK. The city centre in particular is an economic success, with 60,000 jobs, and has undergone significant development in recent years. The existing NET Line One system has been a central element to supporting the transformation and growth of the city centre.

18 NET.P8/A, 2.1.1-2.1.16

19 The remaining “Core Cities” are Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and

Sheffield.


20

3.53 Nottingham has been ranked among the five top shopping centres in the country for three successive years, and attracts an annual spend of nearly £1.3 billion. Furthermore job growth has increased recently, and growth across Greater Nottingham is projected to continue in line with the UK average. The area remains a key employment centre in the East Midlands region. The city is an important employment destination, and more than half of jobs based there are taken by people living outside the city. Whilst this has helped the economy it has also created additional travel pressures across the conurbation.

3.54 NET Line One, integrated effectively with other transport services, has been a key element in providing this access from north of the city and its interchange with Nottingham Railway Station and thence to other key centres such as Derby and Leicester.

3.55 Nottingham has been identified as a Growth Point20 where significant housing growth and the development of sustainable communities is planned. It is proposed that the Growth Point would represent an increase, between 2006 and 2021, of over 7,500 homes (close to 25%) over what had been planned. This increase would inevitably drive further demand for travel and associated pressures on available transport infrastructure and services. In terms of the Growth Point, the 3 Cities (Nottingham, Leicester and Derby) and 3 Counties (Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire) collaborated to prepare a joint Programme of Development, submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in October 2007. The government expects high quality transport solutions.

3.56 NET Phase Two has the potential to support the overall Growth Point objectives – linking new housing sites to existing communities and opportunities and reducing overall traffic impacts of new development in terms of capacity, congestion and pollution.

3.57 As well as the need to support economic success there is also the consideration of significant regeneration issues to address.

3.58 Many residents in communities in the inner city and outer estates remain disconnected from the opportunities that have been created in the city centre. Nottingham is the 7th most deprived district in England according to the 2004 Indices of Deprivation [NET.C41]. Many residents remain out of work; 20% of adults are claiming at least one working age benefit. Many others are in low skilled, low paid jobs which may be threatened as the economy changes and becomes more knowledge-intensive. The Regional Economic Strategy sees it as the responsibility of all partners to improve the life chances of current and future residents; furthermore it makes good economic sense [NET.C19]. A bigger and better-skilled

20 Inspector’s Note: See response to IQ12 regarding ‘New Growth Status’ [INQ/6]


21

workforce would help businesses grow to their full potential.

3.59 Some of the city’s most deprived wards lie to the south of the city centre, in areas that would be served by NET Phase Two. The Meadows area is within the 3% of most deprived wards in England. Clifton estate is within the 8% most deprived. These areas have high rates of economic inactivity and low levels of car ownership. Parts of Beeston and west Chilwell are also in the lowest quartile of deprived wards. NET Phase Two also has the potential to improve linkages with deprived communities along the NET Line One corridor.

3.60 Three significant key regeneration zones that aim to be a focus for new investment have been established:

• The Southside regeneration zone; Nottingham Railway Station and development of the NET interchange would be central to the area and provide the gateway from the zone to the city centre.

• The Eastside regeneration zone; Nottingham Railway Station marks the western boundary of the zone and the gateway to the city centre.

• The Waterside regeneration zone; comprising 100 hectares of land and buildings along the River Trent and Nottingham Canal.

3.61 These zones are under-performing areas located between the prosperous city centre and more disadvantaged inner city areas. At present these areas are physically and perceptually disconnected from both the city centre and surrounding communities.

3.62 The provision of public transport infrastructure and services of high quality, reliability and capacity would be critical to ensuring that deprived communities and regeneration areas are accessible and attractive to residents and investors.

3.63 The success of Nottingham as a place to live and work is placing increasing pressure on the transport network. If recent high levels of investment continue, further strong employment growth is forecast. This, together with social and demographic changes within the Greater Nottingham conurbation, means that substantial increase in the number of households is also expected.

3.64 The final element of need emanates from the nature of the city’s transport infrastructure. Nottingham already suffers from severe traffic congestion, particularly at peak periods on main routes into the city and along the ring road. The congestion which costs the economy £160m a year according to an EMDA report is a challenge that the conurbation needs to address now if it is to continue to grow as a vibrant and attractive area to live, work and visit in the future [NET.C24].

3.65 Development of a high quality sustainable public transport system is therefore essential to ensure that high levels of traffic congestion do not stifle economic vitality in the city and wider region. Public


22

transport can play its part in delivering the transport capacity needed to meet future economic, environmental and social challenges, provided its alignment/route is kept clear of congestion. NET Phase Two, being largely segregated, would be of fundamental importance in delivering this impact.

3.66 With the prospect of long-term growth in traffic it is essential that measures are taken now to alter travel behaviour and to facilitate a cultural change towards more sustainable alternatives, to minimise rising car use. The combination of high capacity with low impact on street space, particularly in the tightly constrained city centre, makes NET Phase Two essential to provide the step change to meet these requirements.

Scheme Justification - Consistency with National, Regional, and Local Planning, Transport and Environmental Policies (Matter 2(a))

National Policy21 22

3.67 The Government’s transport policy is clearly defined in the White Paper ‘The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030’ (2004) [NET.C15]. This builds on the earlier DfT ‘Transport Ten Year Plan’ which was published in 2000.

3.68 Government strategy to deliver sustainable development recognises the need to build a transport system that underpins long-term economic growth and productivity. There is recognition that as economic prosperity grows people want and have the means to travel more and that we must manage the growing demand for transport. The Ten Year Plan states that: ‘light rail, trams and other rapid transit systems can play a significant part in improving the attractiveness and quality of public transport in major conurbations. They can move large flows of passengers quickly and reliably. They compete with the car in terms of journey times and convenience. And they help to reduce congestion and pollution’.

3.69 In the 2006 Local Government White Paper the Government restated the importance of cities, as both key to economic growth and ensuring all have an opportunity to benefit. The Government acknowledges that cities will continue to underpin economic growth in the regions and recognises the need to build a transport system that underpins long-term economic growth and productivity. This is a point made very strongly in the Eddington Transport Study (2006).

3.70 National planning policies, notably in PPS1, PPS3, PPS6 and PPG13, seek to ensure sustainable development in accessible locations which can help reduce reliance on the private car. Integration of transport with land use and regeneration are key policy themes [NET.C4, C6,

21 NET.P1/A, Sections 3.3

22 NET.P6/A, 2.3-2.38


23

C7 & C9]. NET Phase Two is expected to stimulate regeneration and offers greater connectivity between modes to serve not only the city, but also the wider region through park and ride, improved railway station interchange and through services onto NET Line One, which serves some of the most deprived areas in Greater Nottingham.

3.71 Planning for a Sustainable Future, White Paper May 2007, recognises that planning is of ‘fundamental importance to the quality of people’s lives’. NET Phase Two would particularly help address three key challenges set out in the White Paper – namely:

• Economic Development – by increasing public transport capacity and helping to bring forward sustainable growth in employment and economic activity;

• Improved local infrastructure – by providing high quality and reliable means of travel; and

• Climate Change – by supporting sustainable integrated public transport.

3.72 The promotion of NET Phase Two has taken place with this policy background in mind. It builds on the successful implementation of NET Line One which demonstrates that high levels of usage can be achieved that match realistic forecasts.

3.73 As well as the formal Government policies alluded to above it is also pertinent to consider the relevant findings of recent Government reports and committees.

The National Audit Office Report, Transport Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee23

3.74 The National Audit Office (NAO) Report ‘Improving Public Transport in England through Light Rail’ April 2004 [NET.C18] expressed some caution about early light rail experiences in the UK. The report was critical of some aspects of light rail development, but it acknowledged the benefits that light rail can bring, particularly if schemes:

• Provide complementary measures to encourage passenger take-up, such as park and ride schemes, to deliver the desired reduction in road congestion;

• Are fully integrated with other forms of public transport including inter-ticketing; and

• Secure speedy and punctual light rail services by, for example, giving priority to light rail vehicles over road vehicles at key junctions.

3.75 The NAO report was however compiled ahead of Line One coming



24

into operation, and the above factors had already been designed into the scheme. All of these factors have been taken into account in developing NET Phase Two.

3.76 Giving evidence in connection with the NAO report to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons on 10 November 2004 the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport (DfT) stated that NET was a successful scheme where “they got everything just about right… with proper park and ride provision, vehicles that work, well integrated with the local bus system, and so on.” “I would like to offer Nottingham as an example where it was got right. Nottingham is carrying 25,000 people a [day], 5,000 coming from their park and ride schemes, because it was built for park and ride schemes on opening, because that is what the report says it should be, and that I think is evidence that it has come together and that is how we are going to go forward.” “I cannot see any reason in principle why the Nottingham system should not be expanded. The line that opened in March is a success by any standards; it is well integrated with the buses, but I see no reason in principle. I need to be careful. I cannot prejudice the outcome of their application, but I can see no reason in principle why Phase 2 would not be built and even taken further down the road.” [NET.C18/1]

3.77 In April 2005 the Transport Select Committee produced a report on ‘Integrated Transport: The Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom’ [NET.C17/1]. It suggests that this mode is suitable for heavily trafficked routes and believe that these types of scheme have a place within urban transport strategy. NET Phase Two, therefore, complies with the emphasis of the report in selecting a modern tram system as a means of high quality public transport for busy urban routes.

3.78 The Committee of Public Accounts reinforced the message in their report ‘Improving public transport in England through Light Rail’ (April 2005) [NET.C18/1], repeating the need for light rail to be established as part of an integrated transport network.

Regional Context24 25

3.79 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands, March 2005 (RSS8) [NET.C20], which incorporates the Regional Transport Strategy, provides, with the Regional Economic Strategy, an overall policy framework for regional development. It states that the planning process should support the continued regeneration of the city, and maintain and strengthen its economic, commercial and cultural roles.

3.80 Light rail is specifically addressed as part of the current RSS8 in Policy 50 which states that ‘local authorities, public bodies and service providers should work in partnership to increase the level of bus and light rail patronage at the regional level towards the national target of 12% by 2010’


25 NET.P6/A, 2.48-2.58


25

through a number of measures, including developing opportunities for new light rail. New means of transportation must be fully integrated into existing networks to increase their attractiveness and future sustainability.

3.81 RSS8 is currently under review (the draft replacement RSS, also known as the Draft East Midlands Regional Plan, was issued for public consultation on 28th September 2006) [NET.C44], and has been developed within the overall vision set by the East Midlands Regional Assembly’s Integrated Regional Strategy (IRS) [NET.C45]. One of the spatial objectives of the IRS is to improve accessibility to jobs and services by increasing the use of public transport, cycling and walking, and reducing traffic growth and congestion.

3.82 The draft RSS incorporates the draft Regional Transport Strategy (draft RTS), which sets out Regional and Sub-Area Transport Investment priorities. The main thrust of the draft RTS is the encouragement of an integrated approach to transport planning, promoting public transport and non-car modes of travel whilst reducing the need to travel by car. This is supported by the Regional Economic Strategy [NET.C19] which recognises the importance of high quality transport infrastructure in meeting economic growth and regeneration objectives and also the importance of travel demand management.

3.83 The draft RTS supports the Core Objectives of the draft RSS by aiming to reduce the need to travel and the rate of traffic growth, and also promote a step change in the quality of public transport.

3.84 Policy 49 of the draft RTS sets out the Regional priorities for Bus and Light Rail Services. It states that local authorities, public bodies and service providers should work together to increase the level of bus and light rail patronage at the regional level towards the national target of 12% by 2010. The draft RTS has been informed by the process to determine regional infrastructure priorities up to 2016.

3.85 The draft RSS takes full account of the successful New Growth Point bid announced in October 2006 for the 'Three Cities and Counties' (submitted by the relevant City and County Councils covering the Derby, Leicester and Nottingham conurbations) [NET.C46]. The Growth Point bid envisages over 120,000 new homes in the region by 2021, growth which cannot be wholly accommodated solely within the Nottingham built up area. The area to the South of Clifton is identified in the RSS as an appropriate location for a major sustainable urban extension (Three Cities SRS Policy 4), as it can also take advantage of existing and planned infrastructure, including the extension of the “Nottingham Light Transit Line”.

3.86 NET Phase Two would also fulfil the Three Cities Sub-Area objectives of the draft RTS listed in Policy 41 by helping to reduce the use of the car in Nottingham and by promoting a step change increase in the quality and quantity of public transport provision. It would also contribute towards the Three Cities Sub-Area transport objective of


26

developing the transport infrastructure and services needed to improve access to jobs and services from deprived inner urban areas and outer estates, and also to identified Regeneration Zones.

3.87 The regional partners recognise that the proposed expansion of the NET system would bring significant Sub-Regional benefits. The Regional Transport Investment Priorities identified in Appendix 6 of the draft RSS include consideration of Nottingham light rail extensions through the Local Transport Plan and PFI.

3.88 In the Regional Funding Allocation advice submitted to the Government in January 2006 [NET.C47] NET Phase Two was identified as having significant regional benefits with important links to economic development and thus was identified as a regional investment priority. No other local transport improvement has been identified as meeting such a broad range of policy objectives or the extent of benefits that the investment in NET Phase Two would secure.

Local Planning and Transport Policy26 27

Background

3.89 The Scheme runs through three Nottinghamshire authorities, including the City of Nottingham, and the Boroughs of Broxtowe and Rushcliffe.

3.90 Although the City of Nottingham became a Unitary Authority in 1998, the Council opted to produce a Joint Structure Plan with Nottinghamshire County Council and to review the adopted Nottingham City Local Plan, rather than produce a separate Unitary Development Plan.

3.91 The adopted sub-regional policy documents relevant to the Scheme are the:

• Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan, February 2006 [NET.C21]; and

• Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham, July 2006 [NET.C22].

3.92 Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council adopted The Joint Structure Plan (JSP) on 16th February 2006 [NET.C21]. The policies of the Plan have been saved under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, pending the publication of the revised RSS 8.


27 NET.P6/A, 2.59-2.106


27

3.93 The adopted Local Plans that cover the area of the Scheme, for the three boroughs are the:

• City of Nottingham Local Plan, adopted November 2005 [NET.C28].

• Rushcliffe Borough Non Statutory Replacement Local Plan, December 2006 [NET.C34].

• Broxtowe Borough Council Local Plan, adopted September 2004 [NET.C35].

Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan

3.94 The JSP identifies three key transport priorities which are to improve accessibility, reduce the use of the private car and promote a step change in the quality and quantity of public transport [NET.C21]. The JSP (paragraph 1.51) also states that ‘enhancements to public transport, such as the development of Nottingham Express Transit, and the development of public transport interchanges will contribute towards greater public transport use and provide a major boost to the local economy’.

3.95 JSP Chapter 5 deals with transport issues and notes that the M1, A453 and A52 Multi-Modal Studies recommended further development of park and ride facilities on the outskirts of Nottingham as a means to reduce traffic flows into the City Centre and relieve strategic transport corridors. Park and ride is also identified as an essential element of the NET system.

3.96 JSP Policy 5/2 (Light Rail) indicates that provision will be made and land protected for the development of a network of the Nottingham Express Transit system and associated infrastructure in Greater Nottingham, involving Phase Two lines to Clifton and Chilwell and other longer term lines. NET Line One and NET Phase Two are identified on the key diagram.

Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham

3.97 NET Phase Two is fundamental to the transport strategy for Greater Nottingham and a central feature of its LTP.

3.98 The plan identifies the prospect of long term growth in traffic and identifies that it is essential for measures to be taken to address travel behaviour and to facilitate a cultural change towards more sustainable alternatives.

3.99 The tram network is considered to be the most important measure because of the considerable increase in public transport use it is expected to achieve, particularly in corridors where traffic is particularly heavy and where significant lengths of segregated running, avoiding traffic delay are possible.

3.100 The three corridors served by NET Phase Two, (the A453, A52 and A6005) are three of the busiest traffic routes in Nottingham.


28

3.101 The current LTP for Greater Nottingham is the second to have been produced jointly by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council. It covers the five-year period from April 2006 to March 2011 and replaced the first plan that was published in July 2000 and expired at the end of March 2006.

3.102 The strategy contained within the Plan is well established, with the main thrust being to continue to improve access to the City Centre and surrounding district centres by providing greater transport choice, in particular by public transport supported by demand management techniques, to contain traffic growth. The NET system features strongly as the single most important measure for achieving modal change from the car.

3.103 The delivery of NET Phase Two is strongly aligned with four of the seven key objectives of the LTP which are tackling congestion, improving accessibility, better air quality and supporting regeneration. The project also supports the achievement of a further two key objectives (improved road safety and enhancing quality of life).

3.104 NET Phase Two is also recognised in terms of its importance in the wider context. This is in terms of supporting policies for economic development, protection of the environment and promoting urban renewal. NET is seen as ‘one of the key factors for creating a climate of investment and the high quality tram service will maintain or enhance sustainable economic activity’. [C22, Section 9.4.2]

3.105 Resources for the development of NET Phase Two are included in the LTP’s five-year delivery programme. A comprehensive package of integrated transport measures is also included that would complement the introduction of the system.

3.106 The development of the LTP has been assisted through the input of the Greater Nottingham Transport Partnership (GNTP). The partnership comprises representatives from the private, public and voluntary sectors including local businesses and transport operators. It provides input into Greater Nottingham transport strategy development and co-ordinates Regional Development Agency funding at the sub-regional level for transport schemes (including for NET Phase Two development).

Local Plans

Transport-related policies

3.107 Planning policies at the local level are supportive of the NET Phase Two proposals. All three local authorities, whose areas NET Phase Two would serve, have developed local plans that take account of the scheme and provide policy support for the concept and routes of the proposed extensions that would form NET Phase Two.

3.108 The Nottingham Local Plan [C28, paragraph 10.1] recognises that


29

‘integrated transport is a key element of sustainable development’. Extensions to NET and the transport interchange at Nottingham Station form major components of the City’s transport strategy as described in the Local Plan. The route alignments for NET Phase Two are shown indicatively on the proposals map, and safeguarded by the following policy:

• Policy T6 states ‘Planning permission will not be granted for development which would prejudice the development of a network of Nottingham Express Transit lines within the safeguarded areas.’

3.109 In the Rushcliffe Borough Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan (RBNSLP)[C34, paragraph 6.24], Rushcliffe Borough Council ‘strongly supports’ the extension of the light rapid transit network south of the River Trent subject to impacts on local residents and the natural environment being kept to a minimum and the Borough will take into account the need to maintain the continuity of potential lines when considering planning applications in those areas. The NET alignment through the Borough is shown on the proposals map, and safeguarded by the following policy:

• Policy MOV3 states ‘the Borough Council will protect from development the potential line of Phase Two of the Nottingham Express Transit system shown on the proposals map.’

3.110 The Broxtowe Local Plan (BLP) states that good transport links are fundamentally important to the economic and social well-being of the borough. The Plan notes a growing realisation that heavy reliance on the use of private cars cannot continue, as levels of congestion and environmental pollution rise. It also recognises that the planning system has an important role to play in securing a more sustainable pattern of development by helping reduce the need to travel and locating new development close to where public transport is, or can be, provided.

3.111 The current plan includes specific proposals to improve public transport into Nottingham City, which will have direct implications for the Borough and which will be supported by the Council where appropriate. The NET alignment through the Borough, together with the park and ride site, is shown on the proposals map, and safeguarded by the following policy:

• Policy T6 states ‘Proposals will be supported which would facilitate the expansion and operation of the NET system into the borough and development will not be permitted which would inhibit the extension of the system.’

3.112 As well as the transport-related Local Plan policies a number of other policies come into play when considering the impact of the proposals on the surrounding areas, notably:

• Green Belt Policies, in considering the park & ride sites,

• Nature Conservation and Open Space Policies,


30

• Water Resources, Soils and Contaminated Land Policies, and

• Town Centre and Retail Policies

Green Belt28 29 30 31

3.113 Both Broxtowe and Rushcliffe have policies within their local plans setting out the usual presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and identifying appropriate forms of development, which accord broadly with PPG2.

3.114 As far as park & ride sites are concerned, the BLP safeguards the Toton Lane location in the Green Belt through Policy T6, this would obviate the need for the full range of tests in PPG2, paragraph 3.17. However the Park & Ride Sites Appraisal Consolidation Report [NET.P6/D, IMG28] addresses the PPG2 tests and confirms the proposed Toton Lane site as the one that should be selected.

3.115 As regards the Clifton site at Nottingham Road, RBNSLP Policy MOV4 takes a positive view of park and ride sites in the Green Belt, recognising the particular geography of the borough. Its tests are otherwise essentially the same as those in PPG2. The results of the comprehensive appraisal of alternative park & ride sites at the proposed terminus of the Clifton route are set out in NET.P6/D, IMG15.

3.116 From an environmental perspective the proposed park and ride site option is in the preferred location. Reverting to the tests in paragraph 3.17 of PPG2, taking the park and ride site together with the access road, it meets those tests (and those in the Rushcliffe Local Plan Policy). It has been comprehensively assessed and is the best available site. It meets the test of sustainability in paragraph 3.17(b). It would not compromise the purposes of the Green Belt.

Nature Conservation and Open Space

3.117 The scheme would, unavoidably, affect some non-statutory designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) along both routes32. No statutory designated sites would be directly affected by either route.

28 NET.P1/A, Chapter 8

29 NET.P6/B, IMG4

30 NET.P6/D, IMG27 & IMG28

31 INQ/6, Answer to IQ110

32 Inspector’s Note: Details of these are in Section 9.1 of the Environmental Statement and they are

shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2 of the ES [NET.A17] and the Planning Direction drawings [NET.A20].


31

3.118 The City of Nottingham Local Plan (CNLP) Policy NE2 states that development likely to have an adverse impact on the flora, fauna, landscape or geological features of a SINC or other locally important site will not be permitted ‘unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site’. Under Policy NE4, development affecting Biological and Geological Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation will be permitted where mitigation safeguards the flora and fauna at the site, either in situ or by translocation, where possible. Where such planning permission is to be granted, and suitable mitigation is not possible, suitable compensatory works will be required. Essentially, this is the approach that has been adopted with NET Phase Two, given that some impacts on locally designated sites are unavoidable.

3.119 Where trees are lost through development, the CNLP indicates that these should be replaced in accordance with Policy NE5 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on ‘Trees on Development Sites’, 2001. This promotes early consideration of issues affecting trees in order to ensure the healthy retention of trees during the design process, including commissioning land and tree surveys.

3.120 The ES, in Volume 2 Part 2 [NET.A16], includes the comprehensive professional tree surveys undertaken and the Urban and Landscape Design Statement (ULDS) [NET.A18] illustrates the way in which opportunities would be taken to manage trees that can be retained and replace as many of those lost as can be along the route and within the exchange land.

3.121 The Borough of Broxtowe has a network of ‘greenways’ which are protected under adopted BLP Policy RC16 which states: ‘Important links between built-up areas and the countryside are designated by the Plan as greenways and identified on the Proposals Map. Opportunity will be taken to enhance public access along these routes, and to enhance their environmental character and appearance, including through new development. Planning permission will not be granted for development which would harm their function, or their environmental, ecological or recreational value’. Cator Lane, Chilwell to Baulk Lane, Stapleford is listed as one of those ‘greenways’.

3.122 Given that the ‘greenway’ serves as a linkage to the wider countryside beyond, the proposals would improve the recreational value of the ‘greenway’ by enabling people to travel from residential areas further afield to walk out into the adjoining countryside. It is acknowledged however, that some land within the ‘greenway’ has to be used for the scheme but, as far as possible, the function and value of the ‘greenway’ would be protected and, where possible, enhanced.

3.123 Nottingham and Broxtowe also have non-statutory Nature Conservation Strategies, whose objectives and planned actions have been taken into account in the ecological assessment [NET.A14, sections 9.2.2-3].

3.124 Outside Beeston town centre, as defined on the Proposals Map, open


32

spaces are preserved, under Policy RC5, which seeks to ensure no local deficiency of open space or the provision of equivalent areas, amongst other things.

3.125 RBNSLP sets out, under Policy EV11, that ‘planning permission which would have an adverse impact on sites of ecological significance will not be granted unless the application includes appropriate measures to mitigate the impact’. It further states that ‘proposals for development likely to affect other areas of nature conservation interest and which otherwise accord with development plan policy, will be permitted, subject to the retention or incorporation of such features into a landscaping scheme’.

3.126 The Nature Conservation Strategy for the City actively seeks to protect species and habitats, enhance biodiversity and improve public access to open spaces rich in wildlife. Rushcliffe’s Nature Conservation Action Plan addresses the same issues within Rushcliffe.

Water Resources, Soils and Contaminated Land

3.127 The Chilwell Extension would cross both the River Leen and Beeston Canal within the City of Nottingham. CNLP Policy R4 is concerned with waterways and wetlands, which recognises both the River Leen and Beeston Canal, and protects these waterways from development which would be detrimental to their water quality.

3.128 The Clifton Extension would cross the River Trent Washlands and the Fairham Brook, both in the City of Nottingham. The latter is in Green Belt and CNLP Policy R4 also applies to this location.

Town Centre and Retail Policies, including Urban Regeneration

3.129 The northern limits of the scheme would lie within the Nottingham City Centre boundary; an area which functions as a prime retail centre with its role recognized in policy. Ensuring maximum accessibility to the city centre is identified as a key issue for city centre planning. ‘The implementation of the Nottingham Express Transit tram system will improve linkages to, and within, the City Centre’. [para. 5.12]. The scheme is also key to the vision of the Meadows and Southside Area Action Plan [NET.C30] which is to facilitate ‘the NET tram extension’ [NET.C30, 4.1.1], and the Plan’s objective of improving ‘connectivity into and out of the area’ [Ibid, 4.2].

3.130 The Chilwell Extension would pass through Beeston town centre, the second largest retail centre in Greater Nottingham; this includes the eastern end of Chilwell Road. The strategic aims in the BLP relevant to shopping and town centre issues, set out in paragraph 7.2, are: ‘the application of local plan policies will help to retain trade in town centres with the object of enhancing their vitality and role at the heart of the community’. BLP goes on [paragraph 7.3] to confirm that an essential component for maintaining and enhancing town centre vitality is the provision of public transport; this is underlined in BLP Policy K4.

3.131 Broxtowe Council has, in conjunction with the Promoter,


33

commissioned a planning study of the town centre, the Beeston Town Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Report [NET.C36/1]. This is now to be progressed as a Supplementary Planning Document to the Local Plan and was on consultation in August and September 2007. This plan, albeit at an early stage in approval, is crucial to understanding how the tramway would be integrated with the planned regeneration of the town centre and its retailing.

3.132 The scheme, in relation to Beeston and Chilwell Road, as a town centre, would necessitate some demolition of existing retail premises and disruption during construction. This has to be balanced against the undoubted improvements in accessibility it would bring, both directly and by integrating bus and tram services.

3.133 The Clifton Extension alignment would pass through Clifton town centre, which is identified in the JSP as a district centre and in the CNLP as one of the four centres serving the City of Nottingham, which are ‘considered to act as town centres whereby they are the focus for shopping, services, leisure, community activities and public transport’ [Para. 5.4]. NET Phase Two would also serve the smaller local centres at either end of Southchurch Drive.

3.134 These local centres vary in size but correspond to the definition of district or local centres in PPS6, according to the services and facilities they provide. The local centres fulfil an important function for local neighbourhoods and this must be maintained and enhanced to encourage sustainable communities with access to a range of shops and services by means other than the private car.

3.135 NET Phase Two would have only limited short term disruptive effects on Clifton as a town centre. It would improve accessibility for local users and, given the remoteness and differences in function between Clifton and larger centres, in particular, the city centre, the scheme would be unlikely to draw trade away from Clifton.

Summary of Policy Considerations

3.136 NET Phase Two would be entirely consistent with national, regional and local policies that address not only transport issues, but also wider issues including strategies for planning, environmental concerns and economic regeneration. In particular, it would be fully consistent with the Greater Nottingham Transport Plan, the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8 and draft RSS) and the City of Nottingham, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe Local Plans.

3.137 National legislation strongly supports schemes that provide effective alternatives to car use, promote accessibility and contribute to environmental improvements. This is linked closely with policies supporting regeneration and ensuring that transport provision is fully integrated with land use planning. Furthermore the NET Phase Two proposals ‘link to wider objectives and priorities’ in accordance with the Draft Guidance for Local Authority Promoters Considering Light Rail


34

Scheme, DfT, December 2006 [NET.C39].

Scheme Justification - The Anticipated Transportation, Regeneration, Environmental and Socio-Economic Benefits (Matter 2(b))

Transportation Benefits

3.138 NET Phase Two would bring significant strategic transportation benefits to the areas that it would serve. In particular it would provide major enhancements in the quality and capacity of public transport provision in the south and south-western parts of the conurbation.

3.139 It would bring substantial park and ride facilities serving junction 25 of the M1 and settlements to the west, including Stapleford, Sandiacre and Derby and serving junction 24 of the M1, which is the main strategic link between Nottingham and the south, and a number of settlements in south Nottinghamshire and north west Leicestershire.

3.140 It would penetrate the QMC and Nottingham University, two of the largest generators of trips in the conurbation outside the City Centre, and it would supply high quality public transport links to a large number of existing and proposed employment sites, including Southside, ng2, Lenton, Highfields Science Park and its extension development, Beeston town centre, and the Nottingham and South Wilford Industrial Estate. It would further reinforce the role of Clifton, which is the only identified District Centre in the south west of the conurbation.

3.141 On the residential front it would improve public transport access into the Meadows, Lenton, Beeston and Chilwell, Wilford/Compton Acres and Silverdale, as well as a possible major urban extension south of Clifton, proposed in the draft RSS. It would also link to major school sites including Farnborough School and the new and proposed Wilford school sites.

3.142 Summarised below are some of the most important attributes and transport benefits of the expanded NET system in Nottingham which would make it attractive to users and such an important part of the Greater Nottingham Transport Strategy.

3.143 With the full network open, well over 20 million passengers per annum would be expected to travel on NET, including around 30% of users changing travel behaviour by moving from car to tram directly or using park and ride, as demonstrated on NET Line One. Out-turn traffic data for 2005/6 showed an inner area cordon fall in traffic of 8.5% and by 5% in the rest of the city. Whilst the ‘Turning Point’


35

traffic measures resulted in a general reduction, the North West quadrant – served by NET – showed greater falls in traffic33.

3.144 The construction of 17.5km of double track along two routes from Nottingham station to Clifton and Chilwell would ensure high levels of reliability. This reliability would be underpinned by the fact that the system would operate extensively on segregated sections or on roads with low traffic flow. Approximately 62% of the routes would be segregated and some 30% would operate on minor roads where traffic management measures would ensure delays would be kept to a minimum. The segregation, such as at the greenway in Chilwell and along the former railway line at Wilford, would be essential for the reliable operation of the service.

3.145 Through journeys between Line One and NET Phase Two would create a wide range of new journey opportunities and ensure people would not have to change trams for many journeys. Furthermore the scheme would ensure fast journey times to the city centre (Market Square) - for example 12 minutes from Compton Acres/Wilford, 20 minutes from Clifton Centre and 22 minutes from Beeston town centre. The reliability of the system would engender confidence in these journey times.

3.146 There would be much improved high quality interchange at Nottingham Station, allowing for transfer directly from the high level tram stop to the trains below, together with bus and taxi connections. NET Phase Two would extend tram coverage to improve access from the south and south west of the city, ensuring the station would be at the hub of the city’s transport network. Furthermore the extended tram network would make use of existing infrastructure in the city centre, maximising the efficient use of the constrained road and bus network. A total of 28 new tram stops would be provided across the proposed tramway extensions, increasing overall capacity to over 50 stops on the network.

3.147 The scheme would afford the opportunity to facilitate future bus interchange at Beeston and Clifton district centres, park and ride sites, and at key strategic locations on the routes. Strong potential would therefore exist for feeder bus services to be developed, as have been developed for Line One. This would broaden the effective catchment of the system.

3.148 Three of the four Major District Centres identified in the JSP (Beeston, Bulwell and Hucknall) are, or would be, served by NET Line One and Phase Two and two new strategic park and ride sites, where approximately 2400 spaces would be provided. This would increase the park and ride capacity of the NET system to 5500, with 7000 spaces in the conurbation overall. The complete NET system would

33 Mr Carter, in cross examination by BCBRA on Day 5.


36

provide park and ride access to junctions 24 to 27 of the M1, covering the main radial routes into the city centre from the west.

3.149 High levels of reliability and punctuality, and standards of cleanliness, repair and renewal, both on and off-vehicle, would be maintained through a Performance Monitoring System similar to that used on NET Line One.

Regeneration Benefits34

3.150 The development of light rail in conjunction with major changes in the urban fabric of a conurbation is an effective way of supporting development activity, as has been demonstrated in many European cities as well as in London’s Docklands, Manchester and in (or planned at) Nottingham’s Lace Market / Broadmarsh area [NET.P1/A, 2.2.5].

3.151 NET Phase Two would be an important catalyst for the regeneration of Nottingham Southside, an area of around 38 ha including the Station [NET.P6B, IMG5], and where extensive new development is being proposed by the local authority and where many landowners and developers are awaiting resolution of NET Phase Two before progressing their development proposals. Certain elements of the Southside redevelopment would be given added impetus by the approval of NET Phase Two, which would enable adjoining landowners to commission designs with confidence that they would fit alongside the NET alignment. It would also be a key element of the Integrated Transport Hub being proposed at the Station35 36.

3.152 The Scheme is also important to helping progress the potential redevelopment of Beeston town centre. The JSP and the BLP establish a clear policy objective for the town centre, which is to sustain and, where possible, enhance its role as the second largest retail centre in Greater Nottingham.

3.153 Physically, it is a relatively tightly constrained suburban centre, with originally a single east to west shopping street, High Road, and a separate sub-centre on Chilwell Road. The Square is a purpose built shopping centre, opened in the late 1960s. While the town supports a reasonable range of multiple traders, the average size of shop units is small. High Road and The Square are pedestrianised, but the centre is bisected by the busy Station Road carrying relatively heavy traffic, as does Chilwell Road.

3.154 The Promoter has worked closely with Broxtowe BC both to identify


35 See The Nottingham Station Masterplan (extract) [NET.C31]

36 Nottingham Station Heritage Report [NET.C53]


37

and promote the tram alignment that would best serve the town centre, creating a highly visible and convenient presence for the tram, with improvements to bus interchange and easy pedestrian access to the heart of the town centre. In order to progress an integrated approach to the town centre as a whole, Broxtowe BC, assisted by the Promoter, commissioned a town centre study in 2005 [NET.C36/1]. This report was used as the basis for public consultation in August and September 2007 [NET.C36/2 & 3]. The Council’s intention is to progress this as a Supplementary Planning Document to the BLP.

3.155 Amongst other things the main aim of the vision relating to NET is ‘to ensure the town centre is readily accessible by all modes of transport, whilst maximising access by foot, cycle and public transport in the context of sustainable transport’. The Report affirms that: ‘the introduction of the NET would provide a natural trigger to the redevelopment of The Square’. It identifies the opportunity to create a new on-street bus hub that would integrate with NET. This new interchange would offer the opportunity to create a landmark retail and public transport focus as well as redesigning The Square that would be the heart of activity for the town centre.

3.156 It seems clear that there is a real prospect of promoting a good quality redevelopment in the town centre and the grant of the NET Phase Two Order could be an important catalyst in moving this development forward, assuming that it receives a clear mandate though the emerging Supplementary Planning Document.

Environmental Benefits

3.157 The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) [NET.B4 & NET.B4/1] identifies strong performance of the NET Phase Two proposals against the key NATA objectives.

3.158 The introduction of the tram on the NET Phase Two routes would result in a gross reduction of 4,012 tonnes per year in road network emissions in the Greater Nottingham area. This takes account of modal shift from car to tram but also any traffic rerouting that is predicted to occur as a result of the direct impacts of NET Phase Two on highway capacity.

3.159 Taking the conservative assumption that NET Phase Two would source its electricity from the average ‘power mix’ in the UK in 2006, the net carbon dioxide savings would be some 1,032 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. This is a small but significant reduction and would increase as lower carbon sources of mains electricity become available.

3.160 When viewed as passenger kilometres these results may be read as follows; the NET Phase Two, in 2011, would be likely to require around 65g of carbon dioxide to be emitted per passenger kilometre, whereas the average private car operating on the Nottingham road network would be emitting around 113g of carbon dioxide per


38

passenger kilometre, at that time.

3.161 In summary, NET Phase Two would result in a small but significant reduction in carbon emissions from transport in Greater Nottingham, which fully supports Government and local policy initiatives on climate change.

Socio-Economic Benefits37

3.162 There are evidential links between transport and employment location and based on this evidence and documented research it is possible to forecast the likely employment impacts of NET Phase Two. All three local authorities are seeking to promote economic development in their areas and support urban regeneration. NET Phase Two serving Chilwell and Clifton would improve accessibility for large residential areas to the south and west of the city and beyond to access employment and leisure opportunities, and community facilities within the conurbation. There are defined patterns of urban deprivation along both corridors, particularly focussed on the Meadows Estate, the Clifton Estate and West Chilwell residential areas [NET.P3/1][NET.P6/A, 2.140-2.144].

3.163 Improved accessibility offered by the scheme to a relatively widely-spread labour market in the sub-region would influence the number of people willing to commute and the distances that they would be prepared to travel. The result would be that the average job within the employment study area would see its effective labour market expand by some 4%.

3.164 Based on the change in accessibility, as measured by the effective labour market size increases presented above, changes in employment in each ward in the study area were forecast. The analysis shows a substantial increase in employment in the wards of the city centre and increases in wards in Chilwell and Beeston. The positive modelled employment impacts are very significant. Few other single projects or interventions would have as large an impact on long term employment growth in Nottingham and surrounding areas.

3.165 It is forecast that the NET Phase Two scheme would make Nottingham and the surrounding areas a more attractive location for businesses to be located. The consequence of this is that this area could attract some 3% more jobs by 2021 if the scheme were constructed.

3.166 It is estimated that the additional 11,800 jobs that could be attracted to the study area would boost the local economy by around



39

£390million per year38. This is a cautious estimate, as the types of jobs are likely to yield higher economic output per head than average and productivity would be somewhat higher by 2021 compared to the 2004 figure used in the calculation.

3.167 To summarise the socio-economic benefits of NET Phase Two, by improving Nottingham and surrounding area’s competitive position, the area could become a significantly more economically attractive and prosperous location.

3.168 Turning to the overall economic performance of the scheme39, based on guidance issued by DfT it is possible to provide an assessment of the overall value for money of NET Phase Two. With engineering cost estimate of some £357million (2006) and monetised benefit to cost ratios (BCR) in excess of 2.0 at both the assessed optimism bias premium and a higher level, the scheme can be placed in the ‘High Value for Money’ category. Additional non-monetised benefits, including support to long-term economic vitality of the city and region, improved accessibility and integration also confirm the placement of the proposals in the ‘High Value for Money’ category.

Scheme Justification - Main Alternatives (Matter 2(c))

Background

3.169 In developing the scheme, a number of alternative options were considered for both the type of transport mode and the route it would take. Improvements to the rail network and low and medium cost bus-based solutions were considered as alternatives to NET Phase Two. The assessment of alternatives was based on existing tried and tested transport technologies and did not consider new technologies that are not able to match the broad performance of light rail in the NET Phase Two route corridors. The use of technology that would be compatible with NET Line One was also an important factor.

Transport Modes

Rail Improvements

3.170 Only limited opportunities exist for the rail network to contribute to improved public transport in Greater Nottingham. The strength of heavy rail is in serving regional and national travel demands and using the network for local travel demands would be an expensive and inefficient use of existing resources.

38 Note that this is calculated assuming 2004 productivity levels and is expressed in 2004 prices.

39 NET.P3/A, Section 5


40

Low Cost Bus Service Improvements

3.171 Much has already been achieved in terms of improvements to bus service levels, priorities and infrastructure. Further improvements would be low cost, but the relatively modest benefits would be considerably less than that of NET Phase Two and would not address the key traffic, economic and social exclusion problems in the conurbation. The Local Transport Plan proposals to invest in bus priority measures and service support to maximise bus usage is considered to be complementary to the NET proposals.

High Quality Bus-Based System

3.172 A high quality bus-based system was considered. The route alignment followed that of NET Phase Two, apart from in the city centre, where it operated around the bus ‘loop’ and did not connect over Nottingham Station into Line One. An appraisal of the options suggested poorer performance in a number of areas compared to NET, including the benefit to cost ratio and practical delivery. Key practical difficulties were also identified and these are discussed below.

3.173 The requirement to use the existing circuitous and congested bus ‘loop’ around the city centre would lead to associated increased journey times. Furthermore the difficulties associated with providing suitable bus stop facilities in the city centre would result in poor provision or the need to reduce existing levels of bus services on other corridors, or relocate bus stops further out of the city. All this would have an associated impact on public transport reliability and attractiveness. These serious reliability concerns in the city centre would also extend to the points where services would cross congested strategic roads.

3.174 This inefficient use of city centre infrastructure and of the road network, with space at a premium would not be an issue with the expansion of NET into other corridors as such extensions would require no additional central area infrastructure.

3.175 The bus-based option would miss the opportunity to make the most of the successful NET Line One by this use of city centre infrastructure and would lose potential consequential network benefits and a quality public transport interchange at the station in the heart of the city.

3.176 There is difficulty in justifying parts of the route, given that the benefits of the bus option are much lower and the negative impacts on frequency are greater. The sections where the impact is greatest are also the most essential parts of the NET proposals where significant journey time and reliability benefits can be provided.

Route Selection

3.177 A strategic transport study in 1990 concluded that the future success


41

of Greater Nottingham was highly dependent on a successful City Centre with efficient public transport links. Light rail was identified as a key element of the strategy. These findings were presented in the evidence submitted to Parliament in 1992 for the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill and included an outline plan showing possible future lines, including corridors to the south (Wilford/Clifton) and south-west (Beeston/Chilwell) [NET.P1/B, Appendix 10].

3.178 The initial appraisal work, on possible routes to follow NET Line One, was completed in early 2002 (including an assessment of local options in a number of locations) and the City Council on 24th April 2002, and County Council on 16th May 2002 resolved to take forward Clifton via Wilford and Beeston via QMC with the extension to Chilwell.

Beeston/Chilwell Options40

3.179 The Beeston via QMC option would follow a route via the former Royal Ordnance factory site (now the ng2 development site), QMC and the University of Nottingham. The Beeston South option would route via Riverside, Queen’s Drive park and ride site and the Boots site. The Chilwell extension would use Chilwell Road and pass through residential areas to a park and ride site adjacent to the A52.

3.180 The assessment of the route options concluded that, while all route options were feasible in engineering terms, the Beeston via QMC route with the Chilwell extension would bring most positive economic benefits to the area and was viable when tested against Government criteria. The route via QMC was 18 percent faster, and would attract 25 percent more patronage than the route via Boots.

3.181 Options of terminating at Beeston or operating to Chilwell via Boots fell substantially below the required viability levels. The Chilwell extension performed particularly well due to the residential catchment population and proposed park and ride site.

3.182 Public consultation returns indicated a clear preference for the Beeston via QMC route, due to it being more accessible to more people, more direct and serving the QMC and University. There were high levels of adverse comment relating to the Chilwell extension, which focused on key local issues.

3.183 An analysis of a number of localised route alternatives within the two Beeston corridors, including use of Queens Road and other main traffic streets found slight environmental advantages over the selected route, but all were longer and would have more unreliable journey times and had lower economic benefits.

3.184 Based primarily on the clear economic performance advantage, and

40 NET.P1/B, Appendices 22 & 23


42

possible mitigation measures to reduce localised environmental impacts, the route to Beeston and Chilwell via QMC was taken forward.

Clifton Options41

3.185 The Clifton via Queen’s Drive (CQD) option considered a route from Nottingham Station to a park and ride site off the A453, via Riverside, Queen’s Drive park and ride site and Clifton town centre.

3.186 The Clifton via Wilford (CW) route option was from Nottingham Station to the A453 park and ride site via Queen’s Walk, the Wilford former railway corridor and Clifton town centre.

3.187 The assessment concluded that while both route options were feasible in engineering terms, the CW route would attract greater patronage and have a positive economic benefit on the conurbation and could attract Government funding while the CQD route was 13% slower, would attract 15% less patronage, was significantly more expensive and fell substantially below Government funding criteria.

3.188 Public consultation returns indicated a clear preference for the CQD route, reflecting the dissatisfaction with the CW route from the Wilford and Compton Acres area.

3.189 At the same time, a number of localised alignment alternatives were considered. On the Clifton via Wilford route these included alternatives through Wilford but they were significantly slower and costlier than the core route and had lower economic benefits. An alternative via Trent Bridge was primarily discounted for the operational and reliability implications of the extent of on-street running on major roads (over 70% on street). The projected economic performance did not match that of the CW core route.

3.190 The CW route was chosen on the basis of its extremely competitive journey times, high levels of segregation from road traffic and the prospect of a very reliable operation and potential to attract Government funding.

Tram Stops42

3.191 Careful consideration has been given to the location of the tram stops, especially to placing them in accessible locations, whilst respecting environmental and operational considerations. No one now challenges the provision of the additional stop in Chilwell Road nor at Cator Lane, and there is general approval of the relocated

41 NET.P1/B, Appendices 22 & 24

42 Inspector’s Note: Two further alternatives for tram stops (Wilford Road and Silverdale) were raised

during the inquiry and these are reported later in 5.110.


43

position of the Wilford Village and Wilford Lane stops.

3.192 The Net Phase Two proposals would bring a catchment population of 99,332 (or 15.7% of the population of Greater Nottingham) within 800 metres of a tram stop, with the result that 28.6% of the population of Greater Nottingham would then be within the same distance of a tram stop on one or other of the three lines [NET.P1/A, 4.3.3].

Park & Ride Sites43

3.193 A comprehensive appraisal of alternative park and ride sites was carried out for both routes (reported in 3.256-3.257 below). The selected sites at Toton Lane and Nottingham Road, Clifton emerged as the preferred options

Electricity Sub-Stations

3.194 The locations of the proposed substations have been carefully selected [NET.P2/A, 2.4.13 to 14] and no objector has seriously questioned the chosen locations.

Worksites

3.195 A number of worksites are required to facilitate the construction of a major engineering scheme such as this [NET.P2/A, para 5.4]. The situation at Nottingham Station, in particular, is complex. A sophisticated approach has been taken to safeguarding sufficient areas for safe and economic construction, whilst not sterilising redevelopment opportunities and proposals. The Promoter would only have the power to acquire those sites which are demonstrably necessary for the scheme at the time.

3.196 Despite criticisms of the proposed construction site in Main Road, Wilford the only suggested alternative, on the embankment north of the river is considered to be more environmentally constrained.

The Case for CPO Powers (Matter 3)

3.197 Two special features of this and most other tram TWAOs are to be noted. First, although the limits of the land to be acquired both compulsorily and temporarily have been set no wider than essential at the present time, it is envisaged that when the detail design is done it should be possible to reduce the actual land-take, in some cases considerably. The most obvious examples relate to the construction strategy at the Railway Station, where the only land taken will be that actually required for construction sites at the time

43 Inspector’s Note: Various further park & ride site options were put forward by Objectors at the

inquiry and these are reported below in 5.50.


44

and to the Clifton park and ride, where the TWAO provides for the acquisition of land to construct both access options, though in practice only one access will be needed, which is now likely to be that which connects to the Highways Agency’s preferred scheme for the A453.

3.198 Second, the wording of Article 29(1) of the TWAO is such that the power of compulsory acquisition can only be exercised where the land is required for the scheme. This provides an additional safeguard over and above that contained in a standard CPO.

3.199 The evidence shows that the Promoters have worked hard to obtain agreements to acquire land and rights, and that in very many cases this has been successful, as shown by the withdrawal of objections by many landowners to the TWAO, including the University, QMC, and various businesses who originally asked to appear at the Inquiry.

3.200 Accordingly the Promoters contend that the tests in the relevant paragraphs of Circular 06/2004 are met. There is a “comprehensive…justification” for the compulsory powers sought (para 18) and “clear evidence that the public benefit will outweigh the private loss” (para 19). “As much information as possible” has been provided about “the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the scheme for which the land is required”; and although final decisions in relation to the elements of the local contribution have not been made, the City is now at a very advanced stage towards the introduction (subject to the possibility of further statutory consultation and the Secretary of State’s confirmation) of a WPL which will contribute by far the greater part of the total local contribution. Recent letters from the s.151 officers of both City and County have been provided [NET.P9], which satisfy the requirements of para 21 of the Circular.

3.201 There is therefore “a reasonable prospect of the scheme going ahead” within para 22 of the Circular, it being unlikely that it will “be blocked by any impediments to implementation”, whether “financial, physical [or] legal”, and if the Planning Direction is granted and the LBC and CAC consents issued, there will be no need for any further planning permission, though there are a number of consents, for example under the protective powers from the highway authorities and the EA and Network Rail which will be needed in due course and cannot reasonably be issued at the present stage, several years in advance of the earliest start-date. In these circumstances para 23 of the Circular is not relevant. Subject to procedural matters being completed the programme envisages the concession award in 2010 with opening of Phase Two in 2013 [NET.P1/A, Section 11].

3.202 It has been confirmed that the TWAO seeks powers over no more land than is necessary [NET.P2/A, 5.4.6] and this has not been challenged by any objector, with the exception of the specialised objection of Mr Day to the replacement open space at Chilwell.

Deleted: scheme


45



Construction Impacts

3.203 Transport impacts during construction works have been assessed at a level consistent with the current stage of scheme development, as described in the Transport Assessment [NET.B7]. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) [NET.A15 Annex C] requires that all works affecting the highway be approved by the relevant highway authority, who would consider acceptability for all highway users, including cyclists and pedestrians. Further protection is provided in respect of traffic orders during construction works, which require approval of the respective traffic authority. [Article 48 of TWAO, NET.A4 & NET.A39].

Operational Impacts

3.204 The impacts on traffic during the operation of the scheme have been assessed in considerable detail. That work has been undertaken during the scheme development and the findings brought together in the Transport Assessment [NET.B7] and the Supplementary Transport Assessment [NET.B17].

3.205 As regards other public transport services the proposed tram routes would mainly affect bus services44. Where impacts upon bus services are perceived, these would be relatively minor compared to the benefits that would be provided by an improved integrated public transport service for these two areas of the city. The experiences drawn from Line One support the expectation of cumulative benefits arising from co-operation between bus and tram operators. Benefits would be expected beyond the extent of the two tram routes, as the park and ride sites would allow connection with onward bus services to local destinations.

3.206 In considering highway capacity and traffic flow, the assessments45 have indicated that the great majority of junctions would remain within capacity with NET in operation. In two cases overcapacity arising from the addition of NET cannot be mitigated by the layout changes that are proposed. These junctions are:

• ng2 junction with A453 Queens Drive

• Woodside Road/Broadgate/University Boulevard/Beeston Road




46

3.207 At the ng2 junction, current assessments indicate that the junction may operate over capacity with NET in place, resulting in some queues for right turning traffic at the junction, main road flows would not be affected.

3.208 Whilst the Woodside Road/Broadgate junction close to the Beeston/Chilwell route is predicted to be overloaded following introduction of NET, performance of this junction is already impaired by the queuing that occurs on University Boulevard. The net impact of NET is a moderate increase in already extensive queuing and again holding of vehicles in a different location on the network.

3.209 Conversely the capacity of the adjacent Queens Road/University Boulevard junction would be increased as a result of the change in layout to accommodate NET. Queues due to the junction itself would be reduced. However, again there is currently queuing on adjacent links which cause queues through this junction.

3.210 The number of junctions where conditions for traffic would worsen when NET is in operation is very small. The assessments demonstrate that negative impacts are modest, and in the majority of locations NET can be accommodated with positive or neutral impact. The overall proposals are considered to be beneficial.

3.211 The needs of pedestrians46 have been fully considered during development of the NET Phase Two proposals. Lessons from Line One have been taken into account in design and operational terms. Advantage has been taken of infrastructure changes to accommodate improved pedestrian footways and crossing points. Overall the proposals would offer many benefits to pedestrians at various locations on the network.

3.212 The NET Phase Two proposals have been developed to include features beneficial to cyclists47. Potential hazards have been recognised by drawing on the experience of Line One. As detailed design proceeds that experience would continue to be used and cycle facilities would be subject to formal safety audits and to approval by the relevant highway authority. The proposals would provide clear benefits to cyclists.

3.213 With the road safety enhancements already included in the proposals, and the attention to be paid by designers and auditors to road safety during the further scheme development, it is anticipated that a reduction in personal injury accidents and a more secure urban environment would result from NET Phase Two48.





47


3.214 In the case of every highway, footway and bridleway set out in Schedules 3 and 4 the provision of alternative rights of way are not required because adequate alternatives already exist [NET.P5/A, 11.1-11.4]. As required by s.5(6) of the TWA, the Secretary of State can equally be satisfied that alternatives would not be required.

3.215 In addition to permanent ‘stopping up’, the revised Draft Order [Net.A39] details locations to be temporarily stopped up, set out in Schedule 5, Article 12, Parts 1-2. By ‘stopping up’ certain areas during the preparation and construction phase of the proposed tram, safe and effective building construction can take place.

3.216 Roads that would need temporary ‘stopping up’ include Styring Street between the junction with Middle Road and Beeston Bus Station, Southchurch Drive between the junction of Farnborough Road North and Farnborough Road South and Toton Lane, between the junction of the A52 Stapleford Bypass (Bardills Roundabout) and a point 200m south of the entrance to the new park and ride site. The period of closure required would be determined during scheme development, and it is unlikely that prolonged total closure would be required in all but a few instances. The only temporary closure that would be of significance would be Wilford Toll Bridge49.

c) the effects of the traffic regulation measures specified in Schedule 10 to the draft TWA Order, including the proposed restrictions on parking, loading and access50;

3.217 The proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are appropriate for the safe and effective operation of the tramway as currently proposed. The flexibility provided for subsequent changes to orders required and for the revocation of orders is a pragmatic approach that has been previously approved. All orders and revocations will require the approval of the respective traffic authority or parking authority.

d) the justification for the general power in article 48(2) of the draft TWA Order for the Promoters to introduce traffic regulation measures in addition to those specified in Schedule 10;

3.218 Article 48 of the Draft Order contains provision for the making of TROs. These are normally made by the local authority, acting in its

49 Inspector’s Note: The temporary closure of Wilford Toll Bridge is discussed more fully below in

5.122 & 6.168.

50 For a full appraisal of the traffic regulation measures see NET.P5/A, Chapter 13


48

capacity as traffic authority, to regulate the movement of traffic on the road network by, for instance, providing that traffic may only move in a certain direction, prohibiting certain movements (e.g. U-turns), making certain movements mandatory, prohibiting vehicular access to certain roads and for certain classes of vehicle, and restricting parking, waiting, loading or unloading.

3.219 The rationale for the general power provided by Article 48(2) is, in essence, to provide flexibility to the Promoter to reflect changes to the scheme that emerge as the scheme proceeds, and also to deal with construction-related issues that cannot be foreseen [NET.P5/A; section 13.2]. Article 48(1) permits NET to implement these specified TROs, but only with the prior consent of the local traffic authority.

e) any complementary traffic management or other measures proposed by the Promoters to mitigate the effects of the scheme on road users;

3.220 The introduction of trams would result in traffic re-assignment to other roads within the network. The only location where this would have a material impact on traffic flow changes would be within the Beeston area, particularly resulting in a transfer from Chilwell Road / High Road onto Queens Road East. This was acknowledged early within scheme development and the benefits of additional capacity considered along Queens Road.

3.221 As regards the Queens Road/Station Road junction [NET.B10, TD48], with the introduction of NET there would be some widening on both the Queens Road exit arms; this would produce more effective usage of the two straight-ahead lanes available at both corresponding stop lines. The enhanced capacity would be sufficient to accommodate forecasted traffic, with the junction itself operating at capacity with NET in operation.

3.222 Turning now to the Queens Road/Meadow Lane junction [NET.B10, TD49], with the introduction of NET, widening would be proposed to enable two narrow lanes to be created on each of the Queens Road approaches to replace the existing single lanes. This would have the effect of improving the capacity of the junction. Without NET the junction operates at capacity and these improvements to the junction with the introduction of NET would allow the junction to operate within capacity.

3.223 The four-arm Woodside Road/Beeston Lane/Broadgate/University Boulevard roundabout is close to the Beeston/Chilwell route and currently experiences capacity problems with queues along several of the arms and queuing back from the Queens Road/University Boulevard roundabout. No changes are proposed at this junction with the introduction of NET; it would operate with capacity problems at a slightly higher level with the introduction of NET than without. The effect would be to hold traffic that might otherwise proceed to queues elsewhere in the network. This would not be a problem within


49

a congested urban network in peak traffic conditions.

The Likely Impact on Local Residents, Local Businesses and the Environment of Constructing and Operating the Scheme (Matter 5)

a) the effects of noise, vibration and dust;

Effects During Construction

3.224 Whilst the noise control measures in the CoCP would reduce construction noise levels, some noise disturbance is inevitable for any construction project of this type. Enabling works would produce some of the highest localised noise levels affecting the nearest receptors along much of the route, but it would be of relatively short duration compared to the overall construction programme. Construction of the tram stops and other works would also create noise impacts. Limited night work is required, but would also produce some disturbance.

3.225 The CoCP is in line with best practice for projects of this type; it would limit noise and vibration impacts appropriately as well as controlling the emission of dust. The noise impacts are not considered to be unacceptable in the context of the overall tramway project.

Operation

3.226 A Noise and Vibration Policy has been developed to ensure that noise and vibration levels are controlled wherever necessary and practicable. This policy sets noise targets at considerably lower levels than the statutory requirements of the Noise Insulation Regulations.

3.227 Levels of tram noise have been predicted and compared to both noise impact threshold criteria and existing ambient noise levels. Mitigation measures would be refined in the detailed design stage in accordance with the Noise and Vibration Policy. Detailed modelling work has already been completed in some areas where necessary to confirm that these measures would be effective. In several locations noise barriers would be constructed to reduce tram noise to acceptable levels. At this stage a total of 2.8km of noise barriers is envisaged to meet the requirements of the Noise and Vibration Policy. It is estimated that noise barriers would prevent significant noise impacts at 170 properties that would otherwise have been impacted.

3.228 In several sections of the route, where the tram would run on or next to the street, residual noise impacts are predicted, and there are no practicable mitigation measures available. Approximately 500 properties would experience significant increases in noise above defined threshold levels.


50

3.229 There are no locations where the predicted tram noise levels exceed the statutory noise insulation limits. Along the vast majority of the route the predicted tram noise levels are considerably lower than the statutory noise insulation limits. There is one location that may qualify for noise insulation under the enhanced noise insulation scheme offered in the Noise and Vibration Policy; noise monitoring would establish any such property.

3.230 Ground vibration from trams is likely to be perceptible in properties along parts of the route, but analysis shows that this would not be at levels that would be expected to give rise to adverse comments. No significant impacts from vibration are predicted.

b) the impact of the scheme on air quality;

3.231 ‘Small but significant’ operational benefits of the tram were identified in the ES and this was supplemented by analysis reported in NET.P6/D, Section 4, which extended that analysis to the construction, manufacture and operation of the tramway and cars and in NET.P6/I, which included buses in the analysis. The tram delivers a significantly smaller carbon footprint than buses and one that is very much smaller than private cars.

c) the impact of the scheme on flood risk;

3.232 Two areas associated with flooding risk are relevant to the proposals. These are interface with rivers, other watercourses, flood plains and existing drainage systems; and the drainage system for the tramway itself.

3.233 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared and submitted to the Environment Agency (EA) [NET.B8]. There are a number of critical locations along the proposed tram routes where the proposed development could have impacts upon the incidence of local flooding [NET.P2A/A, 9.1.1-9.1.4].

3.234 The FRA demonstrates that sufficient work has been undertaken at this preliminary design stage to show that solutions would be available and feasible and could be incorporated into the detailed design. This has been accepted by the EA.

3.235 A commitment has been given to the EA that the FRA would be developed further prior to submission of detailed proposals for relevant elements of the NET Phase Two infrastructure for its approval. On this basis, the EA has withdrawn its objection. Approval of the EA to such works prior to construction would be required under the protective provisions within the draft Order [NET.A4, Article 69].

d) the impact of the scheme on the built environment;

3.236 NET Line One, which runs through the City Centre and northwards, is


51

a model of integration with the built environment. Unlike Line One, Phase Two would not run parallel to an existing railway, and presents a greater challenge. Weaving the tram into the built fabric through which the two new lines would pass has its difficulties, but the skilful use of available opportunities and the relatively small property take mean that the lines would be accommodated sympathetically. The overall design approach and the detailed integration of the tramway into its surroundings, including stop design, street furniture, lighting, and signage would follow that of Line One and has been set out in the Urban and Landscape Design Statement (ULDS) [ES Vol. 4, NET.A18].

3.237 As explained in the Promoter’s response to the SoS Statement of Matters 5e) below, the extent of land take and property demolition proposed has been reduced to a minimum. The impact on listed buildings and their settings, and on the character and appearance of conservation areas, is dealt with elsewhere.51 Of the remaining impact on the built environment, that on Beeston Town Centre is most significant.

3.238 The tramway route through Beeston, serving the centre of the town, inevitably involves demolition of buildings to the west of the limb of The Square which forms the pedestrian spine of the post war central shopping development. The original proposal, to demolish all of the buildings to the west of the pedestrian spine, including Wilkinsons and the Argos triangle, is the optimum solution in terms of urban design. It would benefit the setting of St John the Baptist Church and views into the Beeston West End Conservation Area by opening up views from Chilwell Road, The Square and Styring Street. However, it would be the most expensive option, would involve the maximum short term retail loss and, since it is not necessary, is beyond the scope of the TWAO.

3.239 Demolition of Wilkinsons and retention of the Argos triangle, numbers 33 to 39, would achieve all that is required for the proposal and provide some urban design benefit. The demolition of the Argos triangle, and with it realisation of further urban design benefit, could then be deferred until the redevelopment of Beeston Town Centre takes place. There is no reason why the Promoter should bear the cost of demolishing the Argos triangle for purposes wholly unrelated to the tram scheme.

e) the proposed demolition of properties, including any proposals by the Promoters to provide alternative temporary or permanent accommodation for those affected;52

51 Promoter’s response on SoS Statement of Matters 5(g); and on SoS Statement of Matters

Concerning Listed Building and Conservation Area Consents, contained in the Assistant Inspector’s separate report at Appendix D to this report.

52 Inspector’s Note: A comprehensive appraisal of the impact of the scheme on property is set out in


52

3.240 In developing the scheme a primary consideration has been the limitation of impacts on private property, in particular domestic property. Property impacts were identified at an early stage and consultation with materially affected parties has sought to mitigate impacts by identifying issues and discussing design considerations with both owners and occupiers of affected properties. In many cases this process has led to a review of the design and the reduction or avoidance of impacts. Where a residual impact remains mitigation measures have been adopted.

3.241 The extent of land take has been minimised (so that no more land than is strictly necessary would be taken), whilst ensuring that the landtake would be sufficient for the purposes of the construction and operation of the scheme, including working areas and worksites. All of the areas of land and property and the proprietary rights sought in the draft Order are considered necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the scheme.

3.242 For the vast majority of properties to be acquired [NET.P1/A, Table 10.1], arrangements have been made to relocate occupants. In some cases properties are already vacant. However in the case of Neville Sadler Court (NSC), a sheltered housing scheme, there are residual concerns53 both about the replacement development but mostly about the consequential effects of the demolition.

3.243 Concerns also remain regarding the demolition of some retail units in The Square, Beeston54, in this latter case the issue is principally a commercial concern.

f) the impact of the scheme on rights of access to property

3.244 Considerable care has been taken to protect rights of access both during construction and in the longer term. Inevitably there would be some temporary interference during construction, though the CoCP would ensure this would be minimised.

3.245 In the case of the Chilwell Road businesses there would always be access to the premises, though there may be a need for some ”carting” of goods from the nearest unloading point whilst construction proceeded in the carriageway in front of particular businesses.

3.246 In the case of Tudor House Osteopathic Clinic in Wilford Lane, that access could be maintained to the property at all times55. When the

NET.P1/A, Chapter 10, see also Table 10.1 for a list of properties required by the main works.

53 For detailed discussion of the Neville Sadler Court issue see 5.96-5.98 & 6.134-6.138

54 See 5.88-5.90 below.

55 Mr Gibson (OBJ/338) confirmed on Day 18 through Counsel.


53

scheme becomes operational, there would be some inconvenience, for example some of the congregation at St John’s Church, Beeston may have to park their cars further from the church than at present, though special provision would be made for hearses and wedding cars, if the TWO is modified as now proposed.

3.247 Likewise two sites have been identified (one, a residential development site off Chilwell Road, one a scaffolding business in Abbey Street), where there would be a restriction on certain turning movements in the future. But these are matters capable of being dealt with by compensation.

g) the impact of the scheme on the landscape and townscape, including the effects of the scheme on the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas;

3.248 The effects of the scheme on the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas is contained in Chapter 11 of the ES, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage [NET.A14] and in NET.A12, Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent Applications. The Promoter’s case responding to the SoS Statement of Matters Concerning Listed Building and Conservation Area Consents appears in the Assistant Inspector’s separate report.56 The impact on landscape and townscape is set out in Chapter 12 and Annex H57 of the ES, Townscape and Visual Impacts [NET.A15].

3.249 English Heritage objects to the possible demolition of the Arkwright Street frontage, which lies outside the Station Conservation Area, because of its effects on the townscape and the setting of the Grade II* listed Station. The Promoter explains the need for construction working area options, including the land occupied by the Arkwright Street frontage, in the Assistant Inspector’s report.58 The tramway route between the viaduct approach to QMC and the junction of Abbey Street and Gregory Street59 poses significant design problems. This is the only place where the tramway would share the carriageway of a major road running into the City Centre. To avoid land take from Lenton Priory to the south, in accordance with EH’s wishes, residential and commercial properties to the north of Abbey Street are required.

56 The Assistant Inspector’s Report is attached at Appendix D to this Report

57 Appendix 1: Townscape and Landscape Character Areas and Visual Baseline Assessment;

Appendix 2: Townscape and Visual Impacts Assessment Tables; Appendix 3: Photomontages.

58 Appendix D to this Report

59 NET.B10, TD20-21


54

h) the impact of the Scheme on archaeological remains;60

3.250 The archaeological assessment, which conformed with the requirements of PPG16, identifies one site in the vicinity of Lenton Priory Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) where there is the potential for archaeological finds of national significance. There is also the potential for archaeological finds of regional or local importance at other locations along NET Phase Two. This means that during the construction of the scheme, archaeological deposits may be encountered, both by ground works for the scheme itself, and also during the necessary diversion of services and equipment. However, a range of mitigation measures (including further archaeological investigation as scheme development progresses) have been developed to ensure that the archaeological impact is minimised.

3.251 There would be adverse residual impacts on archaeology, if significant remains are found and if engineering constraints prevent preservation on site. However, in such instances, the remains would be fully recorded and preserved elsewhere, in accordance with best practice. A revised draft planning condition reflects the above approach. It is considered that the ‘impact of the Scheme on archaeological remains’ has been properly assessed and would be properly mitigated and this view is shared by English Heritage and the local authorities’ archaeologists.

i) the effects of the scheme on flora and fauna, including the loss of trees;61

3.252 The ES has undertaken an assessment of the impacts on ecological and nature conservation features along the route of the NET Phase Two scheme. As a result of the assessment a number of route-wide mitigation measures have been integrated into the scheme. A number of site-specific mitigation measures would also be undertaken to minimise ecological impacts [NET.A14, Section 9.9.1].

3.253 Overall it is recognised that there would be significant residual ecological and nature conservation impacts from the construction of NET Phase Two mostly associated with the Clifton via Wilford route. There would be adverse residual ecological impacts as follows; a significant, although temporary, adverse impact is reported for King’s Meadows Grasslands SINC. The Ironmonger Pond SINC would experience a significant impact – severe short term and partial long term impacts. The Wilford Disused Railway SINC, principally south of Wilford Lane, would suffer significant adverse impact as would the Wilwell Farm Cutting SINC on a small area. Of most note are the impacts on the Wilford Disused Railway SINC due to the importance of existing habitats and the scale of habitat loss; this cannot be fully

60 NET.A14, Chapter 11

61 NET.A14, Chapter 9

Formatted: French (France)



55

mitigated. However, areas of habitat creation adjacent to the tramway along the former railway corridor and in the replacement area south of Silverdale have the potential to partly mitigate for loss of amenity and habitat in the long term.

3.254 There would be significant residual impacts arising from loss of species-rich semi-ruderal habitat and some locally rare species at Beeston Sidings SINC which is to be used as a temporary overnight railway siding during works at Nottingham Station. This habitat is difficult to replicate and there are no opportunities for creation of replacement habitat. Other significant impacts would be disparate, and in many cases borderline. They include small impacts on water vole habitats on watercourses, small losses from SINCs, and temporary disturbance to amenity wildlife sites adjacent to the routes.

3.255 The loss of trees and the proposed replacement with an overall increase is documented in the ULDS [NET.A18] and the Tree Survey and summarised in Appendix 5/2 of the Rebuttal to ENT [NET.R71].

j) whether the proposed development in the Green Belt would be inappropriate development within the terms of PPG 2 on Green Belts (including whether the proposed park and ride sites meet the tests in paragraphs 3.17 to 3.20 of PPG 2) and if so, whether there are any very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption against such development;

3.256 The correct policies in PPG2, in particular paragraphs 3.17 to 3.19, have been applied, including proper assessments of alternative sites. These were carried out in conjunction with the local planning authorities. The selected site, in each case, meets the ‘sustainability’ criteria in the PPG. Very few alternative non-Green Belt sites were canvassed, with no viable alternatives to the proposed sites.

3.257 The evidence [NET.P6/A, Section 8; NET.P6/B, IMG15; NET.P6/D, IMG27 & IMG28] establishes that the tests in paragraphs 3.17 to 3.20 of PPG2 are met and that the development of both the proposed park & ride sites is not inappropriate development in Green Belt. There is therefore no policy presumption against such development.

The Temporary and Permanent Effects of the Scheme on Open Space and the Promoters’ proposals for providing replacement open space, including whether the Borough of Broxtowe and the Borough of Rushcliffe have agreed to dispose of open space in their areas to the Promoters for the purposes of the scheme. (Matter 6)

3.258 A detailed open space appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with PPG17. This identifies areas of open space which would need to be acquired to accommodate the tram. The main areas of open space required for NET Phase Two are:


56

• The Chilwell Greenway, owned jointly by the City Council and Broxtowe Council, a multi functional open space that would still perform its function even with the tram travelling across it;

• Wilford Power Station SINC, owned by the City Council, fenced off but accessible for informal use;

• Queen’s Walk, owned by the City Council, a well maintained pedestrian avenue (given the extent of recreational open space in close proximity there would be no requirement to provide replacement open space); and

• Wilford Embankment, owned by the City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council, corridor of green space.

3.259 Areas of replacement open space are proposed at Inham Road (for Chilwell Greenway), Lenton (for Wilford Power Station) and Silverdale (for Wilford Embankment). Nominally, 6.45 ha of public open space would be permanently occupied by the tramway (although this includes shared surfaces such as that along Queens Walk) and 4.24 ha of new replacement open space is to be provided. It is believed that this is a balanced response to the losses of open space and it meets the requirements of policy, in particular PPG17 paragraph 13 [NET.P6/A, Section 7].

3.260 One Exchange Land Certificate has been applied for, relating to the sites (plots 716, 724 and 725) at Lenton, which are not in public ownership, described in paragraphs 7.20 to 7.27 of NET.P6/A and NET.A24 [see also P6/B, IMG14]. This has been advertised by the Secretary of State and only one objection was received. This objection was subsequently withdrawn.

3.261 As described in NET.P6/D and detailed in NET.A21/3 and A36, a second Exchange Land Certificate has been sought, in relation to open space owned by RBC and BBC, which would be needed if these Councils do not agree to the voluntary transfer of this land to the Promoter. The second Certificate treats the two areas of replacement open space at Inham Road and Silverdale, and which are currently agricultural land, as the exchange lands. It is considered that the tests in s19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are met62.

62 Inspector’s Note: By the end of the inquiry the Secretary of State had determined that she was

minded to issue the relevant certificate, although this application had still to be advertised. The relevant considerations relating to the location, extent and suitability of the proposed Exchange Land were canvassed at the inquiry. During the drafting of this report the certificate was advertised and attracted a number of objections. Those objections were not before me.


57

Proposed Mitigation Measures (Matter 7)

a) the proposed Code of Construction Practice

3.262 In order to minimise the impacts of construction, a draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) has been developed for the scheme [NET.P2/A, Section 5.7 and NET.P8/A, Section 3]. This would be advanced through discussion with the local planning authorities and other statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency.

3.263 The CoCP sets out the measures that would be required to be undertaken by the Contractor to ensure site safety and environmental best practice. These measures have been developed based upon experience of other major construction projects and comply with relevant statutory codes of practice, standards and laws applicable to the regulation of construction practice and its effects on health and safety and the environment. The CoCP would be included in the contractual arrangements between the Promoter and its selected Contractor. It should be noted that compliance with the CoCP would not discharge the Contractor, or its agents, from complying with any statutory requirements in force at the time

3.264 The draft CoCP [NET.A14, Annex C] has been agreed with all three local planning authorities. It would be a contractual requirement to be met by the Concessionaire. Certain key elements are also the subject of planning conditions, including new conditions now put forward by NET [NET.P6/R].

3.265 A Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures, derived from the ES, has been submitted [NET.P6/U] and is tied by planning conditions [NET.P6/V condition 16].

3.266 Overall, although a number of objectors raised concerns regarding the construction phase, no one took issue with the CoCP – including BBC and RBC– save that Mr Britton was concerned as to its enforceability. Although the primary means of enforcement will be the contractual provisions between the Promoter and the concessionaire, his concern has been addressed by incorporating some of the provisions of the CoCP into the planning conditions, a course welcomed by Mr Britton on Day 26.

b) the provisions in the proposed Order for the protection of the interests of statutory undertakers, highway authorities and other affected bodies;

3.267 Details about the statutory undertakers are given in the Promoter’s response to Secretary of State Matter 11 below.

3.268 In respect of the three highway authorities affected, the Highways Agency has confirmed its support and indicated that NET Phase Two is important in getting the most from the Trunk Road network [NET.P5/B, Appendix C]. The City and County Councils are the two


58

local highway authorities affected, and have been engaged throughout the development of the scheme. The Councils have reviewed the Transport Assessments that have been undertaken [NET.B7 and NET.B17] and confirmed in letters put before the inquiry [NET.P5/H] that they are content that their interests are suitably protected.

c) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major adverse environmental impacts of the scheme;

3.269 The potential major adverse impacts are

• construction inconvenience,

• noise,

• ecology, and

• amenity open space.

3.270 Construction impacts would be reduced by adherence to the CoCP and by a variety of measures including careful programming of the works liaison with local residents and businesses [NET.P1/F], control of contractors’ parking [NET.P2/N], and, in the case of Chilwell Road traders the Financial Assistance Package [NET.P1/A, 9.5.1], which mirrors that approved by the Parliamentary Select Committee in relation to Line One.

3.271 Noise levels during construction would be controlled by the local environmental health authority through s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Operational noise would be very considerably reduced by implementation of the Noise and Vibration Policy and in particular by the erection of noise barriers where practicable.

3.272 Impacts on ecology and open space would be significantly reduced by the provision of the three areas of Exchange Land.

d) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any other significant adverse environmental impacts of the scheme;

3.273 The overall package of mitigation is described fully in NET.P6/A, Section 4 and it is considered that this would be entirely adequate and in accordance with good practice. BCBRA, Mr Britton for ENT, RBC, BBC and NWT have questioned whether additional mitigation could be offered. It was established in cross examination and evidence that:

• mitigation is as good or better than other recent tramway TWA Orders; • in the case of noise, the Policy goes to the limits of what it would be lawful for

the Promoter to provide; • the design has been optimised to reduce and minimise adverse effects and this

would continue during detailed design;


59

• the conditions, especially those to attach to the LBC and CACs, would secure a very high standard of mitigation for the historic environment; and

• the Promoter is confident, even where detailed work on e.g. flood risk is to be completed, there would be no worse impacts than already identified.

3.274 There is a ‘catch all’ planning condition proposed, which would

ensure that if changes to the Scheme are necessary, any additional environmental mitigation measures that are needed would be brought forward.

e) whether, and if so to what extent, any adverse environmental impacts would still remain after the proposed mitigation measures had been put in place.

3.275 The residual impacts are fully detailed in evidence, and listed in the ES [NET.A14, Table 20.1 (following page 20-15)].

3.276 The principal remaining adverse impacts would be:

• some noise impacts; During construction there would be a small number of locations where short term noise impacts may still occur during enabling works. During operation airborne noise from trams is expected to result in moderate residual noise impacts at approximately 250 receptors, and a substantial impact at 13 properties on the Clifton via Wilford Route. The equivalent residual noise impacts for the Beeston/Chilwell route would be some 90 receptors with moderate impact and substantial impact at 120 receptors.

• construction disturbance; Construction dust is likely to cause a minor impact at sensitive receptors within 100 m. The level of impact would be dependent on the actual activity, the weather and the existing dust levels. There would be short term impacts on highway capacity in Southchurch Road.

• loss of the southern part of the Wilford Railway Corridor SINC; The impacts on this SINC cannot be fully mitigated due to the importance of existing habitats and the scale of habitat loss, which can only partly be replaced at alternative locations.

• the effect of trams running along the Wilford Disused Railway Corridor and along the Chilwell Greenway; There would be moderate to substantial long term negative visual impacts for nearby residents and users of these corridors and for visitors to Kings Meadow Nature Reserve.

• some visual impact including the loss of mature trees; There would be substantial negative visual impacts in the vicinity of Lenton Priory and for the residents of Queens Walk.


60

The Adequacy of the Environmental Statement (Matter 8)63

3.277 The ES is a robust and transparent assessment which properly addresses the requirements of the EIA Directive and the Rules which are, in simple terms, to assess the ‘likely significant environmental effects’ of the proposed development. It identifies clearly the potential impacts, any necessary mitigation measures and ‘any significant adverse residual environmental effects’ once mitigation is in place. Any alternatives that were considered, provided that these are significant in the context of the scheme, are reported.

3.278 The ES goes beyond the minimum requirements of the Rules and has been prepared in accordance with best practice by an experienced team of specialists. The ES was publicised in accordance with the relevant procedures and was placed on deposit as part of the order application documents. The statutory requirements in relation to consultation have been fully complied with.

Conditions (Matter 9)

3.279 The original draft planning conditions were set out in Appendix 2 to NET.A6. These were acceptable to the local planning authorities. Subsequent revisions were put forward and the amended draft conditions were included in NET.P6/B, IMG17.

3.280 Following further discussions with objectors and with the local planning authorities these draft conditions were discussed at the inquiry on 20 December 2007 (Day 27) at a round table session, which included representatives of the three local planning authorities.

3.281 The resultant revised draft conditions are set out in NET.P6/V.

3.282 The local planning authorities (NCC, RBC, and BBC) indicated their acceptance of these revised conditions.

3.283 The conditions put forward on behalf of NET represent a suitable framework of control for the project. With their imposition the project would be sufficiently regulated in the final stages of its design, in its implementation, and in its operation. The conditions all comply with the necessary policy tests in Circular 11/95. In particular, they do not exceed that which is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.

Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) Considerations (Matter 10)

a) the justification for the powers in articles 19 and 34 to attach such equipment to buildings on the land specified in Schedule 8 to

63 NET.P6/A, 4.14-4.17


61

the draft TWA Order and to acquire compulsorily easements and other new rights for that purpose64;

3.284 The driving principle in seeking to attach OLE to buildings is to minimize clutter from street furniture in the urban realm. This has successfully been applied elsewhere, including NET Line One. Article 19 would provide the powers to fix the OLE to properties specified in Schedule 8 of the Order and highlighted on the Planning Direction Drawings [NET.A22].

3.285 Article 34 expressly limits the powers in respect of the listed land parcels to easements or other new rights required for the fixing and maintenance of equipment. These provisions, which depart from the previous consensual regime, have their precedent in the 2005 Merseytram Line 1 Order. These compulsory provisions have been adopted because experience from NET Line One showed that the process of seeking building owners’ consents was not at all straightforward. Owners would have the ultimate safeguard of the Lands Tribunal adjudication.

b) whether the draft TWA Order should expressly entitle the owners of buildings affected by those powers to require the removal of such equipment to allow for demolition, reconstruction or repair of a building, as provided for owners of buildings fronting onto NET Line One in paragraph 5(d) of Schedule 16 to the draft TWA Order65;

3.286 The situation is different from the NET Line One position because under the Line One Act the entitlement to these OLE removal provisions is already part of the consensual regime for Line One, which is not to be removed and replaced with a compulsory regime, given that the building fixings are already in place on that Line. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the draft Order therefore continues with this regime for Line One, with some small modifications.


3.287 The making of byelaws regulating maintenance (or the carrying out of works) to the facades of buildings has its precedent in the Merseytram Order in respect of buildings to which OLE was to be attached. The power would be extended here to all buildings fronting

64 NET.P2/A, 9.4.1-9.4.6

65 NET.P2/A, 9.4.7


62

on to the tram system as the result would largely put in place a system for safe working within a defined hazard zone, which would include non-OLE-fixed buildings. It would therefore be more certain for it to be specifically part of the operating regime for the system and so provided for in Part 4 of the Order.

3.288 Notification to affected parties and due consultation would be effected in accordance with the provisions of Article 51, with reference to new procedures in the Local Government Act 1972. Furthermore all byelaws must be reasonable and within the scope of their enabling power, in this case Article 51(1) and (2).

Statutory Undertakers (Matter 11)

3.289 The following statutory undertakers objected to the Order:

• Cable and Wireless UK, (Obj/21) • Energis Communications Limited, (Obj/22) • Thus PLC, (Obj/628) • National Grid Gas PLC, (Obj/801) • National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC, (Obj/802) • Environment Agency, (Obj/665) • British Waterways Board, (Obj/803) • Royal Mail Group PLC and Post Office Limited, (Obj/804) • Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, (Obj/879) • Hutchison 3G UK Limited, (Obj/898) • Virgin Media Limited, (Obj/1098)

3.290 Of these, agreements have been reached with the following:

• National Grid Gas PLC, (Obj/801) • National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC, (Obj/802) • Environment Agency, (Obj/665) • British Waterways Board, (Obj/803) • Royal Mail Group PLC and Post Office Limited, (Obj/804) • Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, (Obj/879) • Virgin Media Limited, (Obj/1098) 3.291 A summary of the agreements reached is set out below. Where it is

indicated that modifications have been agreed to the draft Order, these modifications have been incorporated in the Filled-Up Draft Order [NET.A39]:

• National Grid Gas PLC, (Obj/801) and National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC, (Obj/802): An undertaking was made to effect certain modifications to Schedules 12 and 16 of the Order and to enter into an agreement in respect of Stray Currents which would not be less favourable than the draft appended to the undertaking.


63

• Environment Agency, (Obj/665): An undertaking was made to introduce certain modifications to Article 69 of and Schedule 16 to the Order, and to continue to work with the EA to develop the flood risk assessment dated August 2007 (Report Reference 223700/ER34/A) so as to address the issues identified as needing to be addressed by the EA. The EA has withdrawn its objection.

• British Waterways Board, (Obj/803): The Promoter entered into an agreement with the British Waterways Board regarding the works to Clayton’s Bridge and the Wilford Toll Bridge and agreed to make certain modifications to Article 20 and Schedules 13 and 16 to the Order.

• Royal Mail Group PLC and Post Office Limited, (Obj/804): The Promoter entered into an agreement with Royal Mail Group/Post Office regarding protection of their infrastructure, continued access to premises and agreed to insert article 48(10) in the Order.

• Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, (Obj/879): Certain amendments to Schedule 14 of the Order were agreed with Network Rail.

• Virgin Media Limited, (Obj/1098): Virgin Media withdrew their objection following an explanatory exchange of correspondence regarding the provisions of the draft Order.

3.292 Agreement has not been reached with the following objectors but

they have not appeared at the inquiry or made written representations to it:

• Cable and Wireless UK, (Obj/21) and Energis Communications Limited, (Obj/22): These objectors were written to on 28 August 2007, 3 October 2007 and 13 December 2007 asking them to specify their grounds of objection, without reply.

• Thus PLC, (Obj/628): These objectors were written to on 28 August 2007, 3 October 2007, 25 October 2007 (by email) and 13 December 2007 offering an undertaking designed to meet their main point of objection, namely, that mechanical excavation or borers should not be used within 1000mm of their apparatus. No reply has been received.

• Hutchison 3G UK Limited, (Obj/898): Hutchison requested an undertaking in respect of certain matters. On 19 October 2007, a draft agreement was sent for its consideration and correspondence was issued again, chasing a response, on 13 December 2007. No response was received to either letter.

3.293 In the case of the last three objectors the Promoter does not

consider that the scheme would compromise the statutory undertakings concerned.


64

Funding (Matter 12)66 67

3.294 An overall project cost estimate of £400m (at 2005 present value prices), which includes the capital cost estimate plus appropriate risk contingencies, and other costs and revenues arising from commercial considerations relating to the proposed procurement approach, has been used for budgeting and funding allocation purposes.

3.295 Cost estimates have been the subject of scrutiny by the DfT. They also reflect experience of NET Line One and learning from tram scheme development in other UK cities, including those where cost escalation led to schemes being shelved.

3.296 On 25th October 2006 the Secretary of State for Transport approved the entry of NET Phase Two into the DfT’s Local Authority Major Schemes Programme [NET.B6] and a government funding contribution of up to £437m in PFI credits (equivalent to £341m at 2005 present value prices). This is based on a government contribution of 75% towards the project cost estimate of £400m, plus a 50% contribution to an additional contingent sum of £82m (all at 2005 present value prices). Part of the 25% local contribution is already being provided by the Councils to meet development costs. The remainder would be split 80% City / 20% County.

3.297 The current preferred option to meet the majority of the funding requirement of the City Council is to introduce the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL), plus a range of other funding sources, including reserves, capital receipts from asset sales, contributions secured from local developers through planning agreements, local authority growth business incentive funds, prudent borrowing and potential future changes to the business rating system. The County Council is also considering the application of these funding sources, where available, together with revenue from its Revenue Support Grant and Council Tax.

3.298 There is no reason why the proposals should not continue to attract DfT funding in respect of the overwhelming majority of their costs, in accordance with Scheme Entry Approval. The local contribution would come, as to 80%, from the City and 20% for the County Council. So far as the City Council, the position is set out in NET.P9 Q126 [See letter of 20 November 2007], NET.B26 and NET.P1/J, with the majority planned to come from the WPL. So far as the County Council is concerned, see also NET.P9 Q126 [letter of 23 November 2007].

66 Inspector’s Note: The NCC’s funding contribution would come largely from the proposed WPL.

During this Inquiry NCC was considering the response to its (separate) consultation exercise on the WPL and my IQ130 focuses on the procedural matters arising out of this and how they would impinge on NCC’s reasonable capability to attract the necessary funding – see the answer to IQ130 [INQ/6 & replicated at NET.P1/K].

67 See also answer to IQ126 [INQ/6 & NET.P9].


65

Changes to the Draft Order (Matter 13)

3.299 This matter was initially addressed in NET.A35, Section B6. The draft Order that was the subject of the application is at NET.A4. A draft copy of a marked-up revised draft Order is at NET.A37 and the filled-up draft Order is at NET.A39.

General

3.300 Following discussions with the DfT, the Promoter has—

• removed references to articles “of this Order” and schedules “to this Order”; and

• removed references to headings of articles and schedules other than where they appear for the first time in an article;

to conform with current drafting practice.

Article 2: Interpretation

3.301 The proposed modifications to this article are required as a consequence of modifications to the rest of the draft Order.

Article 5(11) and elsewhere: Disapplication of local Inclosure Act

3.302 This provision has been clarified, so that it is clear that it applies not only to construction and maintenance of the works, but also to their operation and use, and appropriation of land for those purposes [NET.R83, Appendix 2].

Article 19: Attachment of equipment to buildings

3.303 The modifications to this article are necessary as the plots of land at the ng2 Development Site Spine Road have been moved from Schedule 8 (Acquisition of new rights only) to Schedule 6 (Land not to be acquired compulsorily).

Article 20: Temporary closure of waterways

3.304 The modifications to this article were agreed with the British Waterways Board such that the Promoter is granted sufficient powers to carry out Work No. 7 and Work No. 12 while sufficiently protecting the interest of the British Waterways Board in the canal and the river.

Article 26(5): Mode of construction and operation of authorised tramway

3.305 The deletion of “in such manner that the uppermost surface of the rails is level with the surface of the street” was made to address the concern of the DfT that this article departed from the Model Clauses for Tramways by referring to rails as “level with the surface of the street”.


66

Article 42: Open space in the City of Nottingham, Article 42A: Open space in the Borough of Broxtowe and Article 42B: Open space in the Borough of Rushcliffe

3.306 The proposed modifications to this article are necessary following the application for the second Exchange Land Certificate [see NET.A36].

Article 48(10), Traffic regulation

3.307 The insertion of paragraph (10) to article 48 was agreed with the Royal Mail Group and Post Office Limited to give effect to agreement reached with them in respect of their continued access to their premises during and after the proposed construction works.

Article 69, For protection of the Environment Agency

3.308 The modifications to this article were agreed with the Environment Agency.

Article 85, Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Advisory Committee

3.309 The insertion of article 85 was agreed with the existing Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Advisory Committee to provide for the establishment of an advisory body to replace that established under the 1994 Act (the provisions for which it is proposed shall be repealed).

Article 86, Existing railway local legislation

3.310 The proposed insertion of article 86 follows discussions with the DfT, who expressed concern that the draft Order did not contain provisions to repeal or disapply any local legislation in respect of the disused railway corridor which may remain extant.

Schedule 6: Land not to be acquired compulsorily

3.311 This Schedule now includes the ng2 spine road, the Argos triangle, and the County and City-owned open space.

Schedule 12, For protection of Electricity, Gas, Water and Sewerage Undertakers, paragraph 47, Accommodation or other facilities

3.312 The proposed insertion of paragraph 47 was agreed with National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC and National Grid Gas PLC to provide a mechanism by which accommodation or other facilities could be provided beneath the proposed tramway for future apparatus.

Schedule 13, For protection of British Waterways Board

3.313 The modifications to this article were agreed with the British Waterways Board such that the Promoter is granted sufficient powers to carry out Work No. 7 and Work No. 12 while sufficiently protecting the interest of the British Waterways Board in the canal and the river.


67

Schedule 14, For Protection of Railway Interests

3.314 Certain amendments to Schedule 14 of the Order were agreed with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.

Schedule 15, Repeals of the 1994 Act, Part 2

3.315 The proposed insertion of Section 17(3) of the 1994 Act in the list of repeals follows discussions with the DfT.

Schedule 16, Application to Line One

3.316 The proposed modifications to paragraph 3 were agreed with Network Rail, British Waterways Board, the Environment Agency, National Grid Gas PLC and National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC to apply, to an extent, the protective provisions of the proposed Order to Line One.

3.317 All those likely to be affected by such changes have been notified and the Promoter can see no reason why the proposed modifications should not be made without the need for any further statutory procedures.

4 THE CASE FOR THE SUPPORTERS


Beeston and Chilwell for Integrated Transport (BACIT) (SUPP/68)68

4.1 BACIT is a non-political group with wide-ranging membership that supports the proposal to extend the NET tram system. An improved and integrated tram system for the area is vital for the long-term prosperity of the local environment and economy. It would attract inward investment, help regeneration, provide clean transport and improve access to education, leisure and health facilities. The proposal would build on the success of NET Line One. There is widespread support for the project as demonstrated in opinion polls and BBC is generally sympathetic.

4.2 Beeston and Chilwell are large built-up areas on one of the main regional transport corridors into Nottingham, with much congestion from both local and through traffic. The extensive bus service along this corridor is regularly affected and suffers significant delays. There is a proven record of light rail achieving modal shift of some 20-30% from car, similar benefits would be seen on NET Phase Two. However there is little evidence of bus-based systems effecting similarly

68 SUPP/68/SC & /PE and associated documents


68

sustainable modal shifts.

4.3 The tram extension through Beeston and Chilwell would provide a high quality system to deal with the heavy demand and would link key traffic generators. It would offer improved access to services and jobs on Line One and the wider integrated network would connect all three Greater Nottingham junctions of the M1 to major employment sites via the park & ride facilities. This access would utilise the low-floor level boarding trams that have successfully accommodated wheelchairs, pushchairs, the elderly and infirm on Line One. This would be particularly pertinent given the proposed linkage into QMC. The value of such systems was demonstrated on fact-finding trips to the Sheffield and Croydon systems.

4.4 NET Phase Two would extend a clean form of sustainable transport that would reduce further the harmful atmospheric emissions of traditionally powered vehicles.

4.5 Negative impacts may largely be mitigated or those directly affected may be compensated. The tram system is quiet and generates no more noise than comparable bus transport; noise mitigation measures should be conditioned. The localised noise problems on Line One were associated with switch and crossing layouts and appropriate design should negate this on Phase Two.

4.6 The detailed design of the scheme should take account of local concerns by providing a ‘grass track’ along the greenway between Cator Lane and Eskdale Drive, by enhancing provision for cyclists, by allowing for improved bus interchange at University Boulevard (West) and by considering possible long term further park & ride provision in Chilwell.

Councillor S Heptinstall (SUPP/12)69 70

4.7 As a local resident for more than 30 years and as a local Councillor (both County and BBC) for some 16 years very regular experience has been gained of the travel and congestion problems on the A52 and in the west of Nottingham, whilst travelling to work in the University (QMC).

4.8 Benefits that would derive from the new tram would include the provision of a modern, safe, clean and quiet public transport system that would reduce congestion on the western approaches to the city, aided by new park and ride facilities close to the M1 junctions.

69 SUPP/12/PE &/SC

70 Inspector’s Note: Councillor Heptinstall also referred in evidence to matters of detailed concern

raised in recent debate at BBC, these matters are addressed at various points in the cases for the objectors below.


69

4.9 It would improve accessibility for all users, linking a number of major traffic generators and employment centres in this corridor. Reduction in congestion would benefit businesses and the system would aid regeneration and would assist in reducing noise and pollution.

4.10 The disbenefits arising from the scheme would include land and garden acquisition, disruption during construction and operational noise and disturbance for some adjacent residents. It is important that these matters are addressed through mitigation measures.

BioCity Nottingham (SUPP/23)71

4.11 BioCity Nottingham is one of the largest healthcare and bioscience innovation and incubation centres in Europe. Since its inception in 2003 its constituent companies have increased in numbers and 350 people are now employed at the centre. This is likely to grow to some 500 in approximately 2 years. BioCity has grown as a result of the designation of Nottingham as a Science City by the Government in 2005 and most of its constituent companies have close links with the city’s two universities.

4.12 BioCity has now reached a critical mass, its location adjacent to the Eastside regeneration area would provide scope for its future expansion. It is 5 minutes walk from the Station Street terminus of Line One. Whilst Line One provides connection to Nottingham Trent University’s (NTU’s) city centre campus, NET Phase Two would provide a direct link to BioCity’s other key partner, University of Nottingham (NU) and to NTU’s research campus at Clifton. Furthermore the proposed route to Chilwell would provide a direct link between some of the city’s strongest bases for health sciences, nanotechnology, environmental technologies and engineering, as well as QMC. The connection of all these Bioscience clusters is vital to the future success of BioCity.

4.13 Many of the employees are former University staff members who live in the Beeston, Bramcote and Wollaton areas that would be readily accessible from NET Phase Two. Furthermore the proposed tram network would give Nottingham a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining commuting professionals because all three M1 Nottingham junctions would be served by the wider system’s park & ride facilities. These corridors are currently congested and unattractive means of access to the centre.

Nottingham Trent University (SUPP/42)72

4.14 NTU has some 3,500 employees and 25,000 students distributed

71 SUPP/23/PE

72 SUPP/42/PE




70

over the City and Clifton campuses, these contribute a significant number of trips to and within Greater Nottingham. The NTU travel smartcard allows many travel options for students and staff on Line One and on all City Transport buses. This facility would be extended to NET Phase Two, which would serve areas where students live.

4.15 Development and housing sites well connected to the public transport network promote sustainability and accessibility. The permanence of light rail would provide the certainty to ensure that important investment decisions can be made. NET Line One has encouraged NTU to invest in the City Quarter.

4.16 Although the construction of Line One adjacent to the City Campus was a source of significant disruption, the business of NTU could continue to be delivered because throughout the construction phase communication from the Promoter was excellent and NTU was provided with information that allowed understanding and anticipation of what was happening.

4.17 NET Line One has created an enhanced and safer environment for pedestrians and public transport users. It has also resulted in significant improvements to the streetscape, including improved hard landscaping and the installation of high quality street furniture and tree planting.

Mr A R Dance (SUPP/52)73

4.18 The bus services into Nottingham from Chilwell are increasingly becoming subject to delay and congestion as a result of the growth in road traffic. The road congestion also increases air pollution and has a detrimental effect on the local economy. A user-friendly, high capacity, environmentally sustainable and reliable public transport solution is needed where a modal shift away from the car may be achieved. The tram, both in Nottingham and in other cities, has demonstrated its ability to meet these criteria and to attract significant investment and regeneration along the routes.

4.19 NET Phase Two would build on the success of NET Line One, which has exceeded all expectations with over 10 million annual journeys. The proposal would create a network of lines to benefit Greater Nottingham and it would link major residential, commercial, retail, healthcare, leisure and educational establishments. It is supported by major employers along its proposed route; NU, QMC and Experian (on ng2).

4.20 The environmental impact would be relatively small for such a major transport scheme. Much of the Chilwell section would use a linear route (the Greenway) originally designated as the route for a link road from the A52 to Beeston. The tram would only take a small

73 SUPP/52/PE



71

width compared with the original road proposal and the area would still remain available for leisure use. The impact on local residents must be mitigated and compensated.

4.21 Professionally conducted opinion polls have shown that a clear majority supports the proposal, which has attracted central government funding and which demonstrates a robust economic case. Despite general popularity of the project some opposition has been unduly influenced and generated by extreme views and opinions of those opposed, some of which has been based on incorrect information. (In this regard in May 2007 BCBRA (OBJ/584) was adjudged by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) to have made “untruthful” and “unsubstantiated” statements in a leaflet they published.)

4.22 The positive benefits the scheme would bring in transport and environmental terms would far outweigh the few negative impacts. The scheme would be in the greater public good as long as adequate compensation and mitigation can be provided.

Alan Simpson MP (SUPP/53)74 (Member of Parliament, Nottingham South)

4.23 Continued long-held support for a city-wide tram network has been emphasized by the popularity and success of NET Line One. The following detailed matters relate to the extent of the two proposed lines within the Nottingham South parliamentary constituency.

The Clifton Line

4.24 NET Phase Two is essential as part of Nottingham’s transport planning; without it any improvements to the A453 corridor would not work, given the capacity constraints imposed by the existing Clifton crossing of the Trent. Whilst some objectors argue against the use of the former railway track in the Wilford area, it would in fact provide an almost perfect route. The objectors’ houses that lie adjacent to the route are situated on what were sports fields and open ground; nothing to be taken by the tram would equate to the scale of environmental loss inflicted by the development of these residential areas. With its displacement of road traffic the tram would produce clear environmental gain rather than loss.

The Chilwell Line

4.25 In the Nottingham South constituency there is a compelling case for the tram to run between East Drive and Highfields Park75, rather than

74 SUPP/55/PE

75 Inspector’s Note: NET had considered various route options in the vicinity of the Arts Centre and

Highfields Park, the preferred option would run to the rear of the Arts Centre. At the Inquiry Mr Simpson put forward a further option (referred to as Option 3) which would route the tramway


72

the current NET proposal to run to the rear of the University Arts Centre.

4.26 This suggested alternative (Option 3) would have the advantage of not affecting the living conditions of residents, and not encroaching on the gardens, of houses on the south west side of Greenfield Street. The proposed alternative would not result in the loss of some 60 parking spaces at the rear of the Arts Centre or in the loss of the small lake and landscaping between the Arts Centre and University Boulevard; matters that would be further advantageous to the proposed alignment.

4.27 This proposed alternative would also be less expensive and more cost efficient than the Promoter’s preferred route and would require the University to honour the planning conditions attached to the development of the Rehearsal Hall.

4.28 Option 3 would use the same track radii as the advertised scheme and by interlacing the track and sharing some on-street running with East Drive the impact on Highfields Park would be less than the Option 2 included in the public consultation.

4.29 However the serious concerns about the tram route around the University Arts Centre should not detract from the public commitment to the tram and the building of the routes to Clifton and Chilwell.

Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP) (SUPP/55)76

4.30 GNP is the sub-regional strategic partnership for the area. It is responsible for investment of around £10m per annum on behalf of EMDA as well as managing the current European funding programme for the City of Nottingham. The major drive of the partnership is to encourage economic development of the conurbation. The economic development benefits must reach the most deprived communities in Greater Nottingham and an integrated transport system, including the tram, remains a major contributor in this arena.

4.31 NET Line One has already demonstrated economic benefits to the local area; it has encouraged regeneration both along its route and in the City Centre and has contributed to the alleviation of some congestion by realising modal shift away from the private car. This will have a major beneficial effect on the quality of life of residents.

4.32 NET Line One has proved a valuable asset to the Nottingham economy, but the true potential of the tram as a major first choice solution can only be attained with a ‘hub and spoke’ network that is part of an integrated solution. Phase Two would be a major step in

alongside a realigned East Drive, to the front of the Arts Centre [see indicative layout NET.P2/G].

76 SUP/55/PE


73

achieving this.

The University of Nottingham (NU) (SUPP/65)77

4.33 Previous NU concerns regarding the potential impacts on University buildings as a result of noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation have been addressed by NET in scheme design and mitigation proposals78.

4.34 Over the last twenty years NU has developed significantly and is now strongly established as one of the world’s leading research and teaching institutions. It is ranked in the top 1% of all higher education institutions worldwide. It employs in excess of 6000 staff and has a student population of some 36000, of which approximately 5500 are from Asia. Further massive expansion is planned over the next five years drawing on strong Asian connections.

4.35 NET Phase Two would provide a clean and efficient link between the University Park Campus and the heart of an ambitious and growing city. An integrated sustainable transport infrastructure within the city and to the University would help attract talented researchers and capable students in a competitive market. The proposals would underline and reinforce the current ability of NU to attract more overseas students than any other University.

4.36 NU supports the development of NET Phase Two and acknowledges the competitive advantage it would bring to both the city and the University.

Greater Nottingham Transport Partnership (GNTP) (SUPP/67) 79

4.37 GNTP is a strategic advisory group for the City and County Councils on the Local Transport Plan (LTP), its members are drawn from local government, local business representatives, the health sector, local bus operators and the Nottingham Rural Partnership. The GNTP also helps GNP to manage funding of some transport initiatives. It has a focus on transport and social and economic regeneration, bringing views from a broad spectrum of sectors.

4.38 The development of new tram routes, as proposed, is strongly supported in view of the benefits that would emerge, including;

• reduced congestion, leading to business growth and improved

77 SUPP/65/PE

78 Mr C Jagger confirmed that the University was content with assurances it had received and that it

was confident that NET’s mitigation proposals would be appropriate and adequate [Inquiry Day 4].

79 SUPP/67/PE


74

competitiveness as well as reduced pollution,

• health improvements from improved air quality and public transport use,

• integration of land and transport planning, with development of a truly integrated transport network.

4.39 NET Phase Two must build on the success of NET Line One, which has been a great success from both transport and economic development perspectives. The threats to small businesses during construction can be minimized by adoption of appropriate support strategies and mitigation, as employed on Line One.

CW Yes! (SUPP/69)80

4.40 CW Yes! is a group of local residents, business people and transport professionals which was established in 2002 to support the proposed Clifton/Wilford (CW) element of NET Phase Two.

4.41 The CW line would relieve a major radial road corridor (A453). It would link several suburban areas that lie to the south of the Trent, to the City Centre, and would alleviate the peak period traffic problems that are caused by Clifton Bridge and Trent Bridge. Public transport would be improved in the Meadows and in Clifton, which have low levels of car ownership. Access to the Wilford area would also be improved. Whilst there are local issues regarding wildlife, landscape and noise it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed in the ES would be satisfactory.

4.42 Two thirds of the route would be off-street, thereby giving faster service than existing bus services south of the Trent, with a particularly quick run from the proposed Clifton Park and Ride facility. The proposed CW service would be further enhanced by the addition of an extra tram stop for Silverdale, or failing this an increase in frequency in bus service 191 in the estate to feed local tram stops81.

Light Rail UK (LRUK) & Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA) (SUPP/116)

4.43 The LRTA has campaigned for improved public transport for 70 years. Its principal policy is to promote the use of tramway and light rail as a mode of urban local public transport in appropriate situations. LRUK is a not-for-profit company that promotes the use of light rail and tram systems.

4.44 The proposals would build on the success of Line One and make it more effective by increasing the range of journey options and spreading the benefits to other parts of the city. The reductions in

80 SUPP/69/SC & /PE

81 NET’s response on these matters is set out in NET.R5


75

pollution would be aided by providing for convenient facilities for feeder bus services. Trams would contribute to improved health and to better local security through their penetration of quiet areas.

4.45 Compensation should be provided for those who would suffer adverse effects following the introduction of the tram.

Castle College, Beeston (SUPP/90)

4.46 Castle College was formed by a recent merger of establishments and is a major further educational establishment operating out of three main sites that would be served by the proposed NET Phase Two route; the main campus at Maid Marion Way, the second largest site (at Beeston) and the Highfields Technology Centre on University Boulevard. The college provides further education for over 20,000 students and is focused on meeting the government’s agenda in raising skills.

4.47 The college is undertaking a major £100m programme of rebuilding, of which some £60m is being invested in sites along the proposed route, including ongoing significant improvements and expansion of the Beeston site.

4.48 The proposed tram network would greatly assist in meeting the students’ needs to travel from across the conurbation and between sites. It would also enable the college to achieve its green transport plan. The proposals would not only assist Castle College by boosting its ability to deliver but also bring wider benefits to the city.

Written Representations of Support82

4.49 Some 150 letters of support have been submitted in response to the publication of the draft Order; the key aspects of support reflect those reported above and include:

• NET Phase Two would address the need to tackle road congestion, which has a deleterious effect on bus services.

• The proposals would introduce a sustainable form of transport that would reduce pollution, both at point of operation and by reducing reliance on private cars.

• As witnessed by Line One, NET Phase Two would bring economic benefits and regeneration benefits to the south and south west areas of the city, it would aid the revitalisation of Beeston Town Centre.

• The proposed system would bring improved connectivity, linking residential areas, major employment, health facilities and significant education

82 The letters of support are included in INQ/10


76

resources.

• It would further improve accessibility to the City Centre and main rail hub beyond that already achieved by Line One.

• It would operate safely in pedestrian environments, as witnessed by Line One in the city centre.

5 THE CASE FOR THE OBJECTORS

Inspector’s Note: A number of objectors raise general matters or points of principle on the scheme and I deal with these matters first. I then consider the cases for the objectors on a geographical basis; I deal with the proposed Beeston/Chilwell line first and then the Clifton/Wilford route, I pick up two other scheme-wide objections at the end of the chapter.

Several objectors focus on similar issues and therefore to avoid repetition I have reported these elements of the cases by issue; in a case which has attracted such a large number of objections it is not necessarily practicable to mention every objector who has given evidence and I trust that those not mentioned by name will not be offended. However at times it is necessary to deal with individual objectors’ cases where there are site-specific matters to report.


General Matters

Need (OBJs/23, 94, 108, 245, 311, 379, 508, 527, 551, 584, 658, 711, 753/4, 761, 874, 929)

5.1 A number of objectors, including BCBRA (OBJ/584), argue that the tram is not the most suitable way to meet the public transport needs of the local areas; these would be better served by appropriate bus services, improved rail services or other quieter means such as trolley bus. BCBRA dispute claims that the tram can assist regeneration. Gotham Parish Council (OBJ/379) and others argue that the tram system would put existing bus services at risk.

Scheme Economics & Financial Considerations (OBJs/23, 26, 94, 226, 311, 317, 331, 379, 384, 479, 500, 507, 508, 538, 551, 584, 603, 620, 627, 655, 658, 662, 711, 929, 1115)

5.2 BCBRA argue that the scheme would fail to meet the DfT’s four strategic objectives, which focus on sustaining economic growth, improving environmental performance, improving safety and security and enhancing accessibility83. ENT (OBJ/627) question the validity of the job creation projections put forward by NET, highlighting the likely negative impact of the WPL. A significant number of objectors

83 Inspector’s Note: In cross-examination (Inquiry Day 6) Mr Clack (for BCBRA) acknowledged the

weakness of this argument, conceding that DfT would not have supported funding if Government Policy had not been met.


77

raise issues regarding the scheme’s economic profile, costing and funding matters.

Scheme Costings

5.3 BCBRA, Mr Collard (OBJ/662) and others point out that NET’s published proposals do not give full or adequate costing information on a number of matters including land and property acquisition and compensation; dealing with geological issues and flooding, or the cost of any business assistance packages that may be required. Furthermore NET cannot guarantee that such a major scheme would be delivered within budget and this would have major implications for both national and local taxpayers. ENT draw attention to spiraling capital cost estimates since the scheme’s inception. Some argue that scheme costs have quadrupled as the scheme has developed. The forecast capital costs involved would not represent value for money.

BCR

5.4 Ms Trench (OBJ/538) stresses that the economic benefits may not outweigh the costs if the costs were to represent a true reflection of the economic value to the community of the assets affected.

Local Funding

5.5 NCC aims to meet a substantial part of its contribution to the funding through the proposed WPL. However ENT, BCBRA, Dr Lawrence (OBJ/317) and a number of other objectors draw attention to the fact that this has proved to be extremely unpopular and if it is not implemented alternative sources of funding have not been put forward. This must lead to the conclusion that funding sources are insecure and give insufficient confidence that the scheme would not be a continuing burden on the public purse [OBJ/584/PE/22]. It is clear that without the implementation of the WPL, upon which NET Phase Two relies for local funding, there would be at least a three year delay in implementation of Phase Two [OBJ/627/PE/2, 3 & 13].

Line One Appraisal

5.6 Several objectors suggest that NET Line One currently relies on a subsidy of £2.40 per passenger journey and with patronage of 10.1 million passengers is still under one third of potential capacity; these factors do not point to an efficient or successful system. The financial performance of Line One and particularly of its Concessionaire, Arrow Light Rail Ltd, does not warrant further investment in tram infrastructure [OBJ/226 & 662/PE/1 et seq].

Financial Modelling

5.7 Messrs. Collard (OBJ/662) and Abdul (226) raise a number of concerns regarding the financial modelling used by NET to substantiate its case, concerns also raised by Mr Moxon (OBJ/331). There has been continued over-estimation and optimism in the


78

previous and current NET financial models. The cost benefit model is starting from a materially incorrect base and contains fundamental errors; operating costs appear to be too low and the discounting method is incorrect. These matters have a significant reducing effect on the BCR.

Public Consultation (OBJs/23, 50, 317, 508, 561, 584, 627, 658, 736, 750)

5.8 Objectors raise a number of issues regarding the Promoter’s public consultations on the proposals. The consultation exercise has had no coherent strategy and has been flawed from the outset. Some NET statements have been unacceptably misleading [OBJ/317/SC].

5.9 BCBRA feel that the consultation process has fallen short of the standard expected from responsible public bodies; the Promoter did not take a proactive approach, the website was not easy to use, correspondence was often inaccurately addressed, letters to the Promoter were often unanswered and information put out was inconsistent and inaccurate [OBJ/584/PE]. Furthermore irregularities in the 2006 land referencing exercise resulted in strained relationships, with some residents refusing to complete questionnaires.

5.10 ENT point out that consultation on the Clifton route showed a clear public preference for the Queen’s Drive via Clifton (CQD) route. However despite this the CQD option was dropped in favour of CW [OBJ/627/PE].

5.11 BCT (OBJ/242) question the efficacy of the Spring 2002 ‘Have Your Say’ exercise and the Summer 2002 NOP poll and the subsequent analysis of the results84.

Noise Assessment – Principles (242, 416, 674)

5.12 Dr Coles85 (OBJ/416) and BCT (OBJ/242) raise fundamental issues regarding the assessment of the effects of tram noise on local residents. In particular objectors take issue with the ES maximum noise estimation for ‘sleep disturbance’ as 82 dBLAmax whereas World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines put sleep disturbance threshold levels as 60 dBLAmax outside (open) bedroom windows. Closure of ordinary bedroom windows would therefore be required to avoid sleep disturbance. Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR) would point to the need to provide quiet forced-air ventilation when the noise is sufficiently high.

84 In cross examination (Inquiry Day 14) Dr Coles (for BCT) agreed to strike out paragraph 3.2.9 of

the evidence (OBJ/242/SC) questioning the Promoter’s honesty regarding release of NOP results. This could be replaced by the following words, ‘BCT wishes the NOP results could have been released earlier.’

85 Dr Coles gave noise evidence as an individual objector and in support of the case of BCT.


79

5.13 In summary there are three key areas of objection; firstly the noise effects have been grossly understated by officers to the two promoting authorities such that their decisions to apply for a TWA Order were made on a seriously misinformed basis.

5.14 Secondly, the ES is misleading to the residents of houses along the proposed routes, and is a false statement to the DfT86.

5.15 Thirdly, a large number of residents along the tram routes would be exposed to sleep disturbing levels of tram noise. In many cases this cannot be addressed by at-source mitigation. Therefore these residents would have to sleep behind closed windows in inadequately ventilated bedrooms87. In these cases the Promoter should provide and fit forced-air ventilation.

5.16 NET’s Noise and Vibration Policy (NVP) contains many loopholes capable of exploitation in the interests of cost-cutting.

5.17 Mr M J Britton88 (OBJ/674) raises concerns regarding the changing nature of the draft NVP and the consequent uncertainty that this introduces for local residents. Furthermore the implications of any changes in the alignment are highlighted as these may thereafter produce changes in the noise and vibration impacts on residents.

5.18 The shortcomings in the NVP include notably the lack of threshold noise levels for setting mitigation and the implication that implementation of mitigation would depend on its ‘cost effectiveness’.

5.19 The appropriateness of the use of acceptable noise thresholds of 55 dBLAeq day time and 45 dBLAeq night time is questioned. Account should be taken of advice in PPG24, paragraph 2 that new development should be sited ‘away from noise sensitive land uses’, such as the existing quiet residential areas that Net Phase Two would affect. Adequate habituation by residents should not be assumed.

5.20 In areas with low background noise there would be a ‘severe’ impact when measured against Institute of Accoustics/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IOA/IEMA) guidance. A 5 dB(A) increase over background noise should be used as a measure of impact leading to the introduction of mitigation measures. On the question of mitigation Mr Britton also questions

86 In cross examination (Inquiry Day 14) Dr Coles withdrew any allegations of dishonesty or

partisanship on the part of the NET professional witness and he apologised to the Inquiry for any such references in his documents.

87 In cross examination (Inquiry Day 14) Dr Coles conceded that his suggestion that forced-air

ventilation must be provided for all properties experiencing >60dB LAmax could not be sustained and was not supported by the technical evidence or research.

88 Mr Britton (OBJ/674) gave noise evidence as an individual objector and in support of the case of

ENT (OBJ/627)


80

the enforceability of the CoCP.

Wheel Squeal and Track Noise

5.21 Objectors draw attention to the phenomenon of wheel squeal which occurs on Line One at some places with tight track radii. This is a noise disturbance which could arise on Phase Two.

5.22 Attention is also focused on the problems that arise on Line One at the Noel Street track cross-over at Hyson Green, where the tram manoeuvres cause clattering noise from the wheels.

Safety & Security (OBJs/26, 311, 384, 479, 551, 584, 655, 658, 711, 736, 757, 873, 1076)

5.23 Objectors raise the issue of safety in two principal ways; firstly the question of the interaction of trams with pedestrians, cyclists and other road users and secondly the matter of public security.

5.24 On the first issue pedestrians, and particularly children, would be at risk in the several areas on both routes where the trams would operate without adequate segregation through recreational areas and public open space, adjacent to play areas and schools and alongside and near footpaths. Road crossings and junctions would present points of conflict not just with pedestrians but with all road users. A very recent pedestrian fatal accident involving a tram on Line One underlines this concern89.

5.25 Public security would also be an issue, particularly at the more remote stops not adjacent to properties, when lone individuals may wait for trams after dark.

Alternative Modes

5.26 Several objectors draw attention to the good bus services that currently serve the areas through which the Phase Two tram services would be routed. These should be used as the basis for improved public transport in these areas; with their closer-spaced stops these may serve the public better than trams.

5.27 The proposed park and ride sites could be developed but served by bus links to the city centre. Consideration should be given to high quality bus services rather than the inflexible tram. Better use should be made of designated bus lanes. Furthermore some objectors propose that rail services should be used to serve suitable areas rather than tram.

89 Inspector’s Note: No formal or official details of the circumstances of this accident were presented

to the Inquiry.


81

Local Planning Policy – General Considerations

5.28 BBC (OBJ/326) and BCBRA (OBJ/584) question whether the tram and the park and ride policies in the BLP have been embedded in the Plan from the outset and have been subject to proper examination.

5.29 ENT (OBJ/627) and RBC (OBJ/1088) question the weight to be accorded to the RBNSLP support for the tram, in the light of the more recent objections by RBC to the scheme.

Green Belt Policy

5.30 Mr Court for ENT (OBJ/627) highlights the basic national, regional and local policies that seek to protect the Green Belt from development. This protection can only be set aside in cases where need has been clearly established as being in the public interest and in such cases mitigation measures should be equal to or better than that which is being removed. In the NET situation the compelling case has not been proved and mitigation falls short of what would be required.

5.31 Mr & Mrs Britton (OBJ/870) highlight, from PPG2, key purposes for placing land in the Green Belt. The proposed park and ride sites would conflict with some of these. Dr Lawrence (OBJ/317) echoes these points.

5.32 There has been a history of planning applications relating to land in the Green Belt. Permitting development in the Green Belt would signal the end of protection in these areas and would set a precedent, making it difficult to resist further developments. If development is to go ahead it should be situated on the edge of the Green Belt to minimise impact.

5.33 These general themes are picked up by other objectors, such as BCBRA (OBJ/584), RBC (OBJ/1088) and local County Councillor Pettengell (OBJ/551), Broxtowe Borough Councillor Briggs (OBJ/1076) and Rushcliffe Borough Councillor Venes (OBJ/1052) and Miss Stafford (OBJ/311). Local Parish Councils (OBJs/50, 379 & 561) also object strongly to the loss of the protective Green Belt and to the consequent impact that park and ride and tram route developments would have on the openness of the Green Belt and on the local landscapes.

Wildlife Considerations90 (OBJ/1033)

5.34 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) (OBJ/1033) supports

90 Inspector’s Note: A number of objectors express concerns regarding the impact of NET Phase Two

on wildlife at various locations on both sections of route. These objections are in general covered in various parts of the NWT case and I have therefore refrained from repeating all the individual objections in the site specific sections of the objectors’ cases.

Deleted: 32


82

sustainable development and the principle of better public transport. However the NET scheme cannot be justified as it would result in unmitigable and irreversible loss of habitats and species. With regards to paragraph 19 of PPS1, the mitigation and compensation measures proposed in the ES are inadequate. Furthermore there would be no overall enhancement or restoration of biodiversity interests within a reasonable period, as required in paragraph 1(ii) of PPS9.

5.35 The adverse impacts with respect to biodiversity should not be classed by the Promoter in evidence as minor when the impact assessment table in Chapter 9 of the ES indicates that the majority of impacts are moderate or greater. The scheme cannot be acceptable in biodiversity terms as the overall effect would be a net loss to biodiversity.

5.36 The ES recognises that the loss of habitat at sites such as Wilford Disused Railway SINC ‘cannot be fully mitigated due to the importance of existing habitats and the scale of habitat loss’ [A14, para 9.12]. Much of the Clifton Route adversely affects a number of SINCs either directly or indirectly and notably some 69% of the whole of the Wilford Disused Railway SINC. The Chilwell Route would result in the destruction of approximately 8% of the Kings Meadow Grassland SINC as well as a small element of the Nottingham Canal SINC. It is unlikely that the intended replacement of lost SINC areas would achieve equivalent biodiversity or structural diversity. Furthermore, as well as the destruction of habitats, there would be significant impacts on fauna on adjacent land.

5.37 The following habitats and species would be likely to be significantly affected. Many mature trees would be lost and this loss could not be fully mitigated in a generation. The scheme would affect numerous potential bat roost sites and the reported cumulative impact on bats is underestimated. The proposed route would impact on water voles at three locations; the Tinker’s Leen, the River Leen and the Nottingham Canal. Any translocation would be of no lasting impact. A large number of breeding Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC), including 10 red list species, have been recorded along the proposed route, all would lose breeding and feeding habitats and suffer disturbance. Use of the Beeston Sidings SINC would have irreversible adverse impact on a notable slow worm population. It is possible that some of the large diversity of invertebrates across habitats along the proposed routes would be irreversibly lost.

5.38 The newly created habitats would not provide the diversity and complexity of what would be destroyed by the proposed scheme. The mitigation and ecological compensation proposed is inadequate and the scheme is contrary to the principles of sustainable development as defined in PPS1 and ‘Securing the Future’.


83

Public Open Space (OBJs/317, 326, 628, 889, 1033, 1088)

5.39 One Objector, Andrew Harry Day (OBJ/889), questions the acquisition of a substantial area of his land (Parcel 14) for replacement open space at Inham Road91. When weighed against the acknowledged significant public benefits of the scheme it is considered that the proposed acquisition would not be proportionate and that the Promoter has not shown that no lesser measure is required in order to deliver the scheme. Three elements of assessment, shared in part by other objectors, demonstrate this conclusion.

5.40 Firstly there is an absence of any proper assessment of need and the clear intention to satisfy policy by enhancement to the retained route draws into question the basic need for this substantial replacement.

5.41 Secondly there is no evidential basis to identify the intended function of the replacement open space; no balanced assessment of the quantitive and qualitative need. Thirdly there is the question of size. The Promoter has not demonstrated a clear and logical link between need, function and the ultimate size of this replacement open space.

5.42 A more appropriate area of land92 in terms of size, location and linear relationship to the scheme is put forward as an alternative to the acquisition of Parcel 14, which in turn should be rejected. This would address the question of convenience and equivalence.

5.43 The local authorities (BBC and RBC) question the funding and arrangements for future maintenance of the proposed replacement open space.

Provision for Cyclists (OBJ/873)

5.44 Pedals, a Nottingham-based cycle campaign group of almost 30 years’ standing, broadly support the tram proposals and any related policies to reduce the use of cars. The proposals would open up opportunities to develop new facilities for cyclists. However Pedals have serious concerns about the possible impact on cyclists’ safety and convenience.

5.45 Pedals have three areas of general concern. Firstly the need for safe and secure cycle parking at all tram stops with cycle lockers at the two park and ride sites.

5.46 Secondly, there should be local trials with a view to introducing the carriage of cycles on trams.

91 Inspector’s Note: This is part of the land referred to in the second application for an Exchange Land

Certificate.

92 See OBJ/889/PE/1a, Appendices 5 & 6


84

5.47 Thirdly, the established consultation facility for Pedals to be represented on the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Advisory Committee (GNLRTAC) should be continued to enable the ongoing fruitful discussion of operational issues of direct concern to cyclists.

5.48 Pedals also raise a number of areas of concern and comments regarding the detailed design of various elements of the Phase Two scheme93, these include provision for cyclists on Meadows Way, linkage to ng2, the Abbey Street/Gregory Street junction, Lower Road/Fletcher Road and the crossing of Queen’s Road, Chilwell Road potential conflicts, inadequate (2 metre) width of shared facilities with pedestrians over Wilford Toll Bridge and through to Ruddington Lane, Southchurch Drive/Farnborough Road safety issues and linkage into Nottingham Road park and ride site.

Objections to the Beeston/Chilwell Route (BC)

Toton Lane Park and Ride Site (OBJs/245, 317, 331,551,584, 655, 658, 736, 870, 894, 987, 1076, & 1088)

5.49 As well as the Green Belt policy matters highlighted above in section 5.30-5.33 a number of objectors raise more detailed points of objection against the proposed Toton Lane park and ride site which, it is argued, would reduce opportunities for recreation and violate a safe haven for wildlife.

5.50 Its detailed location is questioned; alternatives put forward by objectors include a potential siting on the brownfield site, Toton Sidings, close to M1 Junction 25 and which could be served by A52 Trunk Road. Others suggest that the facility should be sited out of the Green Belt and within Chilwell; alternative non-Green Belt sites have not been fully investigated.

5.51 It is also suggested that the site as proposed would have insufficient capacity and, when considering the total flow of traffic on A52, would make little difference in terms of reducing car movements into the city in this corridor.

Traffic (OBJs/23, 384, 507, 527, 537, 584, 620, 658, 753, 754, 874)

5.52 Objectors raise a number of concerns regarding the potential impact of the tram system on traffic on the local road network. These concerns fall into the following two categories; the impact during the construction phase and the long term operational considerations.

93 During the Inquiry Mr McLintock (for Pedals) accepted that Pedals’ concerns may be met largely

through maintaining the helpful dialogue that had been established with the Promoter through the detailed design and specification stage. He confirmed that he was not seeking any changes to the Order.


85

Construction Phase

5.53 The principal concerns flowing from the potential construction effects on traffic relate primarily to Chilwell and Beeston (High Road, Chilwell; Chilwell Road, Beeston and Beeston Centre).

5.54 BCBRA point to the possible significant effect on local shops and businesses of the construction operations within the roads adjacent to commercial and retail premises. It is argued that these would disrupt deliveries, significantly reduce parking, deter traffic from using this route and make the area less safe for pedestrians. There would also be a negative effect on bus services. All this would have a significant commercial impact on businesses that would not be adequately addressed by the proposed financial assistance package. The experiences of businesses adjacent to Line One in Hyson Green are cited as examples of problems of this nature.

Long Term Operational Considerations

5.55 Objectors point to a number of locations where the future long-term operations of the tram would have serious deleterious effects on traffic flow and/or junction operation, these include the following.

5.56 The roundabout junction of A52/Toton Lane (Bardill’s Island) where the right turn facility towards the proposed park and ride site would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the revised turning movement patterns following opening of the tram system and the park and ride facility.

5.57 In the retail area of Chilwell Road/High Road the on-street running of trams would result in loss of parking for customers and would reduce the ability to service businesses satisfactorily. Furthermore there would be a significant and negative impact on the critical signal-controlled junction of Station Road/Middle Street in the centre of Beeston, a junction which presently exhibits capacity limitations.

5.58 The tram line alignment through the strategically important and complicated Queens Road/University Boulevard junction would worsen the already critical peak hour problems on this key radial route into the city.

5.59 The positioning of the route through the Abbey Street/Gregory Street junction should be modified to assist cyclists and to reduce the impact on the access to land and operations of Deborah Services Limited (OBJ/928).

5.60 Some objectors question the adequacy of the proposed layout of the junction of the ng2 development site access road with Queens Drive, through which the tram route would pass.


86

Alternative Routes (OBJs/678, 620, 45, 1081 & SUPP/53)

A52

5.61 The principal northern alternative to the proposed BC Route, put forward by objectors, would rely on the line using the A52 corridor from Toton.

5.62 It would pass through the Bramcote Island, following a route through land immediately to the south east of the roundabout. Between this junction and Woodside Road the route would be brought back into the six lane A52 main carriageway, which would effectively reduce to a four lane standard for road traffic.

5.63 At Priory Island the route would turn down Woodside Road, using land that would need to be acquired and that currently holds a petrol filling station. Various options would then present themselves for the route to be turned in a north easterly direction through or along the edge of the University campus to rejoin the advertised route at Science Road, to the north of the University Arts Centre. This route would avoid the environmental and traffic impacts through Chilwell and Beeston.

Southern Alternative

5.64 Nick Palmer MP (OBJ/620) referred to a suggested southern alternative to avoid the centre of Beeston and Chilwell which would utilise Stapleford Lane (B6003), Swiney Way, Nottingham Road/Bypass Road/Queens Road (A6005) to rejoin the promoted route at University Boulevard. Objectors’ variations on this theme include local routes off to the south east to serve Beeston train station and the Boots site.

University Arts Centre

5.65 On a more local scale scheme supporter Alan Simpson MP (SUPP/53), objectors Professor & Mrs Foxley (OBJ/45) and others propose alternative routes to avoid the Promoter’s alignment to the rear of the University Arts Centre, an alignment that, as currently proposed, would take land from gardens in Greenfield Street and run close to the newly-constructed Orchestra Rehearsal Space, with noise and vibration implications. These alternatives would run partly on East Drive and/or partly into the adjacent Highfields Park area – a well used amenity area, before merging with the advertised route in University Boulevard.

Broadgate/Humber Road (avoiding Lower Road/Fletcher Road)

5.66 Other local alternative alignments are put forward in the Lower Road/Fletcher Road area using a route to the north via Humber


87

Road/Broadgate94 with the possibility of using High Road/Broadgate. These latter objector-alternatives are promulgated to obviate the need to acquire part of Neville Sadler Court and to avoid impact on the living conditions of residents in this property and in Lower Road/Fletcher Road.

The Green Corridor (Chilwell Greenway) (Inham Road to Cator Lane) (OBJs/317, 331,507, 537, 538, 551, 584, 620, 655, 658, 711, 736, 757, 929, 987)

5.67 Objectors highlight the impact that the proposed route would have on this green corridor which provides an open green swathe through this residential area. It is a facility that is well used by local residents, including children, for walking and cycling. It provides a peaceful link connecting open space, recreational and play areas, schools and local services such as the surgery and pharmacy at Sandby Court/Bramcote Lane and the bus services on the intersecting roads.

5.68 The proposal would be visually intrusive and would destroy the ambiance of this area, it would result in loss of trees and open grassed areas and present a longitudinal dividing barrier through the corridor with additional safety implications. Consideration should be given to applying a grass finish to the tramway through this area. Furthermore the route would have a damaging effect on the wildlife that inhabits the green corridor and trees.

5.69 Objectors point to existing flooding problems along parts of this green corridor, which would potentially be exacerbated by the introduction of the tram and its associated infrastructure.

5.70 In support of their case objectors stress that the previously proposed East-West road corridor, which would have followed a similar route through the Greenway, was abandoned more than 20 years ago in part because of its local environmental impact in this area. The informal open space, or Greenway, was set out in policy in the then extant Local Plan in 1993 to provide links from the countryside into urban areas [OBJ/735/SC]. This is not an appropriate route for a transport corridor, be it road or tramway.

Sandby Court & Valley Surgery (OBJs/41, 735)

5.71 Sandy Court is a retirement scheme with the age of residents between 56 and 90. The proposed tram line would pass through the green corridor to the rear of Sandby Court Block B. This is a secluded garden area affording habitat for birds and wildlife.

94 Miss Daykin referred, in her rebuttal (OBJ/1081/PE), to Broadway/Humber Road. However it was

clear in giving evidence that she meant Broadgate (not Broadway).


88

5.72 The proposed tram lines, associated overhead gantries and screening fence would destroy this area with the loss of mature trees, shrubs and an open water course. This area has previously been abandoned as a transport corridor with the abandonment of the former East-West road scheme.

5.73 There are concerns regarding the close proximity of the proposed construction activities, including the water course diversion, to the residential block, both in terms of the stability of the building and its services and the impact on the living conditions of its elderly residents. Similar proximity arguments are presented regarding impact on the operation of the adjacent medical surgery and pharmacy (OBJ/245), with the windows of consulting rooms facing the proposed tramway.

5.74 In the long term the operation of the tram system, with vehicles passing within feet of windows approximately every four minutes, would give rise to a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Sandby Court by reason of noise and vibration. Noise barriers would effectively block views from ground floor windows, further worsening the living conditions of residents of Sandby Court.

5.75 All this would lead to distress to residents, to blight and a loss of value of their retirement homes and yet it would provide no real local benefits to the affected residents when there are well established bus facilities provided by local routes 36 and 14.

5.76 An alternative more appropriate route option along part of the existing 36 bus route, north west of Sandby Court, should be pursued.

Residential Amenity & Living Conditions (OBJs/100, 311, 452, 508, 538, 551, 711, 736, 750, 761, 841, 1109)

5.77 BBC Councillors Jackson (OBJ/711) and Pettengell (OBJ/551) and a number of residents raise issues regarding the potentially harmful impact of the scheme on the living conditions of the occupiers of some dwellings between Inham Road and High Road, Chilwell (Castle College).

5.78 These relate to various properties in a number of roads including Inham Road (OBJ/311), Gwenbrook Avenue (OBJ/841), Holkham Avenue (OBJ/100), Babbington Court (OBJ/452), Cator Lane (OBJs/736, 1109), Dale Lane (OBJ/508) and Lime Grove Avenue (OBJs/538, 750, 761).

5.79 Matters of concern to residents living in dwellings that lie close to the proposed tramway include loss of privacy, noise intrusion, visual intrusion of gantries, electromagnetic radiation, damage or disturbance from ground borne vibration, construction traffic impacts on local roads, loss of parking, loss of attractive garden areas and loss of trees. In summary those residents who object and live close


89

to the route are concerned about the harmful impact of the tram on their quality of life and living conditions.

5.80 There are also a number of representations that draw attention to the fact that this element of the route would pass close to retirement homes, including Sandby Court, Greenwood Court and Richmond Court, and the noise of the tram would disturb the elderly residents.

Land at High Road/Grove Avenue (Parcel 150) Messrs Bartons (OBJs/527, 753, 754 & 874)

5.81 This site is prime development land and the proposed alignment of the tramway and road modifications at the adjacent Castle College junction would have a harmful impact on access to the site from High Road, Chilwell. Furthermore the proposed scheme would have a negative impact on pedestrians, traffic, and parking in the adjacent retail and business area of Chilwell Road.

5.82 The need for the tram is questioned, given the excellent local bus services and this is underlined by the potential unreliability of electricity supplies to the proposed system. The suggested reduction in emissions is questioned, given source emissions from power generation.

Beeston Town Centre

Town Centre Development

5.83 BBC (OBJ/326) is particularly concerned with the treatment of the loss of retail space in the Square shopping centre. It is essential that this should be treated comprehensively. If dealt with partially, the units, such as Argos and Wilkinson, in the north western part of the Square would be detached from the remaining development to the detriment of the appearance, operation and vitality of the town centre and the ‘visible presence’ of the tram in the heart of the town centre would be obscured. All this would render the scheme to be out of conformity with Policy K4(b) of BLP which seeks the protection of the character and townscape of identified centres such as Beeston.

5.84 It is essential to ensure the long term economic vibrancy of both Beeston and Chilwell by integrating transport measures with the redevelopment of the town centre in a manner sympathetic to Beeston and Chilwell’s heritage and culture, retaining open space and enhancing the conservation area.

Beeston Parish Church, St John the Baptist (OBJ/1044)

5.85 The route would impinge on accessibility of the Vicarage and on the ability of the elderly visitors by reducing the amount of parking within easy walking distance of the Parish Church. It should be noted that the Sunday local bus service (NCT No. 36) has now been withdrawn thereby placing more emphasis on the car.


90

5.86 The proposals would further impinge on the space required for larger vehicles’ access to the Church for weddings and funerals. Other traffic implications for Church access include the proposed banned right turn from Middle Street into Chilwell Road, alternative routes are longer and less practicable.

5.87 When considering the impact of the tram on the adjacent area of the town centre and on the townscape, depending on the route choice, there may be a need to remove the relocated gravestones that now line the edge of the graveyard.

Wilkinson Hardware Stores Limited (OBJ/964)

5.88 There is no objection in principle to the tram. However the current version of the scheme involves the acquisition and demolition of the very popular Wilkinson’s store which makes a major contribution to the vitality and viability of Beeston Town Centre, providing an important attraction element on the western edge of the town centre with a greater retail draw than Argos. However there is only a remote prospect that it may be re-established elsewhere in the town. The loss of the store would be harmful to the centre and is not supported by the Local Plan. Furthermore the acquisition of the land is not justified by the project; it is not required in order to ensure the satisfactory alignment or operation of the tram through Beeston. In practical terms the Wilkinson’s store could be retained with satisfactory servicing within the TWAO area. It would not prejudice the long term redevelopment of the town centre. There is criticism of the ES as regards any comparison of the retention of either Wilkinson or Argos.

5.89 The justification for the acquisition is founded primarily upon the objectives of an emerging policy document which carries little weight and is dependent upon the resolution of issues which are more appropriately to be debated in the context of the emerging Local Development Framework.

5.90 No detailed economic evaluation of the consequences of the loss of the store has been carried out whether on an absolute or relative basis. In such circumstances there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest for the confirmation of the Order in so far as it relates to the Wilkinson land.

Wheatcroft Land Ltd95 (OBJ/1) and R & M Swaine96 (OBJ/1108)

5.91 These objections relate to Unit A (land parcel 316), trading as ‘Food n Booze’ and Unit B (land parcel 315) trading as ‘Choices’ video

95 Inspector’s Note: Mr Bourke (for Wheatcroft Land Ltd) raises a number of other points but as they

are not relevant to the Secretary of State’s Decision they are not reported.

96 This objector is the leaseholder of Unit A.


91

store. They are complimentary trading outlets that sit together on Middle Street, near its junction with Styring Street. The proposal to acquire Unit B but to retain Unit A with reduced car parking, diminished servicing facilities, unsafe revised access and trading in isolation is unacceptable from operational, safety and commercial stand points. Unit A should be acquired additionally.

Lower Road/ Fletcher Road (OBJs/108, 115, 242, 309, 620, 969)

5.92 BCT (OBJ/242), Mr Wildish (OBJ/969) and others highlight the following concerns. The proposed route along the centre of these two residential culs-de-sac would create difficulties for servicing and deliveries to the adjacent dwellings. It would also impinge on parking facilities and, taken with the possibility of drivers using the area as an unofficial park and ride facility, this would point to the need for the introduction of a residents’ parking scheme.

5.93 Local residents raise concerns regarding the local geology and potential instability of the ground in this area. The tram, with its attendant ground-borne vibrations may lead to structural damage to nearby dwellings.

5.94 The proximity of the tram route to dwellings, with the attendant need for acquisition of some garden areas, would lead to a significantly increased noise level in what is presently a quiet cul-de-sac environment. Mr Wildish (OBJ/969) argues that this would be an infringement of his Human Rights; under Article 8 he has the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and possessions.

5.95 There is disagreement with the ES’s measure of townscape and visual impact; the pylons and double tram tracks would be extremely intrusive and change the character of the townscape. An alternative route via a traffic corridor should be pursued.

Neville Sadler Court (NSC) (OBJs/242, 309, 574, 620, 969, 1081)

5.96 The demolition of one of the NSC residential blocks and construction of the replacement block and of the tram route, with all the attendant noise, would be extremely disruptive for the mainly elderly and vulnerable residents of NSC. Furthermore the loss of some homes, the community room and garden areas would have a significant effect on community life. There would be loss of parking for visitors, residents and for emergency service vehicles such as ambulances.

5.97 The replacement block of new flats should be completed prior to any demolition works so that no residents are forced to leave the site.

5.98 Ms S Andrews (OBJ/309), of 49 Fletcher Road, is particularly concerned about the potentially harmful effect of the proposed new NSC residential block on her living conditions by reasons of overlooking and loss of light.


92

University Boulevard (OBJs/384, 584)

5.99 The proposals would have a damaging visual impact on this impressive gateway route into the city through the loss of mature trees and hedgerow on the south side of the Boulevard, adjacent to the tennis courts and sports ground.

University Arts Centre & Greenfield Street (OBJ/45)

5.100 The adoption of local route option 197, which would take the tram line to the rear (north east) of the Arts Centre would impinge on or destroy several gardens of properties in Greenfield Street and would give rise to security concerns. Furthermore the proposals would have a negative impact on living conditions of Greenfield street residents by reason of noise and vibration – a matter of particular concern to Professor and Mrs Foxley (OBJ/45) who carry out music recording in their coach house which lies only a few metres from the proposed tram route. Other noise issues would be introduced by the proposed tight radii bends at each end of the Arts Centre and by construction activities.

5.101 The proposal would also result in the loss of the ornamental pond and some landscaping on the south eastern edge of the Arts Centre building, facing University Boulevard, with a resultant harmful visual impact on and from the building.

5.102 An alternative route to the front of the Arts Centre should be adopted where the value of the open space in Highfields Park has been virtually destroyed by recent developments.

Abbey Street, Lenton (OBJ/928)

5.103 Deborah Services Limited (DSL) (OBJ/928) provides access and groundwork equipment for hire and sale along with a second operation, contract scaffolding for the construction and maintenance industries, from its Abbey Street site, which is situated to the south west of the junction with Gregory Street. The CPO of an element of the company’s land and the loss of an operational management building would possibly result in the need to split operations between two sites or relocate the business completely.

5.104 However with minor track realignment, judicious use of the adjacent cleared ‘Hooley’s’ site and detailed junction design modifications, at Abbey Street/Gregory Street, it may be possible to minimise land take from DSL, lessen acquisition costs and reduce disruption to this business. The potential loss of a strong trading position for both aspects of this important business is of considerable concern.

97 For a discussion of the NET alternatives in this area see 6.91-6.93 below. See also reporting of the

third Arts Centre option put before the inquiry by Mr Alan Simpson MP (SUPP/53) in 4.26-4.28 above.


93

Objections to the Clifton/Wilford Route (CW)

Nottingham Road Park and Ride Site, Clifton (OBJs/50, 379, 561, 748, 989, 1088)

5.105 Over and above the Green Belt policy matters highlighted above in section 5.30-5.33 Thrumpton Parish Meeting (OBJ/50), Gotham and Barton-in-Fabis Parish Councils (OBJs/379 & 561) and the Open Spaces Society (OBJ/748) raise more detailed points of objection against the proposed Nottingham Road park and ride site.

5.106 It would be visible from local settlements and to motorists approaching from the south west along Nottingham Road because of its prominent position on rising ground. It would impinge harmfully on this area of landscape value with very attractive views over to the Gotham/West Leake Hills. It would run contrary to the Nottingham Landscape Guidelines. Furthermore it would have a marked impact on local wildlife.

5.107 It would also result in the loss of farmland; J H Plowright Ltd (OBJ/989) is concerned about the access arrangements which do not take account of the proposed improvements of A453 and which would impinge on farming operations. The RSS housing proposals for the area indicate a need for coordination.

5.108 The proposed East Midlands Parkway Station, to the south west along A453, would be a more appropriate park and ride facility in tandem with heavy rail services. It is argued that this would negate the need for the proposed Clifton site.

Alternative Routes & Tram Stops (OBJs/6, 500, 627, 831, 1022)(SUPP/69)

5.109 Objectors Espinasse (OBJ/500), Steel (OBJ/1022), ENT (OBJ/627), and the Wilford Community Group (OBJ/831) put forward alternative route options which would avoid the sensitive areas on the proposed route such as Main Road, Wilford, the Wilford Toll Bridge, the nearby SINC and the wildlife corridor along the former railway line through Compton Acres and Wilford. A more appropriate and less environmentally sensitive route would be via the main traffic route, Queen’s Drive (CQD)98 with the tramway using a new Trent crossing or modifications to the existing Clifton Bridge. Public consultation has indicated that the CQD route would be the option preferred by local residents. Dr C Grant (OBJ/6) stresses the health advantages of putting the tram route along the CQD alternative and retaining the disused railway corridor for walking and cycling.

5.110 Mr Bennett, for CW Yes! (SUPP/69) suggests an additional tram stop

98 The Clifton/Queen’s Drive route alternative was given the shorthand title of CQD in the inquiry.


94

in Silverdale on the open land to the south or south east of the Downs. Mr Steel (OBJ/1022) argues for an alternative stop nearer to the centre of Wilford Village, near Bader Road, in lieu of the Wilford Village stop in Main Road.

Ruddington Lane Crossing (OBJ/1022)

5.111 Mr Steel (OBJ/1022) argues that the tram lines should not be elevated and Ruddington Lane lowered, to facilitate an at-grade crossing as proposed, as this would have a serious effect on the living conditions of occupiers of adjacent properties through loss of privacy. The cost control element has prevailed, it would be preferable to either adapt or construct a new bridge at this point and allow the tram to adopt the former rail levels and run in cutting.

Ruddington Lane to Wilford Lane (the wildlife corridor) (OBJs/6, 94, 338, 479, 500, 627, 748, 1088)

5.112 ENT (OBJ/627) and others stress that the loss of the recreational facility on this section of disused railway embankment –the wildlife corridor- would not only have a significant impact on flora and fauna (as reported in 5.34-5.38 above) through loss of trees and intrusion of the tram and its infrastructure, but would also impact in other ways on local residents.

5.113 Access to green spaces in urban areas is important for the physical and psychological well being of local residents and particularly for children (OBJ/6). The proposal would seriously limit people’s ability to walk and cycle along this green corridor in the future. The loss of open space and green areas would have a negative impact on people’s health.

5.114 Furthermore the removal of a significant number of trees and green space and their replacement by the tram would result in a worsening of local air pollution with further consequent implications for sufferers of respiratory problems.

5.115 Objectors draw attention to the close proximity of the tram to a number of dwellings on this section of the route through Compton Acres. It would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of these properties by reasons of noise, vibration and loss of privacy. Mrs Wheeler (OBJ/94) stresses that her dwelling is only some 8 metres from the proposed tram line.

5.116 The tram may attract commuters to drive in to this residential area to park on grass verges and on-street near to tram stops, for example the grassed open areas adjacent to Ascott Gardens immediately east of the proposed Compton Acres tram stop.

Osteopathic Clinic, Wilford Lane (OBJ/338)

5.117 Mr T Edwards (OBJ/338) operates an osteopathic clinic from his


95

house at 281 Wilford Lane. Concerns relate to the impact of construction on the business, in terms of noise, vibration, dust and access disruption. In the operational phase, as well as continued concerns regarding noise there would also be the matter of the inappropriateness of the proposed tram stop location.

Wilford Lane – Traffic (OBJs/94, 479, 500, 627, 1088)

5.118 The local road network suffers from serious congestion particularly in peak hours. This is exacerbated on Wilford Lane by the nearby traffic signals at its junction with Compton Acres, by nearby pedestrian crossing facilities and by the signal controlled junction of Wilford Lane with Ruddington Lane. Furthermore the tram would cross Wilford Lane at grade at a point where the road changes from two lanes to one in each direction.

5.119 Further signals to control tram crossings every 3-4 minutes would significantly worsen congestion. Some car users would use residential roads in Compton Acres as an alternative route to avoid the delays.

Wilford Village (OBJs/831, 926, 1022, 1038)

5.120 Wilford Community Group (WCG) (OBJ/831) and others raise a number of local issues that would arise following the introduction of the tram through this area.

5.121 The assumed patronage of the Wilford Village tram stop is too high, based on the local 400 metre catchment assumptions. This brings into question the need for this stop. Furthermore the suggested ‘alternative stop’ opposite St Patrick’s School on Coronation Avenue should be removed. It would be inappropriate in this residential setting. WCG suggest that the stop to serve Wilford Village should be located near to Bader Road, closer to the centre of the village population.

5.122 The construction and route of the tram would remove much on-street parking that currently takes place on Main Road, particularly on summer days when people visit the river banks and nearby recreational areas. Furthermore during construction the Wilford Toll Bridge would be closed for a significant period. However several hundred children walk along Main Road, either from the Toll Bridge or from Wilford Lane, to go to one of the three local schools (South Wilford Primary, St Patrick’s Primary and the Nottingham Emmanuel School). The proposed closure would cause great inconvenience. The construction site should therefore be relocated.

5.123 Mr Steel (OBJ/1022)99 argues that access to the Nottingham Moderns

99 Inspector’s Note: During the Inquiry NMRC (OBJ/478) (via Mr S Fox) made it clear that its view

was not represented by Mr Steel (OBJ/1022) and the Rotary Club (OBJ/1038) – the evidence in


96

Rugby Club (NMRC) from Main Road would be harmfully affected by the tram way. This would be particularly problematical on the occasion of the Rotary Club’s annual community charity bonfire and fireworks event, which attracts some 5000 spectators to the site. Car parking would also be a problem. Mr Steel puts forward a revised access ramp arrangement which would assist pedestrians and large delivery vehicles involved in the annual event.

5.124 The proposed car park at the junction of Main Road and Coronation Avenue is at an inappropriate location, given its position within both the Wilford Village Conservation Area and the SINC. Furthermore it would be inadequate in terms of size to compensate NMRC for loss of parking on Main Road, which may accommodate up to sixty vehicles. WCG is concerned that this car park could be used as an unofficial free park and ride site by commuters.

Queen’s Walk (OBJ/641)

5.125 The use of Queen’s Walk for the tram route would result in the loss of a valuable area of public open space; a route making use of public roads should be adopted instead.

5.126 The proposal has not given Queen’s Walk its due status. It is of the greatest historic and environmental importance and should not be destroyed.

5.127 It is a beautiful and tranquil place, removing half the trees would greatly diminish its present appeal. The lost trees could not be successfully replaced.

5.128 Trams running down the centre of the Walk would introduce noise and danger. Removal of the archway under Robin Hood Way would cut the Walk in half and destroy its present continuity.

5.129 In view of all the damage that this proposal would cause to Queen’s Walk the alternative route CQD, along Queen’s Drive, should be pursued. The environmental and historical value should be held more important than monetary cost.

Flood Risk on CW (OBJs/627)

5.130 ENT highlights the historic flooding problems associated with the River Trent in the Wilford area as recently as November 2000. Flooding in the Wilford Lane area is also alluded to by objectors, this may be exacerbated by the tram.

5.131 NET has failed to significantly account for the engineering problems that would arise as a result of the proposed tracks crossing the Trent flood plain and has failed to assess the risk to passengers and the

respect of the access to NMRC was Mr Steel’s.


97

public. Removal of the disused railway embankment may worsen the local flooding situation in Wilford.

5.132 The 2002 FRA used by NET relies on an outdated (1992) hydraulic model; the refinement of this model would not necessarily produce accurate results with relevance to the current situation. For example, in 1992 there were no Bee Bank flood defences which move the effects of flooding from Wilford Village to the main projected tram crossing. Furthermore the lack of reference to the local water table illustrates a lack of understanding of the area, without which there would be no engineering solution.

Other Scheme-Wide Objections

Planning Conditions

5.133 Mr Britton (OBJ/674) suggests100 a number of detailed changes to draft conditions 3, 6, 12 and 13 and puts forward three additional conditions (‘obligations’). He also seeks, in that same document, four detailed modifications to the NVP.

Adequacy of the Environmental Statement

5.134 Dr Bradley for NWT (OBJ/1033) identifies five criticisms of the ES. Four of these relate to alleged inadequacy of surveys undertaken by the Promoters’ ecological consultants in relation to bat roosts and populations of slow worms, invertebrates and water voles. Her fifth criticism is that the ES fails to recognise the extent of ecological deprivation in the East Midlands Region which she argues gives an added value to these SINCS.

5.135 Mr Britton raises three criticisms of the ES. His main concern is that the concentration in the ES has been on a comparison of future noise levels against the thresholds in the NVP, rather than against the baseline noise-levels.

5.136 His second criticism is that there has been reference to short-term construction impacts when in some instances these periods were likely to last for several months. His third criticism is that there has been no separate assessment of the immediate effects of noise increases, prior to the onset of habituation.

Written Representations of Objection

5.137 An analysis of the written representations of objection before the inquiry is set out in NET.R1/25a which indicates the issues raised by each objector, these include the main issues dealt with at the inquiry

100 Set out in letter to the inquiry of 10 December 2007, [OBJ/674/1]


98

and are covered elsewhere in the report.

6 REBUTTAL BY NET

Inspector’s Note: The Promoter’s response to the majority of the generic issues raised by objectors is set out in NET.P8/A. Separate rebuttal evidence to most of the individual objectors who presented evidence is set out in the series of documents NET.R6 –R100. Where required, detailed bespoke rebuttals to the written representations of objection are in NET.R25/1b.


General Matters

Need

6.1 Objectors point to bus-based solutions to better address the need and to overcome congestion and the associated costs to the local economy. However, despite the introduction of much bus priority, the continued growth in congestion and limitations in road infrastructure will combine to give very limited additional opportunities for further bus priority measures. The reliability and journey times of buses, including suggested trolley buses, would inevitably suffer without much greater total separation from other road traffic, which the tram can offer [NET.P8/A, 2.14]. Experience on Line One shows that buses still operate viable services along the core tram route at almost identical frequency to the pre-tram situation. Furthermore bus routes have developed to provide local feeder services to the tram route [NET.R89, 55-58].

6.2 Evidence from Line One confirms the positive economic impact the tram has already had [NET.P1/A, 4.5 & NET.P1/B, Appendix 16]. Further examples of the impact of light rail in economic development and regeneration in the UK is set out in the report ‘What Light Rail Can Do For Cities’ [NET.C37].

6.3 In Hyson Green, despite a reduction in retail vacancy rates since the opening of Line One, traders on Radford Road have given the tram a mixed reception; irregular spacing of tram stops in the main retail area is a point of particular criticism. However this would not be the case in Chilwell Road/High Road, where two sets of inbound and outbound stops would serve the retail and commercial areas [NET.R7, 64-67].

6.4 In summary there is clearly a need for this level of infrastructure to address the problems caused by congestion.


99

Scheme Economics101

Scheme Costings

6.5 The cost estimates are robust; they cover identified engineering constraints, property acquisition and contain significant contingencies. The cost estimates take into account lessons learned from other light rail schemes including NET Line One102. Furthermore they have been subject to external scrutiny as part of the DfT assessment prior to the award of programme entry approval. The comment that costs have nearly quadrupled in five years is a misunderstanding of the nature of project development. Some early costings were prepared purely for the purposes of options appraisal and comparison and did not include all common costs such as tram vehicles. Later increases have taken into account changes following consultation, market conditions and inflation.

Local Funding

6.6 The proposed WPL would provide 80% of the NCC’s local contribution. WPL is considered to be the most appropriate way in which NET Phase Two can be implemented in the current timescale103. There are other ways to raise similar funds, such as congestion charging, but these would take longer104 and could prove more unpopular105.

6.7 By virtue of its widespread consultation (including an independent Public Examination), its ongoing policy and legal discussions with DfT, and having regard to the test for making a WPL Order, the City Council is reasonably confident that it will obtain confirmation of its WPL proposals and without the need for further consultation or a public inquiry. The NET Phase Two is therefore reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funding earmarked to come from the WPL.

101 For a full response on the scheme economics’ criticisms see NET.R7, paras. 71-83 & NET.R76.

102 In cross examination (Inquiry Day 19) Mr Collard (OBJ/662) conceded that he was not suggesting

that the cost estimates were not proper professionally judged estimates. No objectors put forward alternative costings based on engineering analysis.

103 Inspector’s Note: See IQ 130 [INQ/6] and the Promoter’s response in NET.P1/K which addresses

Item 12 of the Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters as to whether the proposals are ‘reasonably capable’ of attracting the necessary funding, in light of the local debate regarding WPL.

104 In cross examination by BCBRA on Day 5, Mr Carter indicated that scheme delay would incur

additional costs of £20 million per annum.

105 Inspector’s Note: On the question of local funding see letters from the City and County Council

Section 151 Officers [INQ/6, response to IQ 126 in NET.P9].


100

Line One Appraisal

6.8 The financial statements of the Line One concessionaire (Arrow Light Rail Ltd) have been prepared in accordance with UK Accounting Standards and applicable law. Comments regarding Arrow’s finances do not take account of the fact that the company is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and that it is not unusual for a PFI project to show significant losses often until half way through the concession. Importantly on Line One operating profit is increasing, post tax losses are falling and turnover is up. Journeys are not subsidised106, as a PFI deal the cost of Line One to the public purse is fixed.

6.9 As regards shortfall in patronage107 compared with forecast demand, revised estimates based on observed further demand growth this year indicate that the shortfall will fall to around 7%. There are opportunities for further increases in patronage outside the currently constrained peak periods, for example by encouraging additional demand on Sunday and in the evenings through initiatives focusing on service patterns and marketing initiatives. In practice, trams are very busy at the height of the peak, but capacity still exists in the wider peak period.

Financial Modelling

6.10 The optimism bias used in the financial assessment is a Government requirement; it is implemented on a sliding scale and its magnitude depends on the state of development of a project and hence on the level of risk at the time of assessment. Objectors’ evidence looks at other ways of addressing uncertainty in construction cost out-turn. However the NET analysis has rigorously followed the Government’s rules. Messrs Collard and Abdul (OBJs/662 & 226) carried out further sensitivity tests beyond the Government’s requirements and the scheme still achieved a BCR>2.

6.11 On the question of operating costs the criticism of objectors that these are too low is based on the premise that these costs should be increased on a pro-rata basis from Line One. However the combined system of Line One and Phase Two would offer opportunities to minimise the increases in these costs. The NET figures are rigorously prepared and realistic.

6.12 The discounting rates are set by Government. The scheme meets the Government requirements as to value for money [NET.P3/A], including taking into account the changes, since 2002, in the way Government undertakes appraisals for all capital spending. The appraisal enables DfT to assess the scheme against other similar

106 It became clear during the Inquiry that some parties may have incorrectly confused the legitimate

‘availability payments’, which form part of the PFI contractual arrangements, with subsidies.

107 See IQ 61 [INQ/6] and response in NET.P3/D


101

competing schemes for capital funding. A summary of the Value for Money guidance is set out in NET.P3/A, Section 2.4. On the question of modeling the impact of the WPL on job creation projections, a revised analysis taking account of WPL shows a combined employment impact of +8000 jobs, with the most conservative scenario showing a positive impact of 4100 jobs108.

Public Consultation

6.13 It is not the case, as some objectors have claimed, that the consultation undertaken on NET Phase Two has been inadequate and the feedback received has not been taken into account.

6.14 A substantial amount of consultation has taken place, at each stage in the development of the project and is summarised in the Statement on Consultation [NET.A3]. Consultation on possible new routes commenced in early 2001 with an initial leaflet, ‘A Tram Network for Nottingham’ [NET.B2], explaining that the City and County Councils were developing potential route options to extend NET Line One which was under construction at that time. Approximately, 17,000 leaflets were distributed across the conurbation. The leaflet named various places in Greater Nottingham that the routes could go to and feedback was sought on the options.

6.15 Based on the feedback received a further leaflet was distributed in early summer 2001 [NET.B2/2], outlining seven possible route options, including two each for Beeston and Clifton (and West Bridgford) with an extension of the Beeston route to Chilwell. The ‘Have Your Say’ consultation [NET.B2/6 to NET.B2/9] undertaken in late 2001/early 2002 sought views at a more detailed level, for example alternative route options to Beeston (via QMC or Boots) and sub options through Beeston, plus whether and how the Beeston route should continue into Chilwell. The Clifton options were via Wilford or Queen’s Drive and included sub-options through Wilford and Clifton. Approximately 70,000 brochures were distributed.

6.16 Following the ‘Have your Say’ consultation on route options and after the proposed routes had been selected by the City and County Councils, an independent representative opinion poll of 1,000 residents, living within a reasonable distance of each of the proposed routes, was undertaken by NOP Social and Political in summer 2002 [NET.B2/32 and NET.B2/33], seeking views on the NET extension proposals.

Clifton via Wilford

• Three quarters of people asked felt that public transport needs to be improved

108 NET.R71, 6.25-6.26


102

• Three people to every one approved of the route

• Four people to every one approved of the re-opening of old railway routes for public transport

Chilwell via QMC and Beeston

• Three quarters of people asked felt that public transport needs to be improved

• Nearly two to every one approved of the route

• Three quarters of people asked supported the idea of a locally funded financial assistance package for businesses on Chilwell Road/High Road.

6.17 Since the ‘Have Your Say’ consultation, more detailed consultations on the proposals have taken place at the local level where impacts from the scheme are considered to be most significant, but the wider audience has been kept informed on the project through the NET Express leaflet [NET.B2/24, NET.B2/28, NET.B2/29 and NET.B2/31], newspaper articles and wider City and County communications such as Arrow and County News.

6.18 Comments made during each consultation stage have been taken into account in all options analysis, and have been reported to Members at City and County Council meetings as a part of the decision making process. Detailed changes have been made to the scheme as a result of consultation [NET.P8/A, 5.3.5].

6.19 The Promoter has endeavoured to conduct on-going dialogue with affected and interested parties and have offered/held a number of meetings with individual groups as well as public exhibitions and events, including a meeting held in Compton Acres on 4 July 2007, which was arranged by ENT.

6.20 Furthermore, since the TWAO application was submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport, changes have been be made to the proposals in direct response to issues raised by residents/businesses/schools interested and affected parties [NET.P8/A, 5.3.8].

6.21 The arrangements for public access to the TWAO application documentation has been in full accordance with the statutory requirements as was a six week period for objections/representations/expressions of support. In addition the NET Promoter went beyond the formal requirements by updating the NET website to include not only the TWAO application documentation but also the NET Promoter’s Statement of Case and supporting documents and, on an on-going basis, the Statements of Case submitted by objectors and supporters.

6.22 As regards the CQD route option, the CW route choice is based on


103

rigorous patronage forecasts that are built into the transport modelling of the scheme.

6.23 It has been claimed that the land referencing and confirmation exercise constituted a breach of the data protection principles. This is not the case, as was confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office in its letter of 24th July 2007 to LandAspects in response to a complaint made by two residents along the route of the Chilwell extension.

6.24 It has also been suggested that the Promoter made no effort to replace the street notices that were occasionally removed or damaged. This is false, and document NET.A25 contains a table setting out when all the street notices were checked and, as necessary, replaced.

Noise Assessment – Principles

6.25 The mitigation proposed in the ES [NET.A13 to A18] complies with the limits set out in the regulations regarding noise and vibration (e.g. The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 [NET.D9]). Design and maintenance standards for the trams and the tracks have been set to ensure that noise and vibration levels associated with the system are minimised. If noise levels from an operating tram system exceed the qualifying levels stated in the above Regulations, mitigation measures such as secondary glazing would be offered or introduced.

6.26 Over and above these commitments, a draft NVP [NET.A15] was approved by the City and County Councils for NET Phase Two in 2004. The draft policy [NET.P7/B] has recently been updated and commits the Councils to mitigating noise impacts as far as practicable by careful design – for example procuring an appropriate track system and providing noise barriers where practicable – so as to minimise noise and vibration levels. As a result of this policy NET Phase Two includes provision for extensive lengths of noise barriers at various off street locations. The draft policy sets ambitious noise targets at levels considerably lower than those in the Regulations [NET.D9].

6.27 Dr Coles’ concern, on behalf of BCT, was not in relation to construction noise, which would be short-term and controlled by the CoCP and consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, but with the potential for sleep disturbance caused by the LAmax of passing trams.

6.28 Initially he sought noise insulation wherever the LAmax would exceed the WHO threshold of 60 dB. He then reduced that request to air ventilation beyond that threshold. Finally he accepted that it was not reasonable to require even air ventilation at the WHO threshold, but continued to argue that at around a 70dB threshold air ventilation should be offered and that the threshold in the 82 LAmax in the NVP


104

was set too high.

6.29 Whilst it is not practicable to erect noise barriers in roads such as Lower Road/Fletcher Road, so that the Leq noise thresholds in the NVP would not be exceeded, these would not merely remain well below the levels to qualify for noise insulation under the relevant Noise Insulation Regulations [NET.D9] (as readily accepted by Dr Coles109), but pass-by noise levels would also be well below the 82 LAmax which forms part of the NVP, and which mirrors the approach taken in connection with all recent major rail schemes, including the Edinburgh LRT and the CTRL and Crossrail heavy rail schemes [NET.C66].

6.30 Perhaps most significantly Dr Coles had not appreciated that the WHO threshold related not to field tests for awakening, but to laboratory tests including arousal, and was unaware of the major field study on sleep disturbance [summary appended to NET.R49, see also NET.C65] carried out in respect of aircraft disturbance (involving both higher absolute LAmax levels and a more disturbing noise source than railway noise). This shows that at the LAmax levels predicted for Lower Road/Fletcher Road there should not be significant noise disturbance.

6.31 Dr Coles also accepted that this study indicated that most people went to sleep after 11.30 pm and would be enjoying their soundest (and least readily disturbed) period of sleep before the cessation of tram pass-bys until 1 am; and there was little potential for sleep disturbance after 6 am, since by that time most people were already at least partially awake [NET.C65 paras 20 & 21 page xiv Fig.28].

6.32 BACIT (SUPP/68) submit evidence rebutting Dr Coles evidence, based on research and field work in Beeston. BACIT submit a written rebuttal of Dr Coles’ evidence [SUPP/68/PE/12] further demonstrating ambient noise levels are above Dr Coles’ LAmax 60 dB level and providing further evidence on how people respond to noise. From their experience in observing public opinion in Beeston on the NET Phase Two proposals over the years, BACIT claim with some justification that Dr Coles has spread fear over the scheme noise impacts based on claims over sleep disturbance, based on an incorrect interpretation of the WHO guidance.

6.33 Turning to Mr Britton’s concerns, the NVP would be enforced through a planning condition. Design changes would be addressed by the policy because it is a ‘performance standard’ rather than related to a fixed set of structures. It would represent an improvement in local conditions over those experienced in certain areas of Line One as that line did not have the benefit of a NVP. Monitoring would take place at least on an annual basis.

109 Cross examination of Dr Coles on Inquiry Day 14.


105

6.34 Mr Britton’s other main criticism of the scheme with regards to noise impacts is the use of the 55/45dB threshold levels for assessing significant impacts and for designing mitigation through the NVP. These noise levels, far from being “arbitrary” as asserted in para. 2.19 of the ENT Closing, are derived from WHO figures, incorporated into PPG24 [NET.C13]110. Mr Britton submits a supplementary proof giving examples of industrial, road and railway developments for which the environmental noise assessments had not considered thresholds, but rather had reported impacts based only on the extent of noise change. Mr Britton’s supplementary proof gives extracts from ESs for two transport developments; the A13/A130 Sadlers Farm junction improvement and the Crossrail railway scheme. Whilst the noise assessment for neither of these schemes used noise thresholds, both cases concerned noise impacts adjacent to existing noisy transport corridors, where baseline noise levels were already above the threshold of noise impacts, so it was quite right, and consistent with the NET Phase Two approach, to assess impacts in terms of noise change.

6.35 Mr Britton also makes reference to noise assessments for industrial facilities and wind farms which, unlike railways, do have specific noise assessment guidance, which in fact includes threshold levels [NET.R/71, paras. 4.32 & 4.33] that are used to assess noise impacts when baseline levels are low.

6.36 Returning to transport schemes, the East London Line ES adopted a 55dB threshold [see NET/C66]. Several railway and tram systems have been identified111 that were assessed using noise thresholds in addition to noise change. Mr Britton’s supplementary proof proposes various changes to the NVP, including the omission of the thresholds levels and the requirement to include mitigation at source for any noise change greater than 5dB112. Such a mitigation scheme is unprecedented and would place an enormous and unnecessary burden on the design of the tramway.

6.37 A revised version of the NVP [NET.P7/H] incorporates several improvements from the October 2007 version [NET.P7/B] these modifications were made in response to Mr Britton’s suggestions. Turning to this objector’s concerns regarding the CoCP, although the primary means of enforcement of the CoCP would be the contractual provisions between the Promoter and the concessionaire, Mr Britton’s concerns have been addressed by incorporating some of the

110 Agreed by Mr Britton in cross examination on Inquiry Day 26.

111 Mr Mitchell in cross examination by Mr Britton (DLR, Birmingham, Liverpool, Edinburgh)

112 When asked, in cross examination (Inquiry Day 26) if he was aware of any railway schemes that

had adopted this mitigation strategy Mr Britton was unable to offer any suggestion.


106

provisions of the CoCP into the planning conditions113.


6.38 Line One track noise problems have been largely due to noise generated on a small number of bends and at the Noel Street track crossing. Measures will be taken in the design of Phase Two to avoid such noise [NET.P7/G]. NET.P7/G also explains the re-emergence of wheel squeal on Line One this year and the corrective maintenance to the acoustic wheel dampers that is currently needed to address it. The track crossing arrangements at Noel Street would not be repeated anywhere on the Phase Two route, and a commitment has been given [planning condition 15 in NET.P6/H] to reduce noise through engineering works on the Noel Street crossing so as to off-set the small noise increase that would otherwise occur due to the addition of Phase Two tram movements en-route to and from the depot.

Safety & Security

Safety

6.39 Available evidence, based on NET Line One and similar schemes elsewhere, suggests that trams are among the safest forms of transport. This is in part because tram vehicles follow a predictable path and are clearly visible to other road users and pedestrians. The system would not be allowed to operate until Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) is satisfied that it is safely designed and implemented taking account of its local environment.

6.40 Appropriate maximum operating speeds for the tram would be determined by the Highway Authority and HMRI, based on local conditions and circumstances. Trams would strictly observe these pre-set speed limits.

6.41 The tram would operate on a ‘line of sight’ basis whereby the vehicle would be driven to suit the prevailing conditions. Where the situation requires it the tram drivers would slow down and stop to avoid problems. Tram drivers would receive a high level of initial training and regular on-the-job assessment. Modern trams have an efficient triple braking system which is very effective in emergency situations.

6.42 When running on-street, standard safety features would be utilised such as controlled crossing points and sufficient width of footways. When running off street near footpaths, cycleways, crossing points and recreational areas, appropriate measures would be used, including signing, barriers, fencing to regulate or deter users from entering the tram corridor, as well as provision of alternative routes

113 Accepted by Mr Britton in cross examination on Inquiry Day 26


107

alongside or near the tram corridor.

6.43 In semi-rural areas and other open areas, low knee rail fences would be used to mark the boundary between the tramway and the adjacent area. This type of fencing informally but definitely separates people from trams, without compromising the open aspects of the area or making people using pathways and cycle routes feel they are hemmed in by an imposing barrier.

6.44 Public safety is taken very seriously especially in relation to children near the tram lines. In this respect children would be provided with information about trams through safety education programmes, as happened on NET Line One.

Security

6.45 Turning to the issue of public security, drawing on NET Line One experience, the tram vehicles and tram stops would be equipped with CCTV and an emergency call system linked to a central control centre. In addition, the likely use of on-board conductors for fare collection (as on NET Line One) would be a further security element present on the trams themselves.

6.46 The location and layout of the proposed tram stops and surrounding areas would be designed to encourage a feeling of personal security for all users. This would include open accessible areas, with appropriate levels of lighting and fixed street furniture. This is particularly important for tram stops located outside the normal street environment. Careful consideration would be given to such tram stops particularly regarding access routes and the local urban design. The police would continue to be consulted and provide input on security issues during design development.

Alternative Modes114

6.47 In developing the NET Phase Two proposals a number of improvements to transport services were considered as alternatives to NET. These included assessing the contribution that improved bus and rail services could make to meeting the longer term economic and transport objectives of the Greater Nottingham area. Several bus-based solutions were examined including a low cost on-street bus-based alternative (utilising existing corridors) and considering additional bus priority measures with changes to the operating patterns of bus services; and high quality bus alternatives involving creating segregated sections of route similar to NET.

114 A more detailed critique of the objectors’ considerations of alternative modes, bus-based, high

quality bus, trolley and guided bus, is set out in NET.P8/A, sections 2.14, 2.15 & 2.16. Heavy Rail considerations are in section 2.9.


108

Existing bus services

6.48 Improving public transport provision across the whole city is constrained by highway and, particularly, central area bus stop capacity. Parts of the City Centre bus route (the ‘loop’) have over 200 buses per hour and bus stop provision in the City Centre is already at capacity. Nottingham does not have a substantial inner ring road system for an urban area of its size and the City Centre is compact with a lack of alternative routings for bus services and stop locations. The City Centre is struggling to cope and NET Phase Two would use existing infrastructure within the centre, allowing valuable City Centre road space and bus stop capacity to be released that can be re-allocated to enhance bus frequencies and reliability to other parts of the city. Integrated ticketing, feeder buses and link bus services would increase accessibility beyond the NET area, bringing benefits to the wider community.

Improved bus services and infrastructure

6.49 There are a number of environmental, construction and delivery risks with the options considered. However if these could be overcome, in economic terms, a high quality bus alternative could deliver high levels of benefits at a cost lower than for NET Phase Two. But, importantly, the size of these benefits and the support offered to long-term objectives in Greater Nottingham would be much lower than those associated with NET Phase Two. Indeed, there would be a lower BCR than NET Phase Two and a reduced contribution against other government objectives, so the high quality bus alternatives would be unable to meet either national or local objectives as effectively as NET Phase Two.

Heavy Rail

6.50 There is little opportunity for rail to offer the same benefits as NET Phase Two. Not only does the location of Nottingham Railway Station offer poorer accessibility to central Nottingham than either bus or tram, but low rail frequencies in the Nottingham-Beeston area and the location of and access to Beeston Station mean that national rail services cannot meet the same wider objectives as extending NET. The strength of the rail network is in serving regional and national travel demands.

6.51 Similarly, the East Midlands Parkway station which is due to open in late 2008 would not meet the same objectives as NET, as it would focus on providing access for long-distance rail services, rather than being a high frequency park and ride service into Nottingham Railway Station.


109

Local Planning Policy – General Considerations

6.52 It is accepted115 that all the pertinent BLP policies were fully consulted on and properly examined, that they conform to national policy guidance and reflect the tram route and the park and ride site proposed.

6.53 RBC and ENT have failed to undermine the considerable weight that should be attached to the policies which safeguard116 the tram route and support appropriate Green Belt Park and Ride sites. Although the RBNSLP is not formally adopted as part of the development plan it has been subject to significant examination through the statutory process to the point where it was ready for adoption. It is used for development control purposes. In all these circumstances it should attract significant weight.

Green Belt

6.54 Objectors mis-construe the Green Belt policy with respect to park and ride sites that are set out in PPG2 paras. 3.17-3.20 and which was specifically added by PPG13. The evidence [NET P6/A, sections 3 and 8] is amplified by both of the P&R Site Appraisal Reports [NET.P6B, Appendix IMG15 and NET.P6/D, Appendices 27 & 28]. These establish that the tests in paras 3.17 to 3.20 of PPG2 are met and that the development of both these sites is not inappropriate development in Green Belt and the site would not compromise the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of the inclusion of the land in the Green Belt. Furthermore the inclusion of the park and ride site within the Green Belt under this particular policy provision would not reduce the protection of adjacent Green Belt land against future development. That land, outside the area required for park and ride, would still be protected by Green Belt policy.

Wildlife Considerations

6.55 The loss of trees, and the proposed replacement with an overall increase, is documented in the ULDS and the Tree Survey; this is summarised in Appendix 5/2 of the Rebuttal to ENT [NET.R71].

6.56 The Promoter has undertaken thorough ecological surveys and is proposing a net increase in habitats suitable for the flora and fauna which would be affected by the scheme. This includes the replacement land and management measures at Kings’ Meadow SINC

115 Mr Ward (BBC) in cross examination, Inquiry Day 12.

116 Mr Mapletoft (for RBC) argued (Inquiry Day 23) that the land for the tram route was safeguarded

rather than allocated and it would therefore be open to the Decision Maker to select a different detailed route without running foul of the Development Plan. However Mr Gilder (NET) clarified in cross examination by RBC (Inquiry Day 23) that it is normal practice for transport routes to be safeguarded in this way in the Development Plan.


110

and the replanting and replacement open space at Silverdale to compensate for the SINCs from Ironmonger Pond to Wilwell Cutting affected by the route. Areas of habitats lost and replaced along the Wilford route are summarised in Table 1 in NWT Rebuttal [NET.R92]. The landscape and habitats along the railway corridor would be reinstated [NET.R71, 5.5].

6.57 Principal objectors were ENT (who, through Mr Court, could not substantiate their concerns) and NWT (who unsurprisingly are seeking the maximum nature conservation compensation). It could not be reasonable to expect the Promoter to provide compensation in the range of 3:1 to 10:1 as sought by NWT, especially since this provision could only be achieved by further compulsory purchase.

6.58 The Promoter’s conclusion is that there would, on one level, be significant ecological impacts, because what is removed could not be entirely replicated, but that within a relatively short period, the replacement habitats would equal in value those that are being lost.

6.59 Although three nationally rare species of invertebrates have been identified on the Wilford Railway Embankment (two beetles and a spider) and although there is evidence that some birds on the Red List are seen in the area of the Railway Embankment and of the Clifton park and ride site, there is no reason to suppose that there would be any significant impact on protected species.

6.60 There is no evidence that bats currently roost on the Railway Embankment corridor or that water voles would be disturbed by the works. Translocation of slow worms from the Beeston Sidings would be likely to be necessary but this can readily be undertaken as can translocation of water voles in the unlikely event that this is necessary. Bats would be checked, surveyed and measures taken as necessary.

6.61 In assessing the loss to the former Wilford Railway Corridor Dr Bradley’s (NWT) evidence underplayed three matters. First, that generally the flora was species-poor, and retarded by the abundant tree and shrub cover which has taken place in the last 20 years or so. Second the fact that almost all the embankment north of Wilford Lane would remain, and third the importance of the green corridors either side of the tram tracks for the continuity of habitats.

6.62 It is curious that Dr Bradley should regard the Exchange Land at Kings Meadow as inadequate because it already has high ecological value in circumstances that if the land had low ecological value it would probably be criticised on that account.


111

Impact on Open Space117

6.63 A comparative assessment118 between NET’s proposal for Inham Nook and Mr Day’s alternative shows clearly that the NET proposal is superior on grounds of proximity to the lost open space, prominence, accessibility and security because of the adjacent housing. The proposal would meet the total loss of open space which would fall in the range 1.3 ha-1.9 ha, depending on the final tramway footprint. However whilst the proposed replacement area is some 2.2 ha only so much land as may be required for or in connection with the authorised works may be acquired. No more can be acquired than is needed.

6.64 The Promoter’s position is unchanged; the proposals are a pragmatic and sensible response to the acknowledged need to acquire and, to a lesser extent, occupy open space permanently for the tram’s alignment. The open space appraisal meets the requirements of PPG17119.

6.65 As to the funding and maintenance issue, there is no reason to depart from the arrangements elsewhere and provide funding for the future maintenance of these open spaces, which would remain vested in the Borough Councils.

Provision for Cyclists120

6.66 Cycle parking would be provided at both the proposed park and ride sites close to the tram stops and at other appropriate stops on NET Phase Two, security concerns would be tackled at the detailed design stage. The consideration of cycle lockers would be addressed once a concessionaire was appointed.

6.67 Trams currently operating on Line One, which are also expected to run on NET Phase Two, do not include facilities for securing cycles. Unsecured cycles create an unacceptable risk of injury to passengers and could also impinge on passenger capacity, comfort and operational efficiency on a well used system.

6.68 It is proposed that the GNLRTAC would be re-established with a remit to include NET Phase Two. Pedals would be invited to continue its membership of the committee.

117 NET.R62

118 NET.R62 Annex A


120 NET.R85


112

6.69 Detailed dialogue would continue with the objector to address the local design issues raised in evidence121.

Rebuttal of Objections to the Beeston/Chilwell Route

Toton Lane Park and Ride Site

6.70 The proposed site is presently used for parking in relation to nearby businesses and occasionally hosts a show ground event. It is not therefore a recreation resource or a safe haven for wildlife. As highlighted above the site was selected after a detailed appraisal of alternative sites, including sites not within the Green Belt.

6.71 In terms of site operation, modelling has confirmed that the site would not reach parking capacity until 2021. This would be at the peak Christmas shopping period122. The demand for this facility would be drawn principally from A52 users.

Traffic

Construction Phase123

6.72 The works would be undertaken in accordance with the CoCP and in a manner approved by the local highway authority. A local liaison group124 would be established and detailed publicity regarding forthcoming works would be made available via newsletters and a website. An information hotline would be established. During construction it is likely that through traffic on Chilwell Road/High Road would be restricted to one direction only. Servicing would be maintained by means of providing a temporary service area and the use of trolleys to transport goods. Furthermore the proposed off-street parking areas would be constructed in advance of the on-street works.

6.73 Emerging trackwork construction technologies would be used to shorten significantly the length of construction time for the track and highway works in the areas of concern.

Long Term Operational Considerations

6.74 As a generality, junction capacity assessments have been undertaken

121 Inspector’s Note: NET’s responses to detailed issues are set out in Appendix 2 of NET.R85, the

objector welcomed (Day 24) these responses and the opportunity to maintain a productive dialogue with the Promoter.

122 Mr Woodbury in cross examination by Mr Britton (OBJ/870) on Inquiry Day 7

123 NET.R7, 59-63

124 Details of all the local liaison requirements are set out in the CoCP [NET.A15, Annex C, Secn C2]


113

for each junction, other than minor ones, along NET Phase Two in consultation with the relevant Highway Authority to ensure that the introduction of NET Phase Two would have no significant material impact on traffic flow. Overall, the frequency of trams (every 7.5 minutes in each direction during most of the day) would be unlikely to cause difficulty for other traffic and it is expected that traffic delay during the operation of the system would be minimal [NET.P8/A, 4.5.1].

6.75 Turning to particular locations, the park and ride proposals are not forecast to produce a material increase in flow at Bardill’s roundabout; the principal effect would be to alter turning movements. Furthermore a recently introduced Highways Agency improvement scheme provides additional and sufficient capacity [NET.P5/A, 4.5.1 & 4.12.3 & NET.R14].

6.76 Detailed assessment of traffic flows in the Beeston area, including the development of a computerised traffic model for the town centre, has been undertaken. This has identified that a significant proportion of traffic is destined for areas beyond Beeston and is using the Chilwell Road and the centre of Beeston as an alternative to the A6005 Queens Road. This assessment has also considered the most appropriate way to introduce NET Phase Two onto the local highway network [NET.P8/A, 6.7.1].

6.77 As a result, it is proposed that a package of traffic management measures would be introduced, which would include alterations on Queens Road to improve junction capacity at Station Road and Meadow Lane to enable an appropriate level of traffic to divert from Chilwell Road thereby accommodating the tram route, especially in the morning and evening peak periods. This would give trams a reliable journey time on Chilwell Road but, with no significant impact on travel times for remaining traffic along the tram route and on Queens Road. Minor delays to traffic could occur when the tram is at the Chilwell Road tram stop, although, this would only be for a relatively short period [NET.P8/A, 6.7.2].

6.78 These proposals should reduce traffic flows and regulate traffic movements and parking activity, leading to an improved traffic and pedestrian environment in Chilwell Road/High Road. Replacement off-street parking would be ideal for the Methodist Church, surgery and pharmacies. Furthermore along this section of the route replacement parking spaces and loading areas would provide for servicing, traders and short stay shoppers [NET.R7, 32 & 33].

6.79 The Middle Street/Station Road junction is to be widened as part of the adjacent Tesco development and the assessments have taken into account traffic generated by the proposed Tesco store. Further improvements to the junction would be required as part of NET Phase Two to provide priority for inbound trams [NET.P8/A, 6.7.3].

6.80 The University Boulevard/Queens Road East roundabout junction is currently extremely busy during both peak periods. The introduction


114

of the tram would require its conversion to a three-arm signal-controlled junction. A separate signal phase would be required to take trams between Lower Road and the segregated tramway running on the south eastern side of University Boulevard. Traffic on the minor fourth arm, Lower Road, would be redirected away from the junction to simplify signal control. The Do Something analysis indicates that the junction would remain under significant pressure in the future. The principal difficulty would arise with turning movements out of Queens Road East. The analysis indicates that the new junction would perform no worse than the current layout with queues generally forecast to be shorter [NET.P5/A, 4.5].

6.81 A detailed option appraisal125 of the works required in the Abbey Street/Gregory Street junction area examined a number of options for the configuration of the junction and concluded that the layout as proposed would be the most appropriate. The chosen alignment and the consequent land take would be the optimal [NET.R64, 2.2].

6.82 Analysis of the ng2 development site access road with Queens Drive indicates that the junction would be at capacity in the AM peak, with some queuing for drivers wishing to turn into ng2 from Queens Drive, but no undue delays for through traffic on the main road. In the PM peak the junction is forecast to run under capacity [NET.P5/D, 2.4.3].

Alternative Routes

A52126

6.83 This proposed alternative, which was given early consideration in feasibility studies127, would cause impact on this major strategic route, reducing capacity significantly on one of the most heavily trafficked routes in the region, which suffers from significant congestion in both the peak periods.

6.84 Furthermore the tram would of necessity pass through several critically congested major junctions and would impinge on minor roads and private accesses on the south side of this trunk road.

6.85 Suffering from significant traffic interface along a congested strategic corridor such an alternative tram alignment would give rise to tram service unreliability and longer journey times.

6.86 Furthermore any route option through the University campus, one of which was considered as part of the Have Your Say Consultation [B2/7], would involve on-street running, steep gradients, affect more

125 NET.B11, White Hart Junction Options Study Report Number 223700/ER16 Rev A

126 NET.R25

127 NET.B16


115

sensitive receptors in terms of noise and air quality and impact on an archaeological area. It would also have a greater visual impact on the character of the campus due to its open nature.

6.87 The A52 route option would not serve Beeston Town Centre and would also fail to serve the somewhat isolated Inham Nook Estate and other parts of Chilwell. With no catchment areas on the A52 Stapleford Bypass and limited residential patronage potential on Derby Road, the route would effectively act as a long park and ride access service into NU, QMC and the City. It would therefore provide little local benefit and would be unable to achieve the same aims as the proposed route.

Southern Alternatives128

6.88 This option would be routed between Beeston town centre and a park and ride site at Stapleford Lane, via Attenborough with a series of sub-options between Middle Street and Chilwell Olympia and a common section to the park and ride site.

6.89 The overall assessment concludes that:

• All options would have a significantly slower journey time than the proposed route (primarily due to greater route length) which would be likely to increase during peak periods due to the extent of on-street running and the associated potential for congestion.

• All options would provide less reliability than the proposed route, with up to 26% less segregated running and the crossing of up to eight more junctions. In addition all options would run along the extremely busy strategic road (A6005 Queens Road) which experiences significant congestion at peak times. This compares with the proposed route which would have minimal interaction with the strategic road network, except at the proposed park and ride site.

• The capital cost for all options would be significantly higher than the proposed route due to increased length and the extent of on-street running.

6.90 Overall the higher costs and increased journey time of all the options together with the relative poor economic performance would make all the options poor value for money in economic terms. As a consequence the proposed route was taken forward.

University Arts Centre129 130

6.91 A route to the front of the Arts Centre was an option under

128 NET.P8/A, 2.18

129 NET.P8/A, 6.2

130 NET.R61


116

consideration when public consultation was undertaken in 2003. Following that consultation exercise, a variety of factors, including tram operation and reliability, land take, community impacts such as noise/vibration and privacy and costs were considered in detail in order to determine the route alignment of NET Phase Two through the campus. The proposed route offers the best solution in terms of the long term operation and maintenance of the system and can be introduced in a manner sympathetic to the local environment. In this regard the alternatives would impinge on Highfields Park, which is on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens as well as being open space.

6.92 In refining the proposals, the route has been amended from that which formed the basis of earlier public consultation, to reduce the amount of land required from residential properties in Greenfield Street by moving the route approximately five metres closer to the University Arts Centre, thereby reducing the impact on the affected properties. Gardens would remain and the existing boundary wall at the back of the properties would be replaced in matching materials. In addition specialist track form would be introduced in the area behind the University Arts Centre and a noise barrier provided to minimise noise and vibration impacts. Tree planting in rear gardens subject to agreement with the property owners, would also be introduced to provide an additional visual screen.

6.93 Noise and vibration impacts on the Orchestra Rehearsal Room can be successfully mitigated, as agreed with NU.

Broadgate/Humber Road (avoiding Lower Road/Fletcher Road)131

6.94 The Broadgate/Humber Road alternative route, whilst being slightly preferable on environmental grounds to the selected route, would be longer, would have five tight radius curves and would have a greater length of route subject to heavy traffic. It would have more unreliable and longer journey times and lower economic benefits.

The Green Corridor (Chilwell Greenway) (Inham Road to Cator Lane)132

6.95 The route of the tramway along the corridor, which runs from Cator Lane in the east to Inham Road in the west is safeguarded in the Broxtowe Local Plan [NET.C35]. The tramway alignment along this section has been carefully designed to minimise the impact of the scheme and preserve and enhance as far as practicable many of the existing features.

6.96 The creation of a new footpath and cycleway north of the tramway between Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane would provide a suitable link

131 NET.R81

132 P8/A, 6.10


117

to the tram stops and would allow people to walk and cycle the full length of the open corridor without having to cross the tramway.

6.97 In keeping with the open nature of the area, the tram tracks would be placed on stone ballast material which has an informal look, yet deters pedestrians, cyclists and motorists from using the tramway and has the added advantage of being noise absorbent.

6.98 The corridor includes an existing watercourse which is part-culverted. The proposals include the further culverting of a section of the watercourse to the immediate west of Bramcote Lane. The culvert would be appropriately-sized to accommodate the level of water flow. There is an existing drainage problem which causes flooding at Cator Lane immediately to the south of the proposed tramway crossing of the road. It would be a requirement that the detailed design and construction of NET Phase Two have no significant adverse impact on flooding behaviour.

6.99 The alignment of the tramway through this corridor seeks to minimise impact on the local landscape, including trees. The most recent arboricultural survey (Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement [NET/A16]) undertaken in 2007 recorded the age and health of every tree along NET Phase Two. All efforts have been made to keep trees which are in good health. However it would not be possible to retain all trees and replacement planting is therefore proposed.

6.100 In the area between Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane, the mature trees along the southern boundary and the paths that run through the area are considered to be important features of the corridor. These are the elements which the design of the scheme has retained and enhanced, where possible.

6.101 It is recognised that the use of the open corridor to play games would be restricted to some extent. However, there are alternative areas in the locality which can be used for such purposes and the tramway would be kept as far to the north as possible to retain as much of the open corridor as possible.

6.102 To mitigate for the loss of open space along the Chilwell Greenway via QMC and Beeston route, the fields beyond Inham Road would become a large area of public open space with facilities for leisure, and provide the opportunity to create a nature reserve featuring various habitats: native woodland, wildflowers and scrapes as before (where plants are left to colonise naturally on less fertile soils).


118

Sandby Court and Valley Surgery133 134

6.103 The tramway would run to the south of Sandby Court (between the southern block and the houses/apartments currently being constructed on the site of the former petrol station), away from the main circulation area of the complex and the entrance to the adjacent Valley Surgery. Meetings have been held with residents, and further discussions would take place with affected parties, particularly during the construction phase to ensure that disruption would be minimised as far as possible.

6.104 The space available is limited and it is recognised that there would be a significantly changed environment for the residents of the flats at Sandby Court which would back onto the tramway. Noise impacts would be significant for the residents on the upper floors. A noise barrier and adjacent planting is proposed. The barrier would also aid privacy. The tramway would be kept as far away as possible from the flats, running broadly along the alignment of the existing watercourse, which would be relocated slightly to the north in culvert beneath the reinstated garden of Sandby Court. There would be likely to be significant impact on the living conditions of the residents in ground floor flats during construction, particularly the culverting works. In this case there may be a case for the Promoter to pay expenses of temporary accommodation where continued occupation is not reasonably practicable, under s28 of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

6.105 The proposals should not impact on the parking at Sandby Court at any stage, and access to Bramcote Lane would be retained throughout the construction phase, including access for emergency vehicles and taxis. There would be a temporary loss of parking spaces at the Valley Surgery, but the car park would be reinstated, with the same number of spaces following the completion of the works.

Residential Amenity & Living Conditions135

6.106 Route selection along this proposed former road corridor between the rear gardens of houses in Lime Grove Avenue, Gwenbrook Avenue, Brookland Drive, Cator Lane and the side of Castle College on High Road has been influenced by:

• The location and layout of the junction of the proposed tramway with High Road,

133 NET.P8/A, 6.10.11-13

134 NET.R18

135 NET.P8/A, 6.9


119

• The tram stop position in Castle College,

• The need to minimize impact on local residents,

• The desire to avoid Richmond Court,

• Track radii considerations.

6.107 Therefore, given these constraints, it would be necessary to utilize parts of some private gardens, the demolition of two properties and some outbuildings. The loss of vegetation and amenity would be compensated for through planting of new trees and creating areas of public space. Furthermore the Promoter would also seek to replace some of the vegetation lost by replacement planting in gardens. Some limited loss of parking is necessary in the vicinity of tram crossings of roads and tram stops for safety reasons.

6.108 In this area a sense of proportion is needed. The land-take from for example Mr and Mrs Morris (to the north of the tramway) (OBJ/508) is small, and would barely be perceived because of the dense tree-cover in their garden136. But the Promoter does not seek to downplay the understandable concern of those like Professor and Mrs Bates (OBJs/750 & /761) who value their residential ambience which would in their case be markedly changed, though to a lesser extent than feared by Mrs Bates (OBJ/761) in particular. Noise levels would be well below the levels to qualify for noise insulation under the relevant Noise Insulation Regulations.

6.109 The effect on Greenwood Court and Richmond Court has been minimised so far as practicable, which in the latter case requires the demolition of nos.35 and 37 Gwenbrook Avenue (the former is the subject of a blight notice; the latter has already been acquired by the County Council). The few allotments lost have not been used in recent years, since they suffer from poor drainage; BBC officers’ view is that there is adequate mitigation in the new car-parking137.

Land at High Road/Grove Avenue (Parcel 150) Messrs Bartons138

6.110 The Barton brothers and their parents oppose the landtake to their development site on the north side of High Road, to which access would be constrained by the tram. It may be that their eventual development scheme takes access in whole or part from Grove Avenue, but in any event any loss to the residual value of their site is primarily a compensation matter.

136 NET.R56/1

137 NET.B10, Drawing No. TD09

138 NET.R42


120

6.111 These objectors raise a number of more general issues that are covered in response to other objectors. Their arguments relating to power supply reliability and source emissions fails to take account of the improvements now under-way at the local power station. They are not supported by experience from Line One. On the matter of CO2 emissions analysis shows139 that the operation of NET would result in an annual saving of 1,032 tonnes per year of CO2 after taking account of source emissions.

Beeston Town Centre

Town Centre Development

6.112 Three options for the tram alignment through the town centre arose out of the 2003 Beeston Town Centre Study. The preferred Styring Street option was chosen as the most practicable route which would greatly add to overall vitality and viability of the centre and be likely to positively influence remodeling of the shopping centre and potential adjacent developments. The tram would bring high levels of accessibility and provide high quality visible public transport in Beeston town centre.

6.113 The emerging Beeston Town Centre Area Action Plan, Preferred Options Report February 2007 [NET.C36/1] indicated the most appropriate alignment as close to the churchyard boundary. It adopted wide limits of deviation to include all the retail premises to the west of The Square, namely 23-47 The Square. These proposals form the basis of the Order application as originally submitted.

6.114 At the time of application, it was felt that the acquisition of all of the premises, but, in particular 33-39 The Square, the corner block, housing Argos, The Yorkshire Bank, Ladbrokes and the Post News Shop, was justified because the retention of these buildings, in isolation, was undesirable in townscape terms in the event that the wider redevelopment was a reasonably imminent prospect.

6.115 Subsequently these proposals for this part of the town centre have been reconsidered in the light of consultations on the Preferred Options Report [NET.C36/1] and objections received to the compulsory purchase element of the TWAO. Legal advice has indicated that there is no justification for including the retail block comprising 33-39 The Square (the Argos triangle) in the area to be acquired. It would not be absolutely necessary for the scheme.

6.116 The units housing these stores would continue to be integrated into the town centre retail area, fronting onto 10 to 14 The Square, which would not be affected by the proposed scheme, and occupying a prominent location on the corner of the Beeston Square. Overall, it is considered that these arrangements would create a satisfactory



121

pedestrian area and an acceptable townscape. The route of NET along Styring Street, including the prominent location of the tram stop, alongside St John the Baptist Church, and along Chilwell Road, which would, in part, be pedestrianised as part of the Scheme, would give the tram a strong and positive presence in the town centre.

6.117 The retention of the Argos triangle would not cause unacceptable impacts on the setting of the listed church, views into or out of the CA, or on the enjoyment of the town centre by pedestrians and shoppers. Furthermore satisfactory operational servicing would be provided. Any adverse effects would not be sufficient to justify demolition of the Argos triangle for the tramway or for necessary ancillary works for the tramway.

Beeston Parish Church, St John the Baptist140

6.118 The new traffic arrangements at the junction of Middle Street/Chilwell Road/Devonshire Avenue would be inconvenient for some, including the Parish Church. However there would be no problem with access to the Vicarage. Furthermore, not only has the Promoter undertaken to lengthen the parking bay in Middle Street outside the church and to provide a cross-over for use by hearses and wedding cars, but also it has included a modification to the TWO, which would enable those vehicles to use Styring Street/Middle Street, which the Secretary of State is invited to make.

6.119 On-street parking would be available for congregation members in a number of locations, including Church Street, the nearby multi-storey car park and Devonshire Road car park.

6.120 No part of the tram scheme would require the removal of the grave stones; they do not lie within the red line boundary.

Wilkinson Hardware Stores Limited141

6.121 With the acquisition and demolition of Wilkinson’s store there would be a short term loss of trade in the town centre. However the differences of impact between the revised preferred proposal, encompassing the retention of the ‘Argos triangle’ (nos. 33-39 The Square), and Wilkinson’s counter proposal, which envisages the retention of nos. 40-47 The Square), are insufficient to outweigh other reasons in favour of the demolition of the objector’s store.

6.122 NET’s revised proposals are the best available in the absence of firmer proposals for the town centre redevelopment and offer the greatest scope for an integrated tramway in any future redevelopment of the town centre. Wilkinson’s proposals are less

140 NET.R45

141 NET.R46


122

satisfactory as an interim solution and would give rise to a partial redevelopment which would prevent the desirable integration of this part of the conservation area firmly into the public realm of the town centre.

6.123 Wilkinson’s counter proposal is feasible in engineering terms. However the Promoter’s revised proposal would allow for continued appropriate servicing without significant constraints on tram operations.

6.124 In terms of safeguarding the best long term solutions for town centre redevelopment and urban design, the retention of the corner block, 33 to 39, is more desirable than the alternatives, for example, the retention of 40 to 47, occupied by Wilkinsons. The latter might be a satisfactory short term solution, but would leave the tram in a sub-optimal alignment in terms of creating a high quality pedestrian and retail environment. The ideal solution, which the Promoter continues to encourage, would be for the redevelopment of The Square to proceed, in an orderly staged way, in parallel with NET Phase Two.

Wheatcroft Land Limited142 and R & M Swaine143

6.125 Wheatcroft Land Ltd’s request that the Promoter acquires both, rather than one only, of his properties has now been accepted144, there is nothing left to be decided in respect of this objection or that of Wheatcroft Land Ltd’s tenant, R&M Swaine. Mr Swaine expressly accepts145 that the Promoter has also now addressed his own concerns.

Fletcher Road/Lower Road146 147 148

6.126 Deliveries and servicing would continue to be possible. Most deliveries would only take a few minutes, however for longer periods servicing vehicles could use the lay-by facilities.

6.127 Where parking problems arise due to the operation of NET Phase Two, suitable action, such as introducing residents’ parking schemes, would be taken where appropriate. Any proposals would be

142 NET.R43

143 NET.R44

144 NET.R43 & NET.R43/1

145 Mr Swaine in response to question put to him by the Inspector (Day 10)

146 Inspector’s Note: A comprehensive response to BCT’s points of objection is set out in NET.R50.

147 NET.R54



123

considered in full consultation with local residents.

6.128 Ground investigation has been undertaken and the extent and depth of the peat bed under Lower Road and Fletcher Road has been identified. It will be possible to alter the highway construction to accommodate the tramway.

6.129 The contractor would be required by the CoCP [NET.A15, Section 3.1] to identify which buildings could be at risk from ground movement and to undertake surveys before, during and after construction for any signs of movement or structural damage and take any appropriate action.

6.130 NET Phase Two would produce a general increase in the noise levels experienced by residents of these two streets but these would be very considerably below the level at which noise insulation would be required to be provided under statutory requirements. Furthermore vibration effects would not be anticipated to result in any structural impacts on dwellings. As close as three metres from the tracks the level of vibration would be a factor of ten below a cautious level at which structural damage may arise149; houses in these roads would be set back significantly further than this from the track.

6.131 As regards the character of the streets, the draft planning conditions provide that details of the layout, scale and external appearance of tram poles must be approved by the local planning authority.

6.132 Mr Wildish’s (OBJ/969) Human Rights are not considered to be infringed by the provisions of the Order as to be contrary to Article 8 the Human Rights Act 1998, the property is not being taken and there would be no extreme levels of noise, as has been demonstrated.

6.133 Alternative routes put forward in this area would have a much poorer performance than the proposed route. Patronage would be lower, benefits lower with a poorer BCR. It would also represent poorer value for money150.

Neville Sadler Court151 152

6.134 The NET Promoter, with the cooperation and agreement of the owners, would be keen to enable the part of NSC that requires demolition to allow construction of the tramway to be replaced by

149 NET.P7/A, 4.19

150 NET.P1/A, Section 6)


152 NET.R50, Section 2.1


124

substitute accommodation comprising at least the same number of flats of an enhanced standard, offering modern facilities and easier access to the buildings for people living in them. The proposed replacement flats and car parking would all be located to the north of the tramway, thereby keeping the tram away from the main circulation area of the Court and retaining access and parking facilities. The redevelopment would require the acquisition of one adjacent residential property.

6.135 The intention would be to achieve the redevelopment of NSC with the re-accommodation of residents handled in a compassionate and considered manner, with a view to minimising any distress to residents of NSC. A substitute community room would be provided whilst the new accommodation was under construction. Thus social events would continue uninterrupted.

6.136 Construction matters would be addressed adequately through the CoCP and operational tram noise levels would not breach the threshold which would trigger the requirements set out in the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 [NET.D9].

6.137 The construction of the replacement residential block and its possible impact on the living conditions of local residents and on the street scene would be the subject of detailed design control by the local planning authority (BBC) as provided for in the draft planning conditions.

6.138 The NET Phase Two proposals do not include for any development of the residual land to the south of the tramway. Any future proposals for that land would have to conform to local planning policy and any application would be subject to approval by BBC as the local planning authority.

University Boulevard153

6.139 A detailed arboricultural survey has been undertaken to assess the location and quality of all the trees along University Boulevard. This has been used in developing the tram alignment, and the design has sought to minimise loss or impacts on trees.

6.140 Unfortunately at some locations the loss of mature trees is unavoidable. In mitigation, additional trees would be planted elsewhere on the Boulevard and existing gaps would be planted with appropriate species to reinforce the tree lined character of the road and ensure that integrity of the Boulevard is maintained.



125

University Arts Centre & Greenfield Street154 155 156 157

6.141 The ES reports the assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts along Greenfield Street and concludes that significant impacts are not expected. Predicted noise levels at dwellings and at the objectors’ coach house comply with targets in the NVP, mitigation measures would be unlikely to be needed. It is anticipated that sound recordings could continue to take place as tram speeds through this area would be slow and the garden wall would substantially screen tram noise.

6.142 Impact of the construction activities on residents would be addressed and controlled by the CoCP.

6.143 From Line One experience the radii of the bends near the Arts Centre of 39-43m would not induce wheel squeal, notwithstanding other design and maintenance measures that would be pursued by the Promoter to help prevent wheel squeal158.

6.144 The proposed tram alignment would not be a public thoroughfare and would be designed so as not to be an attractive route for pedestrians. This, together with the replacement of the existing high wall and with the passage of trams, should ensure that the objectors’ property would be no more open to security breaches than at present, from an accessible car park cul-de-sac.

Abbey Street, Lenton159

6.145 A detailed option appraisal of the works required in this area has been carried out. This examined a number of options for the configuration of the Abbey Street/Gregory Street junction [NET.B11]. It concluded that the layout as proposed would be the most appropriate and the consequent land take would be the optimal.

6.146 The objector has confirmed160 that he is not seeking any changes to the wording of the Order, but seeking to minimise the operational impact on the company. In this regard heads of terms for an

154 Inspector’s Note: For the response on the alternative route proposals in the Arts Centre area and

on treatment of affected Greenfield Street gardens see 6.91-6.93 above.

155 NET.R48

156 NET.R61


158 See also 6.38 above.

159 NET.R64

160 Mr M Scott in cross examination (Day 16).


126

agreement have been sent to DSL giving assurances about ; the minimization of land acquisition, the maximization of notice to be provided prior to land occupation, maintenance of access during works and its ultimate final reinstatement and ongoing consultation commitments.

Rebuttal of Objections to the Clifton/Wilford Route

Nottingham Road Park and Ride Site, Clifton161 162 163 164165

6.147 In view of the possible impact on the Gotham Hill ridgeline, the park and ride site would be designed in a way to reduce its prominence, being cut into the hillside with a substantial strip of native planting around the site; the detailed design would be subject to the approval of the local planning authority through an appropriate planning condition.

6.148 Both the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed site have been assessed by following the Countryside Agency/Landscape Institute standard methodology and have been influenced by the small number of residents who would have their views affected.

6.149 The Objector has misunderstood the ‘Nottinghamshire Countryside Appraisal’ and its Guidelines. They are intended to supplement local landscape designations. They are not a primary policy in the Structure Plan. They are intended to help inform development proposals by guiding design and mitigation; they are not a method of preventing development.

6.150 As regards impact on wildlife, landscaping surrounding the site would enhance biodiversity within the area and the trees to be planted would provide cover and shelter for birds and other wildlife.

6.151 Access proposals to the site from A453 trunk road have, of necessity, been prepared in two option forms; option 1 assumes completion of the proposed HA trunk road widening scheme, option 2 would be built if the A453 scheme does not progress. Whilst this road scheme is at an advanced stage of preparation, all statutory procedures have yet to be completed. If option 2 had to be built it would have greater impact on local farming. However it is anticipated that existing farming activity could be maintained on adjacent land owned by the

161 NET.R87

162 NET.R89

163 NET.R90

164 NET.R91

165 NET.R95


127

Objector (Mr Plowright). Appropriate access would be maintained between severed landholdings.

6.152 As regards compatibility and coordination with the RSS process, both the City and County Councils have been fully involved in the development of the RSS. NET Phase Two is consistent with a number of its core objectives and the Promoter would consider the implications for the NET network, of any specific development proposals coming forward as a result of RSS policies.

6.153 The East Midlands Parkway station is mainly intended for outbound journeys, whilst it would meet a moderate inbound park and ride market it would be via a relatively limited frequency train service. There would be limited overlap between the catchment for this facility and that for NET via Clifton park and ride. The two would sit comfortably together and it is felt that the overall provision of park and ride in Greater Nottingham across all modes (train, tram and bus) would be appropriate.

Alternative Routes166 167 168 169 170

6.154 The CQD route would serve fewer residents than the proposed CW route, it would be 13% slower, would attract 15% less patronage, would be significantly more expensive and would fall substantially below required levels to meet Government funding criteria. The CQD route would be substantially less viable than the preferred route and was therefore not pursued.

6.155 Furthermore the EA require that any new crossing of the Trent would place no new piers in the river to ensure no material impact on flood behaviour. Therefore a long single span structure would be required, with significant unavoidable cost implications for this option.

6.156 As regards matters of health, the tramway would not reduce recreational facilities in the wider area as existing paths would be retained and additional paths provided. Furthermore there would be the associated creation of a new area of open space (south of Silverdale) which would double up as a leisure resource for the area.

166 NET.R65

167 NET.R68

168 NET.R71

169 NET.R73

170 NET.R78


128

Ruddington Lane Crossing171

6.157 Any a new structure, which would be required to carry Ruddington Lane over the NET corridor, would be at a greater road height to achieve headroom clearance over the tramway. Importantly for the nearby proposed tram stop, there would be a significant level difference with detrimental effect on the prominence, accessibility and security of stop users.

6.158 As proposed the embankment would be a maximum of 1.7m above the adjacent gardens. Impact on the occupants of the nearby dwellings would be mitigated by dense native scrub and woodland planting and a 2m high fence at the edge of the tramway, which would partially screen trams and act as a noise barrier.

Ruddington Lane to Wilford Lane172

Inspector’s Note: The wildlife issues are dealt with in 6.55-6.62 above.

6.159 Noise barriers are proposed along much of the former railway corridor south of Wilford Lane [NET.A14, Chapter 6]. These would bring noise levels below the target levels included in the NVP, which in turn are roughly half as loud as those for which Regulations [NET.D9] require insulation. The design and appearance of the barriers would take account of the nature of the area in which they would be located. Appropriate replacement planting would address tree loss and landscape impact173.

6.160 The tram track would run on ballasted track through this area and detailed assessment174 of the dynamic characteristics of this design lead to the conclusion that there would be no significant vibration impacts on residents along the Wilford railway corridor. Furthermore there are appropriate design and construction techniques that would lead to no adverse effects on the stability of adjacent properties175 176. Potential impacts on health would be limited by the retention of a footpath along the corridor.

6.161 There is no evidence to suggest that commuters would be attracted to park within the surrounding residential areas in order to join the tram service at a local stop. However in the unlikely event of this

171 NET.R68

172 NET.R77

173 Urban and landscape design statement, NET.A18

174 NET.P2/A, paras 2.40-2.41


176 See IQ 52 [INQ/6] and response in NET.P2/D


129

happening the local highway authority would have the ability through the Road Traffic Regulation regime to prevent parking on the highway by promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order. RBC has powers to remove vehicles from open space and appropriate fencing/posts/bollards could be used as deterrents177.

Osteopathic Clinic, Wilford Lane178

6.162 The need to acquire the forecourt area (plot 1040) of the clinic during the construction phase has now been removed. Access into the Objector’s property would be maintained at all times during this period.

6.163 The impact of construction works would be limited by the enforcement of the CoCP. The contractor would be required to obtain ‘prior approval’ from RBC under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. Noise levels would be controlled and minimized by the use of quiet working and temporary noise screens. The issue of dust would also be addressed through site management practices, identified in the CoCP. Local liaison groups would represent residents and businesses and would provide a forum regarding planned work and progress.

6.164 Operational noise levels are predicted to be low in this immediate area; tram speeds would be low because of the adjacent controlled crossing of Wilford Lane. The proposed tram stop has been relocated to the north of Wilford Lane, addressing the Objector’s concern.

Wilford Lane, Traffic179

6.165 Analysis of further Wilford Lane traffic surveys confirms that the crossing point would have adequate capacity and queues are not forecast to interfere with the adjacent junction180. Capacity modelling confirms181 that the crossing and the adjacent junction would operate within acceptable capacity levels. These findings are accepted by the local highway authority.

6.166 Whilst peak hour westbound queues do extend back from the junction of Wilford Lane with Main Road/Ruddington Lane, the queues clear within each signal cycle and the junction performance would not be materially affected by the NET proposals. The tram crossing

177 Mr Deas in cross examination by ENT (Mr Britton) Day 20.

178 NET.R70

179 NET.R71

180 NET.P5/D, Section 2.3

181 NET.P8/A, paragraph 7.4.1


130

would be kept clear of queueing traffic by signs and road markings.

Wilford Village182 183 184

6.167 The reduced 400m catchment area was only used to compare local access to two alternative stop locations (Bader Road v Main Road) by more elderly residents in the village. Many other potential users would be within the 800m catchment more usually used to estimate patronage and accessibility. The proposed stops are in the best locations to provide a beneficial service to meet the needs of the village residents, visitors to the local amenities and the schools. The suggested Bader Road stop would be relatively isolated and would not provide an appropriate level of security. The previously proposed stop on Coronation Avenue, near St Patrick’s school has been removed from the proposals.

6.168 Wilford Toll Bridge would be closed for pedestrians and cyclists for a period of up to six months during the construction phase to enable the bridge deck to be replaced and strengthened. It is recognised that this would be a loss with alternative crossings of the River Trent some distance away. For children travelling to and from school, discussions have been held with representatives of the local schools and alternative transport would be provided during the closure period.

6.169 From Wilford Toll Bridge the tramway would operate along Main Road, an area that is currently used for recreational and school parking and a replacement car park (approximately 25 spaces) would be provided adjacent to the Ferry Inn Public House. Measures would be taken if necessary at the operational stage to deter park and ride usage of the proposed car park and adjacent streets. The proposed car park would not impact on the SINC, it does lie partially within the conservation area, but this area is used for uncontrolled on-street parking already.

6.170 There is no reason why the Promoter’s proposed access arrangement would cause difficulty or safety risk for users of the playing fields. Mr Steel’s suggested alternative access would have greater impact with no material benefit185. As regards construction impacts, access would be required to both sides of the bridge. The use of Main Road as a construction site would be managed through the CoCP, appropriate discussions with the local highway authority and local liaison.

182 NET.R68 & NET.R68/1

183 NET.P8/A, Sections 7.2 & 7.3

184 NET.R65

185 For a detailed comparison and critique of the proposed access arrangements to NMRC, compared

with Mr Steel’s alternative proposal, seeNET.R68, paragraphs 3.4.1 to 3.4.5.


131

Queen’s Walk186

6.171 The importance attached to Queen’s Walk, and to its nature, is reflected in the design approach adopted in the ULDS [NET.A18]. Furthermore EH has been fully consulted on the Queen’s Walk section of route and has not objected.

6.172 Whilst Queen’s Walk is an Allotted Recreation Ground [NET.P6/A] it is not a designed landscape in the same sense as Highfields Park. The ES recognizes Queen’s Walk as a green corridor with a high sensitivity to change and that it is a formally laid out open space187. The Local Plan [NET.C28] does not include any policies to alter Queen’s Walk other than safeguarding the tram route.

6.173 As regards impact on trees, the NCC tree and landscape officers are satisfied that the proposed replacement trees would be able to establish satisfactorily.

6.174 The current views along Queen’s Walk are broken by the Robin Hood Way underpass structure. The proposed revised arrangement would give good views along the length of Queen’s Walk.

6.175 Matters of the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and the question of alternative routes are dealt with above.

Flood Risk on CW188

6.176 The Phase Two proposals have been the subject of a FRA [NET.B8]. Based on this document and a commitment by NET to undertake further work [NET.R2] the EA has withdrawn its objection to the TWA application. The EA has indicated that ‘it is felt that a solution is feasible and is possible prior to the next stage of the Transport and Works Act Order, without causing a delay in the process’ [NET.R2, Appendix 2].

6.177 The FRA for the River Trent area is generally based on flood predictions sourced from the EA in 2007 and which the EA is satisfied is not out of date. There is sufficient flexibility, within the TWA powers being sought, to accommodate any minor changes that may arise in the new hydraulic modelling of the Fairham Brook area.

6.178 Flooding that may occur ahead of overtopping of the river bank in the playing fields and wetlands is likely to arise from connection of land drainage into the river and not through seepage through the ground, which relates to surface water drainage being surcharged. This seepage, which may conceivably increase through a granular

186 NET.R83 & NET.P8/A, Section 7.1

187 A note on the status of Queen’s Walk is set out at NET.R83, Appendix 2

188 NET.R71


132

track bed, could be controlled by inclusion of an impermeable membrane at formation level.

6.179 The consequence of the removal of the disused railway embankment south of Wilford Lane would be the subject of further hydraulic modelling. However the flood cells on either side of this physical feature are already connected by the opening in the embankment at Wilford Lane. Flooding would only occur here if the main river defences were overtopped. These have a defence standard of 100 years with allowance for climate change. Further detailed consideration of this issue would be undertaken when the results of the EA’s Strategic FRA are available.

Suggested Additional Tram Stop, Silverdale189 & Alternative Tram Stop, Bader Road, Wilford190

6.180 Mr Bennett, for CW Yes! (SUPP/69) seeks an additional tram stop to serve Silverdale. However the suggested stop would be situated in the replacement open space away from the urban environment and with difficult access and consequent security issues. Parts of Silverdale can access the proposed tram stops at Ruddington Lane and at Farnborough Road.

6.181 The position of the suggested stop near Bader Road would be relatively isolated and would not provide an appropriate level of security and safety for users both at and approaching the stop. The two stops proposed, at Main Road near the Ferry Inn and to the north of Wilford Lane would provide access to the tram service within a reasonable 800 metre catchment for Wilford village and the two new secondary schools to the east.

Other Scheme-Wide Objections

Planning Conditions & NVP

6.182 A detailed response to Mr Britton’s critique of the draft planning conditions for the scheme and of the NVP is set out in NET.P6/S. A new condition has been added to reflect recognition of the existing noise issue at Noel Street and because the new Concession contract to operate NET Line One and Phase Two together would give the Promoter the opportunity to oblige the operator to address this.

6.183 In recognition of Mr Britton’s concerns regarding the NVP two modifications are proposed to Appendix 1 of the draft NVP dealing with noise monitoring procedures. A revised version of the draft NVP is set out in NET.P7/H.

189 NET.R5

190 NET.R68


133

Adequacy of the Environmental Statement191 192

6.184 In response to Dr Bradley for NWT, given the extent of the surveys undertaken193 it is difficult to see why they should be regarded as inadequate. Furthermore it is not accepted that these SINCS should have been treated in the ES as having special value because of the nature of the Region, particularly since the ES has recognised their importance and that this is partly dependent on their proximity to urban areas. To suggest that individually or cumulatively any of these matters could invalidate the ES is completely without foundation.

6.185 Turning to Mr Britton’s criticisms, on the first matter, as his own evidence indicates, the existing noise levels are clearly stated in the ES, and therefore it is a matter of professional judgement how the assessment of significance is to be done. If (which is not accepted), there is any merit in Mr Britton’s overall approach, it does not constitute a legal challenge to the ES, but rather to the methodology of Mr Mitchell (for NET) – a methodology which is common-place to many recent schemes, including the East London Line [see NET.C66] and the recently approved Edinburgh tram scheme. Mr Britton could identify no other transport scheme with relatively low baseline noise levels where the approach he advocated, of looking only to the actual increase rather than taking into account threshold levels, had been applied.

6.186 As regards the construction impacts NET stands by its description of these impacts as short-term in that they are limited to weeks or months rather than years. Finally The Promoter does not accept that there would be any significant immediate noise impacts which have not been, but should have been, acknowledged in the ES.

6.187 Although there was a suggestion in the evidence of Wilkinsons that they were critical of the ES, they clarified194 that they were not taking any legal point as to the inadequacy of the ES.

6.188 The Promoter’s position remains that the ES is a comprehensive, robust and focused assessment of the ‘main effects’ of the Scheme, which properly reports on the ‘main alternatives’, robustly addressing the worst case situation within the envelope of the Limits of

191 NET.R92

192 NET.R46

193 Bat surveys (in September 2002 and April/May 2005 and February/March 2007 see para 9.2.3

page 9-12 and para 9.5.3 page 9-41). Slow worms at Beeston Sidings (5 visits in autumn 2006 para 9.2.3 page 9-10). Invertebrate survey (September 2002 including 9 sweep-netting and 7 pitfall-trapping sites para 9.2.3 page 9-10). Water voles surveys (2000, 2003 and 2004 para 9.2.3 page 9.9-12)

194 Brian Ash QC, for Wilkinsons, on Inquiry Day 11

Deleted: a

Deleted: a


134

Deviation. If there are inadequacies, these have now been supplemented by the information provided to the Inquiry, and the Secretaries of State need no further information before they can lawfully take decisions in relation to the applications before them.

6.189 Statutory procedural requirements, both in relation to the ES and the applications, have been complied with; no objections to the contrary have been sustained [NET.A25 and NET.A29].


6.190 The responses to the general points of objection are covered in the Objections Proof [NET.P8/A] or the Statement of Case [NET.A23]. However where a bespoke response is required to particular written objections this is set out in NET.R1/25b.


135

7 CONCLUSIONS

Inspector’s Note: In this section references in square brackets [ ] indicate the paragraph(s) in which the relevant source material can be found.

7.1 The structure of this section of my report generally follows the topics listed in the Statement of Matters issued by the Secretary of State [1.10]. Bearing in mind the submissions and representations I have reported, the information contained in the Environmental Statement, representations made about the environmental effects of the development, and all other environmental information supplied, I have reached the following conclusions.


7.2 Peak hour traffic congestion in Greater Nottingham restrains existing road-based public transport and has negative implications for the local economy, for local accessibility and for social exclusion in some of the City’s more deprived wards. This is particularly the case on the key routes in the south west quadrant, A52, A453 and A6005. Furthermore there is planned significant growth in the number of households and in the economy of Greater Nottingham which is threatened by the growing imbalance between existing transport capacity and forecast demand growth, referred to as the ‘transport gap’. [3.3-3.5][3.7-3.27]

7.3 I heard no evidence that seriously disputed these arguments that contribute to the scheme’s aims and objectives and which underpin the need for the proposal. Some objectors maintained that a high quality bus-based system would satisfactorily meet the need. [5.1] However I am satisfied from the evidence put before me based on considerations of that mode195 that the tram would offer significant journey time and reliability benefits. [6.1]

7.4 Enabling regeneration also features amongst the scheme’s aims. There is evidence from Line One and elsewhere that tram systems act as catalysts for redevelopment and regeneration. [3.34-3.35][4.39] This was an argument also put forward by several supporters of the scheme. [4.1][4.9][4.12][4.30][4.37-4.38][4.49]

7.5 The proposed routes of NET Phase Two would directly serve and assist significant development sites to the south of the city centre, through Beeston and in Clifton. Furthermore I heard and saw that the tram system is used to aid the marketing of sites. None of this was effectively contested in the evidence put before me. [3.35][3.37][3.171-3.175][5.1][6.1]

195 See 7.40-7.42 for more detailed consideration of alternatives.

Deleted: et


136

7.6 The final main aspects of need relate to public transport compatibility. These are encompassed by the aims highlighting the needs for increased public transport capacity, for integrated public transport and for the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transport. [3.14-3.16][3.28-3.33][3.38-3.40]

7.7 I am satisfied that the NET proposals before me, by their segregated nature, would offer significant enhanced public transport capacity, thereby addressing the potential ‘transport gap’ that is forecast to arise from 2011. No one offered objective evidence to counter this point. [3.16][3.144]

7.8 It is clear that NET Phase Two would connect to Line One to give an integrated tram network which would provide direct links to heavy rail services at Nottingham Railway Station. It is also clear from experiences on Line One that integration with bus services has taken place, not only through city centre connectivity but also through the development of local bus feeder services in the suburbs; I see no reason to believe that such services would not develop for Phase Two. Furthermore, in my view, public transport integration would undoubtedly be aided by multi-modal ticketing, which I heard accounts for some 45% of existing NET passengers. In my judgment, given all the above, the proposals would make significant contributions towards the aim of providing an integrated public transport service. [3.28-3.33]

7.9 Line One has demonstrated that some 30% of users have changed travel behaviour by switching from cars to tram directly or by using associated park and ride facilities. No one has produced evidence to counter the argument that Net Phase Two would continue to generate these environmentally friendly travel patterns which would lead to reduced emissions and lower pollution levels. [3.38-3.40][3.143]

7.10 In summary I am satisfied that the identified aims and objectives of the project underpin the need. On the evidence before me I have no reason to question the validity of, or to doubt the need for, the scheme in general, or indeed any element of the scheme, as proposed in the draft Order. In my view there is a compelling need for the scheme in the public interest.

Scheme Justification - Consistency with National, Regional, and Local Planning, Transport and Environmental Policies (Matter 2(a))

National Policy

7.11 It is not in dispute that at national level there is considerable policy support for sustainable modes of travel, including rail-based systems. The 2004 Transport White Paper promotes light rail systems where they are appropriate to delivering local authorities’ wider transport strategies. Furthermore the Ten Year Plan recognises the ability of this mode to move large numbers of passengers quickly and reliably,


137

helping to reduce congestion and pollution. [3.67-3.68]

7.12 Planning Policy Statements and Guidance, (PPSs1, 3, 6 and PPG13) seek to integrate transport with land use and regeneration to ensure sustainable development in accessible locations. In my view these are policy themes with which the proposals would fully accord given the arguments summarised in 7.7-7.10 above. [3.70]

7.13 I also note that relevant Government Committees have expressed continuing support for light rail schemes in appropriate urban situations, particularly on more heavily trafficked routes and where schemes include complementary measures, such as park and ride, integrate with other public transport and provide speedy reliable prioritised services. I consider that the NET proposals accord with these criteria. [3.74-3.78]

7.14 No one successfully challenged196 the support that the scheme attracts from national policy.

Regional Policy

7.15 I note and it is uncontested that more focused support for NET Phase Two can be identified at the regional level. Light rail is specifically supported, as part of an integrated transport network, through RSS8 Policy 50. This support is carried through into the Draft RSS, incorporating the Draft RTS. [3.79-3.84]

7.16 Furthermore the proposals would sit well with regional growth proposals up to 2021, set out in the Draft RSS; NET Phase Two has been identified as a regional investment priority. [3.85-3.88]

7.17 I am satisfied that NET Phase Two has the support of current and emerging regional policy.

Local Policy

7.18 The routes of NET Phase Two lie within the areas of three local planning authorities, NCC, BBC and RBC. It is uncontested that the scheme accords with the principles of and attracts policy support in the JSP, the City of Nottingham Local Plan and the Greater Nottingham LTP. [3.89][3.94-3.108]

7.19 Whilst I appreciate the recent concerns expressed as objections by Members of both BBC and RBC regarding the scheme, it is clear to me that NET Phase Two has local policy support in the RBNSLP and the BLP. Both sets of policies are extant and have not been modified. In the case of the non-statutory RBNSLP I attach significant weight to this Plan given the extensive public examination

196 See footnote 83 at paragraph 5.2

Deleted: i


138

to which it has been exposed. [3.109-3.111][5.28-5.29][6.52-6.53]

7.20 The one local policy area that was tested in some detail relates to the proposed development of park and ride sites within the Green Belt and I deal with this in consideration of Matter 5k below in paragraphs 7.150-7.151.

Policy Summary

7.21 From a study of the evidence I am satisfied that the proposal complies with a wide raft of adopted policies from national through to local level. It accords with the appropriate statutory development plans.

Scheme Justification - The Anticipated Transportation, Regeneration, Environmental and Socio-Economic Benefits (Matter 2(b))

Transportation Benefits

7.22 There is undisputed evidence from Line One that some 30% of tram users change travel behaviour by moving from car to tram or using park and ride sites. Furthermore it is my understanding that the introduction of the tram on Line One has contributed to the fall in inner area and Northwest quadrant traffic in 2005/6. I see no reason and heard no convincing argument why such results should not be replicated in the South and Southwest corridors if Net Phase Two were to be constructed, providing enhancements in the quality and capacity of public transport services. [3.46][3.138][3.143-3.144]

7.23 The proposals, with 28 new stops, would link significant residential areas, some of which have low car ownership patterns, with existing and proposed business/employment areas, with the City centre and with major health, leisure and education destinations. In my view the fact that the system would take the form of a fast and reliable public transport system, with over 60% of the routes segregated from road traffic and some 30% on minor roads, would enhance the transportation benefits that it would provide. [3.24-3.25][3.140][3.144][3.146] [3.149][4.19]

7.24 A further main transportation benefit would be the opportunity for integration with other public transport modes; notably with heavy rail services at Nottingham Station, through the connection with Line One and through interconnection with bus services with potential future interchanges at Beeston and Clifton district centres, at park and ride sites and at other locations along the routes. [3.29-3.32][3.146-3.147] Objectors who argue that the tram would have a negative effect on local bus services adduce no objective evidence to support this case and in my judgment the experience of Line One does not lead to this conclusion. [5.1][6.1]

7.25 In summary it is concluded that the proposed scheme would provide significant transportation benefits.


139

Regeneration Benefits

7.26 In my view there is clear evidence, which is not objectively or effectively contested, from experience on Line One and from other light rail schemes around the country that the tram system is a successful sustainable transportation catalyst to urban regeneration. [3.34-3.36][3.150][4.1][4.15][4.18][4.31][4.49]

7.27 I am satisfied that NET Phase Two would assist in the acceleration and stimulation of regeneration of the Nottingham Southside redevelopment on the southern fringe of the city centre and in Beeston town centre, as well as supporting expansion of centres of employment such as BioCity Nottingham. [3.37][3.151-3.156][4.11-4.13]

7.28 The identified potential regeneration benefits are consistently referred to by scheme supporters. [4.1][4.15][4.18][4.31][4.49]

Environmental Benefits

7.29 The proposals would result in a gross reduction of some 4000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum and when taking into account source generation emissions the net CO2 savings would be approximately 1000 tonnes per annum. [3.38-3.40][3.158-3.159][5.83][6.111]

7.30 When viewed as emissions per passenger kilometer this would compare favourably with the average private car, which gives 2011 figures of 113 gm of CO2 per passenger kilometre compared with 65 gm per passenger kilometre by tram. [3.160]

7.31 These figures were not effectively challenged and whilst I acknowledge this is a relatively small global figure it is in my view a worthwhile environmental benefit that accords with the thrust of climate change policy. [3.161]

Socio-Economic Benefits

7.32 Some objectors question the validity of the job creation estimates. However I am satisfied that there is a demonstrated evidential link which, even after the effect of the WPL is taken into account, shows a projected range of between some 4000 and 8000 additional jobs arising out of the opportunities that would be provided by the construction of NET Phase Two. I saw no convincing evidence to the contrary. [3.162-3.167][5.2][6.12]

7.33 I heard much informed argument from a number of objectors regarding the economic appraisal of the scheme. I deal with the elements of the appraisal individually.

7.34 On the question of scheme cost estimates I note that these have taken account of recent lessons learned, particularly locally on Line One, and have been scrutinised externally as part of the DfT


140

assessment prior to the award of programme entry approval. No objectors put forward alternative costings based on engineering analysis. In all these circumstances it is concluded that the scheme costs are robust. [5.3][6.5][6.11]

7.35 Critics target the financial performance of Line One, arguing that it is not a sound financial base upon which to found NET Phase Two. However from all that I heard and saw I am satisfied that Line One performs in line with typical PFI indicators and I am not convinced that the objections fully take into account the fact that the Line One concessionaire is a SPV. Furthermore whilst patronage is a little below initial forecasts opportunities are still available to increase this. [5.6][6.8-6.9]

7.36 Objectors regularly alluded to a suggested ‘subsidy’ that is paid to the concessionaire. It is accepted that this was a mistake and arose out of a lack of understanding of the PFI contractual and financial arrangements. [5.6][6.8]

7.37 I see nothing in the evidence on the performance of Line One to lead me to the conclusion that it is not a successful system that would not translate to an extended network that NET Phase Two would provide.

7.38 The financial modelling of the proposals comes under sustained attack. However much of this emanates from a lack of application of transport modelling methodology by the objectors. NET’s analysis has rigorously followed the Government’s rules. Even carrying out objectors’ further sensitivity tests beyond the Government’s requirements still produces a scheme BCR>2. [5.4][5.7][6.10][6.12]

7.39 Set against this background it is concluded that the calculated BCR of greater than 2, with scheme engineering costs of some £357 million, is robust and that there is an excellent economic case for the scheme. [3.168]

Scheme Justification – Main Alternatives (Matter 2(c))

Alternative Modes

Bus-Based Options

7.40 Several objectors refer to the good bus services that currently serve the subject corridors and understandably argue for significant improvements in these. A number of bus-based options have been considered as alternatives to the tram in the development of NET Phase Two, from low cost to high quality provision, including a route that would mirror NET Phase Two outside the city centre. However it is accepted that these alternatives would fail to provide the benefits afforded by the tram for the reasons set out below. [3.171-3.172][5.26-5.27][6.47]

7.41 Any bus-based system would suffer from journey time and reliability

Deleted: et


141

problems in the city centre which has a congested bus ‘loop’ and very limited stop capacity. They would not provide good integration with heavy rail or with Line One. I note that with the high quality system, even if infrastructure problems could be resolved, there would be a lower BCR than NET Phase Two with a reduced contribution against other Government objectives. In addition the low cost option would not address the key traffic, economic and social exclusion problems. [3.172-3.176][6.48-6.49]

7.42 I saw no objective evidence that effectively countered these arguments and it is therefore concluded that bus-based options would not provide the benefits of the proposed NET Phase Two.

Heavy Rail

7.43 Whilst reference is made to potential use of the Beeston – Nottingham rail route and of using the new East Midlands Parkway Station no compelling evidence was adduced to indicate how these would form part of alternative systems to NET Phase Two. [5.27]

7.44 Heavy rail services, with much lower frequency and lack of penetration and accessibility, would not meet the wider objectives that the extension of NET would provide. Furthermore East Midlands Parkway Station would not meet the same objectives as NET, as it would focus on providing access for long-distance rail services, rather than being a high frequency park and ride service into Nottingham Railway Station. [3.170][6.50-6.51]

Alternative Routes

Beeston/Chilwell Options

A52 Corridor

7.45 From all that I saw and heard the option of routeing the tram along the A52 trunk road corridor would have significant disadvantages compared with the promoted route.

7.46 It would pass through several critically congested major junctions and would impinge on minor roads and private accesses. The significant traffic interface along a congested strategic corridor would give rise to tram service unreliability and longer journey times, as well as exacerbating existing traffic delays. [5.61-5.63][6.83-6.85]

7.47 The route would not serve Beeston Town Centre and would also fail to serve the somewhat isolated Inham Nook Estate and other parts of Chilwell. With no catchment areas on the A52 Stapleford Bypass and limited residential patronage potential on Derby Road, the route would effectively act as a long park and ride access service into NU, QMC and the City. Furthermore it would impinge on sensitive receptors in the University campus. [6.86-6.87]

7.48 It is concluded therefore that the A52 option would provide little local


142

benefit and would be unable to achieve the same aims as the proposed route.

Southern Alternatives

7.49 All the southern options considered would use, in part, the congested strategic route Queen’s Road (A6005). It is uncontested by objective analysis that the higher costs and increased journey time of all these options together with the relatively poor economic performance and unreliability would make them all poor value for money in economic terms. [5.64][6.88-6.90]

University Arts Centre

7.50 In my view the option of running in front of the University Arts Centre compared with the promoted route to the rear of the Centre is a finely balanced issue.

7.51 NU is satisfied that the promoted option would not have harmful noise and vibration impacts on the Orchestra Rehearsal Room. The preferred route has been relocated so as to limit impact on the back gardens of dwellings in Greenfield Street. Appropriate mitigation can be introduced to deal with these matters. [5.65][6.92-6.93]

7.52 I consider that the defining matter is the harmful impact that the objectors’ alternatives would have on the adjacent historic Highfields Park, both in visual terms and in its potential encroachment on a well used open space. [5.65][6.91]

7.53 On balance therefore I conclude that the promoted route to the rear of the Arts Centre would be preferable to the options suggested by objectors that would run in front of the Centre.

Broadgate/Humber Road (avoiding Lower Road/Fletcher Road)

7.54 This option, despite having slight environmental benefits, would have more unreliable and longer journey times and lower economic benefits. I note below197 that the environmental disbenefits of the promoted section of route may be mitigated or would not be unacceptably harmful and therefore it is concluded that the Broadgate/Humber Road route should not be pursued.

Clifton/Wilford Options

7.55 I note that the public consultation indicates a clear preference for the CQD route, reflecting the dissatisfaction with the promoted CW route from the Wilford and Compton Acres areas where the promoted route would follow the disused rail (wildlife) corridor which lies adjacent to residential areas. [3.188][5.109-5.110]

197 See Conclusions on Lower Road/Fletcher Road at 7.108, 7.110, 7.121, 7.129


143

7.56 However the largely segregated CW route would attract greater patronage, would be more reliable, would have a positive economic benefit on the conurbation and could attract Government funding. Critically the CQD route would be 13% slower, would attract 15% less patronage, would be significantly more expensive and importantly would fall substantially below Government funding criteria. [3.187][3.190][6.154]

7.57 The economic performance of a number of localised alignment alternatives would not match that of the core CW route. Furthermore I am not convinced by the health arguments against the preferred CW route, there would be no loss of footpaths and there would be the added open space for leisure activities, south of Silverdale. [3.189][5.110][6.156]

7.58 In view of all the above, and particularly the funding issue, it is concluded that the CW route should be pursued. I deal with the important matter of the environmental impact of this route below in paragraphs 7.91 et seq.

The Case for CPO Powers (Matter 3)

7.59 I have closely studied the schedule and plans setting out the Limits of Deviation and the Land to be Acquired or Used, as modified, and can find no evidence of any proposal to purchase land or rights other than those necessary to implement the scheme, and furthermore there have been no assertions to the contrary other than those that I have considered and reported above. I am therefore satisfied that the Order addresses no more land than is necessary, and that NET has a clear idea of how it intends to use the land. [3.197]

7.60 Budgetary provision has been put in place by the Promoter198, and if the Order is made work would start in 2010, for which reason I am also satisfied that no land is proposed to be acquired ahead of time. [3.201]

7.61 The scheme is unlikely to be blocked by any impediment to implementation; I heard nothing to lead me to conclude otherwise. [3.201]

7.62 In my view there is a compelling case for the scheme to be implemented in order to improve and help integrate public transport with an environmentally friendly mode; to address growing traffic congestion; to enhance local accessibility, particularly in deprived areas; to assist in boosting physical, social and economic regeneration in Greater Nottingham and particularly in the south and south west parts of the conurbation. [3.2-3.66][7.2-7.10]

7.63 Therefore, having regard to ODPM Circular 06/2004, I am persuaded

198 See also Conclusions on Matter 12 dealing with funding at 7.195-7.198 below


144

that there is a compelling case for the land’s compulsory purchase in the public interest which justifies interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land. Loss of any interest could be met by compensation.



Construction Impacts

7.64 In general terms I am content that the impact of the construction works would be managed satisfactorily through the CoCP. However a number of objectors are concerned that there are some areas which may be seriously affected by the disruption during the relatively brief construction phases.

7.65 The area that generates most concern in this respect is perhaps High Road/Chilwell Road, Chilwell running into Beeston centre. [3.203][5.53-5.54][

7.66 I note that temporary one way working, physical servicing, parking and access measures would be implemented and that these should largely address the difficulties anticipated by local traders and business people. Although I accept that from time to time this would invoke some inconvenience.[6.72]

7.67 In my view these measures would adequately provide for public transport, traffic flow, parking and pedestrian needs in a safe and controlled manner.

7.68 The reconstruction of Wilford Toll Bridge is a matter of local concern. It is accepted that the impact on local school children of the temporary closure of this footbridge would be dealt with by the provision of a temporary bus service. [5.122][6.168]

7.69 However from all that I heard and saw I strongly believe that the key to the satisfactory management of construction impacts would be the establishment of full and transparent liaison with the affected parties and the local population. To this effect it is strongly recommended that in the Chilwell/Beeston retail areas and in the Wilford area the local (CoCP) liaison groups should be set up at least 3 months prior to the commencement of works in those areas, with the commensurate early establishment of a local newsletter and website as envisaged in the CoCP. It is also recommended that such liaison groups should include representatives from all affected educational and healthcare establishments as well as business, retail and residential areas.[6.72][6.163] In summary it is concluded that there would be short-lived inconvenience due to construction but that


145

this may be managed via the CoCP mechanism.

Operational Impacts

7.70 From my examination of the scheme and the evidence put to me I am satisfied that the traffic impact of the tram on other public transport services, principally buses, would be relatively minor. [3.205]

7.71 I note that a comprehensive transport assessment and a supplementary assessment have examined the impact of NET Phase Two on the road network in some detail. I heard no effective technical challenge to this work and I have no reason to doubt the conclusions that that negative impacts are modest, and in the majority of locations NET can be accommodated with positive or neutral impact. [3.204][3.210]

7.72 The first general point I note is that given the 7.5 minute frequency of trams in each direction, delays to traffic would be minimal. A matter I was able to confirm during my several unaccompanied site inspections of Line One, as a passenger, as a pedestrian and as a motorist. Secondly over 60% of the route would be segregated from traffic and some 30% would run on minor roads. Therefore only a limited length would impact on main or strategic roads. [3.144][6.74]

7.73 I turn now to the more detailed issues raised by objectors. I am satisfied that a combination of traffic flow considerations and recent junction improvements by the Highways Agency would ensure that the Bardill’s roundabout (A52/Toton Lane) would operate within capacity. [5.56][6.75]

7.74 A package of traffic management measures is proposed for the Beeston and Chilwell areas, including the Chilwell Road/High Road, Station Road/Middle Street, Queen’s Road (A6005) and Queen’s Road West/Meadow Lane network. These would include measures to ensure that through traffic uses the strategic Queen’s Road; that junction capacity would not be compromised; that the traffic and pedestrian environment would be improved in Chilwell Road/High Road; and that appropriate and adequate parking and servicing would be available to meet the needs of traders and shoppers in Chilwell Road/High Road. [5.57][6.76-6.79]

7.75 In my judgment the key to the success of this package would be the removal of the significant ‘through’ traffic movement from the High Road route. I have seen nothing to challenge the validity of the Promoter’s traffic modelling of this and based on this I conclude that the proposals would not have an unacceptably harmful effect in this area. [6.76]

7.76 Queen’s Road/University Boulevard roundabout is a junction that is currently under severe pressure in the peak hours. It presents a significant capacity restraint in the network on a key radial route


146

(A6005) into the city from the west. The introduction of the tram would require the complete physical remodelling of the junction to become essentially a three arm signal controlled junction. The Promoter’s unchallenged analysis indicates that the new junction would perform no worse than the current layout with queues generally forecast to be shorter. [5.58][6.80]

7.77 As regards the ng2 development site access road with Queen’s Drive this would operate under capacity in the PM peak but would be at capacity in the AM peak. However I am reassured by the forecast that in this critical period there would no undue delays for through traffic on Queen’s Drive. Again this work is not technically challenged. [5.60][6.82]

7.78 Objectors express fears about the impact of the proposed signalised tram crossing of Wilford Lane on traffic, given the proximity of other signal controlled junctions and a pedestrian crossing facility. However on the strength of the updated capacity modelling put before me I am satisfied that Wilford Lane would operate satisfactorily with NET Phase Two in operation. [5.118][6.165-6.166]

7.79 I turn now to the impact on pedestrians and safety. The tram is established in Nottingham and I note that Line One reflects the good safety record199 that trams in general present. This general point was not effectively challenged. [3.213][6.39]

7.80 I was able to observe at first hand on Line One the interface between pedestrians and trams, in the busy city centre, in a district centre and in the suburbs. These observations confirm the evidence before me that through a mixture of safety features and measures, signing, controlled crossings, audible (bell) warnings and tram driver training and awareness the system would operate safely. [6.40-6.44]

7.81 I am reassured that safety would play a key part in the final decision of HMRI to allow the scheme to operate and conclude that the tram would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on road safety. [6.39]


7.82 I have examined the various proposals to close, divert or alter the layout of streets and I am satisfied that in the case of every highway, footway and bridleway set out in Schedules 3 and 4 the provision of alternative rights of way are not required because adequate alternatives already exist. As required by s.5(6) of the TWA, I am equally satisfied that alternatives would not be required. [3.214]

7.83 In my view the temporary stopping up of streets, as set out in

199 Inspector’s Note: I was not able to hear any evidence regarding the fatal pedestrian accident that

occurred in the city. (See also para 5.24 above)


147

Schedule 5 of the draft Order, would be necessary during the preparation and construction phase of the proposed tram, to allow safe and effective building construction to take place. [3.215]

7.84 The only temporary closure that objectors raised in evidence would be that in which Wilford Toll Bridge would be closed during its reconstruction. However I am satisfied that the schoolchildren who use it to walk to school would be transported by bus during the closure period. In my view this underlines the need for early local consultation I refer to above in paragraph 7.69. [3.216][5.122][6.168][7.69]

c) the effects of the traffic regulation measures specified in Schedule 10 to the draft TWA Order, including the proposed restrictions on parking, loading and access;

7.85 I am satisfied that the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) would be appropriate. One or two objectors raise concerns regarding loss of parking. However, in my view, the proposals represent a limited proportionate approach to the safe and effective operation of the tramway as currently proposed. I note that all orders and revocations would require the approval of the respective traffic authority or parking authority. [3.217][5.79][6.107]

7.86 The proposed banned right turn from Middle Street into Chilwell Road, in Beeston Centre has been modified in the draft Order to exclude hearses and wedding cars from the ban following representations from Beeston Parish Church. In my judgment this would be an acceptable and pragmatic solution to resolve a potential local problem. [5.86][6.118]

d) the justification for the general power in article 48(2) of the draft TWA Order for the Promoters to introduce traffic regulation measures in addition to those specified in Schedule 10;

7.87 I heard no objections to the provisions of Article 48(2) which, in essence, gives a general power to provide flexibility to the Promoter to reflect changes to the scheme that emerge as the scheme proceeds in detail, and also to deal with construction-related issues that cannot be foreseen. Consequently I consider that this is a sensible and justifiable provision and I am further reassured that Article 48(1) permits NET to implement these specified TROs only with the prior consent of the local traffic authority. [3.218-3.219]

e) any complementary traffic management or other measures proposed by the Promoters to mitigate the effects of the scheme on road users;

7.88 Throughout the scheme complementary traffic management and other measures would be implemented. The principal measures that attracted representations and some debate at the inquiry are;

• A series of measures in the Beeston area, including improvements to


148

Queen’s Road/Station Road junction and Queen’s Road West/Meadow Lane,

• Modifications to the Queen’s Road/University Boulevard junction,

• Queen’s Drive/ng2 development site access road,

• Bardill’s Roundabout (A52/Toton Lane),

• Signalised tram crossings of roads, and particularly Wilford Lane.

7.89 I discuss the effects of these measures above in more detail in paragraphs 7.73 to 7.78.

7.90 It is concluded that, when weighed against the benefits of the scheme, these measures would not have an unacceptably harmful impact on traffic on the surrounding road network.

The Likely Impact on Local Residents, Businesses and the Environment of Constructing and Operating the Scheme (Matter 5)

a) the effects of noise, vibration and dust;

7.91 This matter is a source of major concern to many objectors. People living near or adjacent to the proposed route are worried about potential disturbance through noise and, to a lesser extent, vibration, both during the construction and operational phases. [5.73-5.74] [5.78-5.80] [5.93-5.94] [5.96] [5.100][5.115][5.117]

7.92 However before addressing the more detailed local operational impacts I consider the issue of the principles of noise assessment which were challenged particularly vigorously by BCT, Dr Coles, ENT and Mr Britton in the inquiry and whose contributions were most helpful to me in my analysis of this matter. [5.12-5.20]

Effects During Construction

7.93 I deal firstly with the effects during construction, a matter which concerns a number of objectors. [5.73][5.79][5.96][5.117]

7.94 It is clear that the impact of construction works would be limited by the enforcement of the CoCP. The contractor would be required to obtain ‘prior approval’ from the local authority under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. Noise levels would be controlled and minimized by the use of quiet working and temporary noise screens. The issues of vibration and dust would also be addressed through site management practices, identified in the CoCP. Local liaison groups would represent residents and businesses and would provide a forum regarding planned work and progress. [3.224-3.225] [6.27] [6.103] [6.128-6.129][6.136][6.142][6.163]

7.95 It is a concern that at Sandby Court flats the construction works for the tram and more particularly the culverting of the stream, would


149

be very close to the southern façade of the building. I note the provisions of s28 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and in this regard I recommend that, if the scheme proceeds, the Promoter enter into early discussions with the residents of Sandby Court to ensure that everything possible is done to address the concerns of residents who would be likely to be affected. [5.73][6.104] I deal with the issue of construction impact on NSC in paragraph 7.123 below.

7.96 In all these circumstances it is concluded that the noise, vibration and dust effects during construction would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of local residents.

Effects During Operation

Assessment Principles

7.97 Whilst objectors raise significant questions on the principles of the assessment of tram noise and on the levels of noise that would cause sleep disturbance, it is clear that these arguments are based on assumptions arising out of the erroneous use of inappropriate WHO thresholds. [5.12][5.15][6.28][6.30-6.31]

7.98 The standards used in the noise assessment of NET Phase Two by the Promoter, and used for tram systems elsewhere, underpin the NVP and are appropriate. [6.30]

7.99 There would be some 500 properties affected by on-street running where no practicable mitigation measures would be available. The occupants would experience significant increases in noise. However predicted tram noise levels would be considerably lower than the statutory noise insulation limits. [3.228-3.229]

7.100 The mitigation proposed in the ES would comply with the limits set out in national Regulations regarding noise and vibration. Under the NVP noise levels would be monitored at least annually. If noise levels from the operating tram system exceed the qualifying levels then mitigation measures, such as secondary glazing, would be offered or introduced. [3.229][6.25][6.33]

7.101 Over and above these commitments the updated draft NVP commits the Promoter to mitigating noise impacts as far as practicable by careful track system design and providing noise barriers where practicable so as to minimise noise and vibration levels. As a result of this policy NET Phase Two includes provision for extensive lengths of noise barriers at various off street locations. The draft NVP sets ambitious noise targets at levels considerably lower than those in the Regulations. [6.26]

7.102 I do not share objectors’ concerns regarding the acceptability of the noise thresholds adopted in the assessment of significant impacts. They have a sound scientific basis and are used extensively in the assessment of railway and tram systems in the UK. Neither


150

alternative assessment methods for other facilities nor mitigation for noise changes greater than 5dB would be appropriate. They have no justifiable basis for use with this type of scheme. [5.19][6.33-6.35]

7.103 The draft NVP, revised in response to an objector’s concerns, would be imposed and enforced through a planning condition. I note that it would inform the detailed design because it would be a ‘performance standard’. This would represent an improvement over Line One where a NVP does not exist. I note that the NVP goes to the limits of what it would be lawful for the Promoter to provide [3.226-3.227][3.273][6.33][6.37] In view of all the above it is concluded that objectors’ criticisms of the noise assessment principles used by NET are unfounded.


7.104 I observed the Noel Street track crossing on Line One which underscores objectors’ understandable concerns regarding track noise. It arises because of an unusual track alignment which would not be replicated on Phase Two. Furthermore engineering works, covered by planning condition, would address these Line One noise levels at Noel Street so that the problem would not be exacerbated by the increased movement of trams from Phase Two to and from the existing Wilkinson Street depot. [5.22][6.38]

7.105 As regards wheel squeal, corrective maintenance to the wheel dampers is in hand. [5.21][6.38]

Effect on Living Conditions by reasons of Noise and Vibration

7.106 Occupants of dwellings, homes for the elderly, a doctors’ surgery and an osteopath’s clinic raise concerns regarding possible noise disturbance and, in some cases, vibration from the operation of the tram along the two routes that would pass close to their properties. [5.73-5.74][5.78-5.80][5.93-5.94][5.96][5.100][5.115][5.117]

7.107 There are no locations where the predicted tram noise levels would exceed the statutory noise insulation limits. However many properties would experience significant increases in noise level above defined threshold levels. [3.228-3.229]

7.108 However it should be noted that even in streets with houses close to the likely tram running line, such as Lower Road/Fletcher Road, the predictions are that, at the LAmax levels anticipated, there should not be unreasonable noise disturbance. [6.30]

7.109 In the case of Sandby Court space is limited and despite the presence of noise barriers and planting it is forecast that noise impacts would be significant for upper floor residents. In the case of this property, given the age of residents and the proximity to the tramway, it is recommended that more frequent noise monitoring be implemented than the proposed annual NVP level. I recommend that at least six-monthly monitoring be implemented. [5.73-5.74][6.103-


151

6.104]

7.110 Vibration is a particular concern to residents in Lower Road/Fletcher Road, Greenfield Street, Sandby Court and Compton Acres. However no one challenged the technical analysis that demonstrates that vibration effects would not be anticipated to result in any structural impacts on dwellings. As close as three metres from the tracks the level of vibration would be a factor of ten below a cautious level at which structural damage may arise. The ES records that significant impacts are not expected. [5.74] [5.93] [5.100] [5.115] [6.104] [6.130][6.141]

7.111 As regards all the properties identified with this issue it is concluded that in view of the predicted tram noise levels being below statutory insulation limits; the identified lack of significant noise disturbance; the provisions of the NVP; the introduction of noise barriers where appropriate and the analysis of vibration effects, the proposals would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of occupants by reasons of noise and vibration. Dust during the tram operational phase is not raised by any party; it is not perceived as an operational issue. [6.103-6.104] [6.130] [6.136][6.141-6.142][6.159-6.160][6.163-6.164]

b) the impact of the scheme on air quality;

7.112 The tram would provide small but significant operational benefits in terms of air quality with a significantly smaller carbon footprint than buses and very much smaller than private cars. This conclusion is not effectively challenged. [3,231]

c) the impact of the scheme on flood risk;

7.113 Recent flooding and flood risk issues are raised by a number of parties in relation to both legs of NET Phase Two, but principally in the Wilford area, adjacent to the River Trent, and in the Chilwell Greenway. Objectors challenge the technical validity of the Promoter’s FRA, questioning the efficacy of the base hydraulic model used in the analysis. [5.69][5.130-5.132]

7.114 However from all that I heard and saw I am satisfied that the FRA is founded on contemporary predictions provided by the EA. Based on the work undertaken so far the EA accepts that a technical solution is feasible without exacerbating the risk of flooding. [2.233][6.177]

7.115 On the more detailed issues raised I recommend that a thorough technical assessment should be carried out at the detailed design stage on the desirability of including an impermeable membrane in the track formation to control seepage; a matter alluded to by the Promoter. [6.178]

7.116 It is accepted that removal of the disused railway embankment would not worsen flood risk locally as it is already breached at


152

Wilford Lane. [5.131][6.179]

7.117 The existing problem of flooding in the Cator Lane area, that affects the Chilwell Greenway, would not be worsened by the proposals, which would include appropriate additional culverting. [5.69][6.98]

7.118 Given all the above and that the EA has withdrawn its objection and would be involved in assessing further detailed FRA analysis, it is concluded that NET Phase Two would not worsen current levels of flood risk. [6.98][6.176]

d) the impact of the scheme on the built environment;

7.119 In my view the scheme would in the main part sit comfortably in the built environment. The ULDS sets a design framework and indicates how the scheme would be incorporated into the urban fabric. Draft planning condition 4 would ensure scheme development in accordance with the ULDS. [3.236]

7.120 I would concur with and emphasise the conclusions of my colleague, Mr Novitzky, set out in paragraphs 228-230 of his report, on the matter and importance of the detailed treatment of the land which would be acquired to form the Chilwell Road tram stop.

7.121 The concerns of objectors, such as the residents of Lower Road/Fletcher Road and BCT, should be addressed carefully in consideration of how the scheme would fit, in a detailed sense, into sensitive locations with appropriate integration details. Features associated with the tramway should be manifested in as simple and elegant a way as possible. Draft planning condition 3, dealing with detailed design approval, would give the local planning authority the opportunity to influence design. [5.95]

e) the proposed demolition of properties, including any proposals by the Promoters to provide alternative temporary or permanent accommodation for those affected;

7.122 As regards property acquisition and potential relocations I note that significant discussions and negotiations have taken place in working up the scheme design. This preparatory work is reflected in the limited number of representations before the inquiry on the matter of property demolition. [3.240-3.242]

7.123 Residents of the affected block of the sheltered housing scheme, NSC, seek assurances that they would not be forced to leave before the new replacement block of flats is completed. NET would comply with this reasonable requirement; however it is clear that the proposed new block of flats would require detailed planning permission. I therefore recommend that this matter be progressed as a matter of urgency with the local planning authority (BBC) if the TWAO is made. [3.242][5.96-5.97][6.134-6.135][6.137]


153

7.124 Turning to Beeston town centre, from the submissions before me it seems that demolition of Wilkinson’s store would be likely to result in that business, which is a national retail chain, leaving the town. NET has no proposals to address this matter. This loss must be balanced against the public benefit of constructing the tram on its proposed alignment through the town centre. I deal with the planning and townscape issues of the Wilkinson site in paragraphs 7.205-7.207 below. [3.243][5.88][6.121-6.124]

7.125 Land parcels 315 (Unit B trading as ‘Choices’) and 316 (Unit A trading as ‘Food n Booze’) would be demolished. However I note that this would be in accordance with the owner’s wishes. [5.91][6.125]

7.126 From all that I heard and saw I consider that the most appropriate revised layout has been adopted for the Abbey Street/Gregory Street junction, taking account of all users , including cyclists and trams. In my view the resultant land acquisition and property demolition would be the optimal solution. I note that the promoter has given assurances regarding the minimization of land take. [5.103-5.104][6.145 -6.146]

f) the impact of the scheme on rights of access to property;

7.127 There would be some temporary interference with access to a range of properties during the construction phase; this is unavoidable. However this would be managed and controlled through the CoCP. In my view this underscores again the need for early proactive discussion by the Promoter with affected parties through the CoCP local liaison groups. [3.244]

7.128 The proposed scheme would allow for servicing and parking and would not deny access to properties on Chilwell Road/High Road. [5.57][6.78] As regards the land at High Road/Grove Avenue (Parcel 150) I note that access from High Road would be maintained, albeit in a somewhat constrained form. Other access options may be available from Grove Avenue. [5.81][6.110] I note that there would be a temporary loss of parking at the Valley Surgery during construction, the Promoter would need to make suitable arrangements for patients and surgery staff in the interim. [6.105]

7.129 In my judgment, residents’ understandable concerns regarding future servicing and deliveries to their dwellings in Lower Road/Fletcher Road are unfounded; these activities would continue to be possible. However I recommend that in the event of the Order being made the Promoter investigate, as a matter of urgency, the introduction of residents’ parking in this area. [5.92][6.126-6.127] Adequate access and parking for residents, visitors and emergency service vehicles would be retained in the detailed design of the revised layout incorporating the new block at NSC. [5.96][6.134]

7.130 Access into the Wilford Lane Osteopathic Clinic would be maintained


154

at all times during the construction phase and thereafter. [5.117][6.162]

7.131 The proposed revised access to the NMRC in Main Road, Wilford would not, in my view, cause difficulty or safety risk for users of the playing fields. I consider that adequate rights of access would be retained, a point not challenged by NMRC. [5.123][6.170]

7.132 As regards access to land farmed by J H Plowright & J H Plowright Limited, near the proposed Clifton park and ride site, I am satisfied that the Promoter must have two options available for access to the site from A453 Trunk Road. Clearly there could be no guarantee that the favoured option 1, via an improved section of Trunk Road, would be provided until the completion of the statutory processes for the highway improvement. I note however that appropriate farmland access would be maintained between severed landholdings. [5.107][6.151]

7.133 In view of the above it is concluded that the scheme would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on rights of access to property.

g) the impact of the scheme on the landscape and townscape, including the effects of the scheme on the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas;

7.134 Several objectors refer to the likely impact of the scheme on the landscape, particular concern focuses on loss of trees, notably in the Chilwell Greenway, University Boulevard, Wilford former railway embankment and Queen’s Walk as well as in a number of private gardens and the garden at Sandby Court flats and the Clifton park and ride site. [5.68][5.71-5.72][5.99][5.112][5.128]

7.135 The impact on landscape and townscape is set out in Chapter 12 and Annex H of the ES, Townscape and Visual Impacts. Furthermore I am content that the ULDS sets out a comprehensive design reference for landscape and townscape works. In this respect it may be used as a framework for approving landscaping schemes put forward to comply with draft planning condition 5.

7.136 I am satisfied that in the sensitive areas highlighted above every effort would be made to reinforce the local character of the landscape with replacement planting, based in part on arboricultural surveys. The local planning authorities would have control over the landscaping schemes approved, through the aegis of draft planning condition 5. [6.99-6.100][6.139-6.140][6.159][6.171]

7.137 The impact of NET Phase Two on listed buildings and on the character and appearance of conservation areas is addressed in the appended report of the Assistant Inspector. His conclusions are reflected in the conclusions reached in paragraph 7.233 of this report.


155

h) the impact of the scheme on archaeological remains;

7.138 Archaeological impact would be minimized through a range of mitigation measures should archaeological deposits be encountered. A planning condition addresses this matter. I share the views of EH’s and the local authorities’ archaeologists that this issue has been properly assessed and would be properly mitigated. I heard no evidence to the contrary.

7.139 In view of all the above I conclude that this matter should carry little weight in the balance against the public benefits that the scheme would bring.

i) the effects of the scheme on flora and fauna, including the loss of trees;

7.140 This issue invoked significant debate in the inquiry, particularly, but not exclusively, around the CW route. [5.34-5.38] [5.68] [5.71] [5.99][5.106][5.112][5.114][5.124][5.128]

7.141 Overall there would be significant residual ecological and nature conservation impacts from the construction of NET Phase Two mostly associated with the CW route. I note that what is removed could not be entirely replicated. [5.34-5.35][6.58]

7.142 However it is clear from the ES that as a result of the Promoter’s assessment a number of route-wide mitigation measures have been integrated into the scheme. A number of site-specific mitigation measures would also be undertaken to minimise ecological impacts. [3.252]

7.143 NWT argues that there would be no overall enhancement or restoration of biodiversity interest within a reasonable period. NET responds that within a relatively short period the replacement habitats would equal in value those being lost. In the longer term this would be more noticeable. [3.253][5.34][6.58]

7.144 However there would be a net increase in suitable replacement habitats, including measures at King’s Meadow SINC and compensation for impact on SINCs from Ironmonger Pond to Wilwell Cutting. I note that overall there would only be small losses from SINCs. Furthermore the landscape and habitat along the former railway corridor (the Ruddington Lane to Wilford Lane ‘wildlife corridor’) would be reinstated adjacent to the route and the embankment north of Wilford Lane would remain. [3.254][6.56][6.61]

7.145 On a more detailed level, appropriate measures would be taken in the area of the former railway corridor to deal with bats if necessary. Furthermore translocation of slow worms and water voles would be effected if necessary. [6.60]

7.146 From all that I have heard and seen I am satisfied that there would


156

not be any significant impact on protected species. [6.59]

7.147 It is clear that there would be a net increase in trees following the construction of the tramway. I consider that this would be important in areas such as the Chilwell Greenway, University Boulevard, Queen’s Walk and the former railway cutting at Wilford/Compton Acres. In my view trees play an important part in the local landscape in these areas. I note that not only would trees be replaced but that there would be maintenance of the integrity of existing planting schemes. [3.255][5.68][5.99][5.112][5.114][5.128][6.99-6.100][6.139-6.140][6.173]

7.148 I must weigh the residual ecological and nature conservation impacts which would remain after the proposed mitigation measures, the provision of replacement habitats and trees, and the measures to protect important fauna against the benefits offered by the scheme.

7.149 On balance, in view of all the above, it is concluded that the effects of the scheme on flora and fauna, including the loss of trees, would not outweigh the significant public benefits and need for the scheme that have been identified earlier. In coming to this conclusion I have taken account of the long term effects of tree and habitat replacement.

j) whether the proposed development in the Green Belt would be inappropriate development within the terms of PPG 2 on Green Belts (including whether the proposed park and ride sites meet the tests in paragraphs 3.17 to 3.20 of PPG 2) and if so, whether there are any very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption against such development;

7.150 The objections to the proposed park and ride sites, which refer to and rely on the protective Green Belt policies with their presumptions against inappropriate development, ignore the provisions for such development that are set out in PPG2. [5.30-5.33]

7.151 I am satisfied that the appropriate comprehensive assessments of potential sites set out in paragraphs 3.17-3.20 of PPG2 have been effected. Consequently it is concluded that the park and ride sites would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore, given the continuing strong policy for the remaining Green Belt I do not agree with objectors that the development of these sites would be a precedent that would lead to further development in the adjacent Green Belt. [3.113-3.116][5.30-5.33][6.54]


157

The Temporary and Permanent Effects of the Scheme on Open Space and the Promoters’ proposals for providing replacement open space, including whether the Borough of Broxtowe and the Borough of Rushcliffe have agreed to dispose of open space in their areas to the Promoters for the purposes of the scheme. (Matter 6)

7.152 A detailed open space appraisal has been effected. I am satisfied that the Promoter’s appraisal meets the PPG17 requirements and that the areas concerned would be sufficiently convenient, of equivalent quality and appropriate size. [3.258-3.260][5.39][6.63]

7.153 As regards objections to and alternative proposals for the Inham Road area, it is concluded that the Promoter’s proposal would be more appropriate than Mr Day’s on the grounds of proximity to Chilwell Greenway, prominence, accessibility and security by overlooking. [5.39-5.42][6.63-6.64]

7.154 I heard no evidence to persuade me that the funding and future maintenance arrangements should differ from those adopted elsewhere. [5.43][6.65]

7.155 However a final conclusion on this matter must await the outcome of the consideration of the objections to the second Exchange Land Certificate application. [3.261]

The measures proposed by the Promoters for mitigating any adverse impacts of the scheme, (Matter 7)

including:

a) the proposed Code of Construction Practice

7.156 The CoCP would establish measures to be undertaken by the Contractor to minimize the impact of construction, to ensure site safety and environmental best practice. This is a well developed mechanism, contractually enforceable by the Promoter. I am reassured that it has been agreed with all three local planning authorities and certain key elements are also the subject of planning conditions. [3.262-3.264]

7.157 Several objectors raise concerns regarding construction-related matters. However, as I have reported earlier, the CoCP would provide a satisfactory platform from which to tackle these issues. [7.64][7.69][7.84][7.94][7.126]

7.158 Only one objector, Mr Britton (OBJ/674), raises issues with the enforceability of the CoCP. I am satisfied that these concerns have been addressed by incorporating some of the provisions of the CoCP into the planning conditions. [5.20][6.37]

7.159 I have already underlined the important role that the CoCP liaison groups would play in consultation and dissemination of information


158

regarding construction impacts and progress. [7.69][7.84]

7.160 In view of the above it is concluded that the CoCP would be a necessary measure to assist in limiting the potential impacts of construction.

b) the provisions in the proposed Order for the protection of the interests of statutory undertakers, highway authorities and other affected bodies;

7.161 Under the revised draft Order (Article 65), Schedule 11 provides protective provisions for statutory undertakers. At the close of the inquiry no statutory undertaker sought to argue that the arrangements made for protecting their interests were insufficient to enable them to carry out their undertakings effectively and in compliance with their statutory obligations.

7.162 Three highway authorities would be directly affected by the proposed works, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and the Highways Agency. All have had detailed involvement in the assessment of the design as it would affect highways for which they have responsibility. Highway authorities would have interest in the following Articles; Articles 8-18, covering works provisions in streets, Articles 47-48 regarding the operation of the tramway and Article 67 setting out protective provisions, all taken together with Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 10. By the close of the inquiry no highway authority chose to take issue with these provisions. [3.268]

c) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any major adverse environmental impacts of the scheme;

7.163 Following a consideration of the evidence and my reading of the ES I concur with the Promoter that the matters that would be potentially likely to give rise to major adverse environmental impacts would be:

• Construction-related issues, [3.270]

• Noise, [3.271]

• Ecology, [3.272] and

• Loss of amenity open space. [3.272]

7.164 It follows from paragraphs 7.156-7.160 above that I am satisfied that the CoCP would reduce the potentially major adverse impacts of construction. I also conclude above, in paragraphs 7.64-7.69, that temporary traffic, parking, servicing and transport arrangements would go some way towards alleviating the potentially major effects of construction in Chilwell Road/High Road and at Wilford Toll Bridge.

7.165 I have dealt with the issue of noise in paragraphs 7.91-7.111 above. It is concluded that the proposed noise barriers and NVP, when viewed in the light of the noise disturbance prediction levels, would


159

successfully reduce the potentially major adverse environmental impact due to noise.

7.166 The measures proposed to counter the impact on the ecology are described elsewhere [3.252-3.255][6.56-6.62] and my conclusions on these matters are set out above in paragraphs 7.140-7.149. The measures proposed, and particularly the provision of replacement open space, management measures, replanting, landscape and habitat reinstatements and measures to save protected species from harm would, in my view, lessen the potentially major adverse impacts of the scheme on the local ecology.

7.167 I consider that the replacement open space proposals put forward to deal with the loss of amenity open space would be sufficient to significantly reduce the adverse environmental impact of the scheme in this regard. [7.152-7.155]

d) any measures to avoid, reduce or remedy any other significant adverse environmental impacts of the scheme;

7.168 The overall package of mitigation measures would, in my judgment, be adequate to address any other significant adverse environmental impacts. They would be in accordance with good practice and as good as or better than other recent tramway TWA Orders. [3.273]

7.169 There is a proposed planning condition which would ensure that if changes to the scheme were necessary any additional environmental mitigation measures that were needed would be brought forward. [3.274]

e) whether, and if so to what extent, any adverse environmental impacts would still remain after the proposed mitigation measures had been put in place.

7.170 From my reading of the ES and all the submissions I consider that the following adverse environmental impacts would still remain after the proposed mitigation measures had been put in place.

7.171 There would be adverse residual ecological impacts as follows; significant residual impact at Beeston Sidings SINC. A significant, although temporary, adverse impact is reported for King’s Meadows Grasslands SINC. The Ironmonger Pond SINC would experience a significant impact – severe short term and partial long term impacts. The Wilford Disused Railway SINC, principally south of Wilford Lane, would suffer significant adverse impact as would the Wilwell Farm Cutting SINC on a small area. [3.253-3.254]

7.172 However, in terms of quality, in the medium to long term, the habitat that is retained or created would be given appropriate ecological management, and these gains are predicted to be approximately the same in value to that which would be lost. [6.58]


160

7.173 Noise from tram operations would be expected to result in moderate residual noise impacts at approximately 250 receptors and a substantial impact at up to 13 properties on the CW route. The equivalent residual noise impacts for the Chilwell/Beeston route would be some 90 receptors with moderate impact and substantial impact at 120 receptors. [3.276]

7.174 There would be moderate to substantial long term negative visual impacts for nearby residents and users of the Wilford Disused Railway Corridor, the Chilwell Greenway, and for visitors to Kings Meadow Nature Reserve and substantial adverse visual impact for residents and users of Queen’s Walk and in the vicinity of Lenton Priory. [3.276]

7.175 These remaining adverse environmental impacts must be weighed against the compelling case for the scheme in the public interest that I have identified earlier.

The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application for the TWA Order and whether the statutory procedural requirements have been complied with. (Matter 8)200

7.176 There is no dispute that the ES contains the information required by Rule 11 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2000. [3.277-3.278][6.189]

7.177 The nature of TWA Order applications of this type is such that a certain degree of flexibility must be retained to allow effective detailed design. To address this the ES considers an envelope bounded by the Limits of Deviation and reports a worst case situation in terms of environmental impact within that envelope. In my view the ES has properly considered the likely significant environmental effects that might arise. [6.188]

7.178 As regards Dr Bradley’s criticisms, I am satisfied that adequate survey information has been used in the ecological assessments and I do not accept her assertion that the SINCs should in some way attract special Regional value given that the ES has based its recognition of their importance partly on their proximity to an urban area. [5.134][6.184]

7.179 Turning to Mr Britton’s concerns I have concluded on the noise assessment matters elsewhere [7.97-7.105] and in the light of that I do not accept his first argument that the assessments should undermine the ES. I do not share his view that, in Environmental Impact Assessment terms, the construction impacts should be viewed as long term when only considering periods up to a few months. [6.186]

200 This matter is also addressed, in so far as it relates to listed buildings and conservation areas, in

the Assistant Inspector’s Report attached at Appendix D


161

7.180 In conclusion, NET’s ES complies with European and UK directives and it is noted that all statutory and a number of non-statutory bodies have been consulted during the course of the Scheme’s assessment, their responses having been included within the Environmental Impact Assessment. There are no significant challenges to the accuracy or relevance of the ES. [6.189]

7.181 The ES and other environmental information, including comments and representations made by statutory consultees and members of the public, have all been taken into account in reaching the conclusions on the proposals.

7.182 I found nothing that suggested to me that the significant environmental effects of the proposal had not been adequately addressed or that the ES was in any other way materially deficient [3.180]. I conclude that it is adequate.

The conditions proposed to be attached to deemed planning permission for the scheme, if given, and in particular whether those conditions meet the tests in DOE Circular 11/95 of being necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable. (Matter 9)

7.183 NET’s suggested planning conditions were initially provided as a schedule to the request for deemed planning permission. They were discussed and agreed with officers of the local planning authorities and submitted to the inquiry. [3.279]

7.184 One objector, Mr Britton, had a number of comments on the conditions and put forward suggested amendments and some additional draft conditions for consideration. The Promoter’s detailed responses are set out in NET.P6/S and I accept that, for the reasons set out in that document, the suggested amendments to draft conditions 3, 6, 8 and 16 are not required. I also consider that the Promoter’s proposed additional condition 15, dealing with the matter of track noise at the Noel Street crossover, and prompted by Mr Britton, should be adopted. [5.133][6.181]

7.185 The draft conditions were discussed at the inquiry in a round table session with representatives of the three local planning authorities, objectors and the Promoter. The revised draft conditions were agreed by the local planning authority officers. [3.280][3.282]

7.186 The revised conditions were subsequently set out, without corrections, in NET.P6/V. This incorporates reasons for each of the conditions. The agreed conditions, together with the reasons for them, are reproduced in Appendix C to this report. [3.281] I also refer to the draft conditions that have been put forward in respect of the listed building and conservation area consent applications. These have been considered in the Assistant Inspector’s report and I concur with his view that they are necessary and appropriate.

7.187 I have considered the draft conditions against the advice set out in

Deleted: n


162

Circular 11/95, ‘The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions’ (the circular). In my opinion the conditions are all necessary and meet the tests set down in the circular. Should the Secretary of State be minded to grant deemed planning permission for the project, I commend them to her. [3.283]

In relation to the proposal to attach overhead line and other equipment to buildings (Matter 10) –

a) the justification for the powers in articles 19 and 34 to attach such equipment to buildings on land specified in Schedule 8 to the draft TWA Order and to acquire compulsorily easements and other new rights for that purpose;

7.188 These provisions, which depart from the previous consensual regime, have their precedent in the 2005 Merseytram Line 1 Order and have been adopted because experience from NET Line One showed that the process of seeking building owners’ consents was not at all straightforward. Owners would have the ultimate safeguard of the Lands Tribunal adjudication. [3.284-3.285]

b) whether the draft TWA Order should expressly entitle the owners of buildings affected by those powers to require the removal of such equipment to allow for demolition, reconstruction or repair of a building, as provided for owners of buildings fronting onto NET Line One in paragraph 5(d) of Schedule 16 to the draft TWA Order; and

7.189 The situation is different from the NET Line One position because under the Line One Act the entitlement to these OLE removal provisions is already part of the consensual regime for Line One, which is not to be removed and replaced with a compulsory regime, given that the building fixings are already in place on that Line. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the draft Order therefore continues with this regime for Line One, with some small modifications. For the same reasons as in 7.188 I conclude that the entitlement should not be extended to NET Phase Two. [3.286]


7.190 The making of byelaws regulating maintenance (or the carrying out of works) to the facades of buildings has its precedent in the Merseytram Order in respect of buildings to which OLE was to be attached. The power would be extended here to all buildings fronting on to the tram system as the result would largely put in place a system for safe working within a defined hazard zone, which would include non-OLE-fixed buildings. It would therefore be more certain


163

for it to be specifically part of the operating regime for the system and so provided for in Part 4 of the Order. [3.287]

7.191 Notification to affected parties and due consultation would be effected in accordance with the provisions of Article 51, with reference to new procedures in the Local Government Act 1972. Furthermore all byelaws must be reasonable and within the scope of their enabling power, in this case Article 51(1) and (2). [3.288]

7.192 No objections on Matter 10 were put before me in the inquiry. In view of all the above I conclude that these provisions would be acceptable.

In any case where the Promoters and a statutory undertaker have not reached agreement on the measures necessary to protect the undertaker’s interests, whether the scheme as proposed would compromise the ability of the undertaker to carry on its undertaking effectively, safely and in compliance with statutory and contractual obligations. (Matter 11)

7.193 Article 65 of and Schedules 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 to the draft TWA Order provide extensive protection for statutory undertakers. [3.291] There is no in-principle objection to these provisions. Moreover, I recognise that there has been close co-operation with statutory undertakers with the result that agreement has been reached with most of them and many objections have been formally withdrawn. 3.289-3.292]

7.194 It is regrettable that in the cases of Cable and Wireless UK (OBJ/21), Energis Communications Limited (OBJ/22), Thus PLC (OBJ/628) and Hutchinson 3G UK Limited (OBJ/898) final formal agreements eluded the parties and that in each case the objectors failed to respond to the Promoter’s reasonable efforts to finalise agreement. None of these statutory undertakers had outstanding concerns of sufficient weight to warrant their attending at the inquiry. [3.292]

7.195 I conclude that there are no significant extant objections from statutory undertakers such that I should recommend material changes to the relevant provisions in the revised draft Order, or that the Order should not be made at all.

Whether the proposals would be reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funding. (Matter 12)

7.196 The scheme has been approved for the DfT’s Local Authority Major Schemes Programme and a government funding contribution of up to £437m in PFI credits (equivalent to £341m at 2005 present value prices). This is based on a government contribution of 75% towards the project cost estimate of £400m, plus a 50% contribution to an additional contingent sum of £82m (all at 2005 present value prices). Part of the 25% local contribution is already being provided by the Councils to meet development costs. The remainder would be split 80% City / 20% County.


164

7.197 The County Council’s commitment and ability to meet its 20% of the local contribution is relatively unchallenged and clear. [3.296][6.6 footnote 105]

7.198 The City Council’s preferred funding option would be through the introduction of its proposed WPL for its 80% share of the local contribution. It is clear that the WPL is a contentious local issue and I therefore pursued with the Promoter, through a series of formal written Inspector’s Questions (IQs 32, 126 and 130), the subject of ‘reasonable capability’ as regards funding from the City Council. [5.5][6.6-6.7][6.6, footnote 103]

7.199 In the light of all that I have read, both in evidence and in responses to my questions, and all that I heard I am satisfied that the proposals would be reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funding.

Whether the Promoters have proposed any substantive changes to the draft TWA Order since the application was made; if so, whether anyone likely to be affected by such changes has been notified. (Matter 13)

7.200 The modifications to the Order proposed by NET are contained on Document NET.A39, and are referred to in paragraphs 3.299 et seq. With one exception, there are no express objections to the modifications, many of which have been introduced to meet the concerns of property owners and occupiers. I note that none of the proposed modifications would increase the extent of the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired.

7.201 I am satisfied that given the relatively minor nature of all of the changes proposed, none of them coming close to being a substantial change in the project for the purposes of sub-section 13(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992, and given also that the changes have for the most part been made to respond to objections made or concerns expressed, it may be concluded that these adjustments to the proposals ought to be admitted; and that the scheme thus modified should be the subject of the Secretary of State’s determination.

7.202 The one exception is the modification proposed to the Order originally applied for and which would allow for the retention of plots 279,280,281 & 284, the Argos triangle. Part of the case put forward by Wilkinson Hardware Stores Limited (OBJ/964) seeks the acquisition of these plots but the retention of the Wilkinson property and interests (plots 263, 278). [5.88-5.90][6.121-6.124] I have reached a conclusion as to the merits of this proposed modification in paragraphs 7.206-7.207 below. I therefore conclude that this modification sought by Wilkinsons should not be implemented.


165

Other Matters

Beeston Town Centre

7.203 Although elements of the impact of the tram on Beeston town centre are touched on above I turn here to the detailed planning arguments that relate to this important element of the proposed scheme. The first thing I note, and this was not disputed, is that NET would be fundamental to the redevelopment of the Square and the town centre in general. [3.155-3.156]

7.204 There is an argument for proceeding with the original proposal for the acquisition of both the Wilkinson’s’ interests and the Argos triangle. In urban design considerations this would be the most appropriate option. [3.238][6.114] I note that this argument underpins an element of BBC’s objection. [5.83]

7.205 However as demolition of the whole of this area would not be necessary for the tram scheme there would be no justification for its complete acquisition, particularly as acquisition of only Wilkinson's interests would result in an acceptable, if not ideal, urban design solution. [6.115] Furthermore it would incur additional unjustified public expense. [3.238-3.239]

7.206 Wilkinsons put forward a case for the retention of their interests at the expense of the Argos triangle. [5.88-5.89] However I am not persuaded by their arguments. Whilst their proposal would work in engineering terms, to my mind the crucial point is that the retention of the Wilkinsons’ store would prejudice the future redevelopment of Beeston town centre by leaving the tramway in a less than ideal location in terms of establishing a high quality pedestrian and retail environment in the long term. [5.88][6.122-6.124]

7.207 In my view the retail impact argument for the retention of Wilkinsons rather than Argos is not sufficient to outweigh the reasons highlighted above for the demolition of Wilkinsons. [5.88][6.121]

Human Rights Act

7.208 Mr Wildish would experience an increase in noise level at his dwelling at the head of the Lower Road cul-de-sac if the tram were introduced. However, in my view, given the noise levels predicted this would not place a disproportionate burden on the objector and therefore I find no violation of his Human Rights. [5.94][6.130][6.132][7.63]

Public Consultation

7.209 A number of objectors aired criticisms of the public consultation carried out by the Promoter. This ranged from suggestions of inadequate consultation in terms of timing, content and strategy, lack of willingness to engage with objectors, lack of


166

acknowledgement of the results through to more detailed issues regarding the land referencing exercise and delivery of material. [5.8-5.11]

7.210 I note that BCT dropped its inclination to doubt the Promoter’s honesty regarding release and use of the 2002 NOP survey results. [footnote 84 to 5.11]

7.211 I am unable to accept the objectors’ arguments which state that the public consultation was in some way inadequate. All the principal documents have been in the public domain since at least 2001. [6.14-6.15] What followed was, to my mind, an extensive consultation exercise with dissemination of some 70,000 brochures in the ‘Have Your Say’ exercise in 2001/2002. Subsequently the Promoter commissioned an NOP poll in 2002. [6.16] All this has been supplemented by more detailed local consultation, discussions, meetings and presentations. [6.17-6.19]

7.212 Furthermore the route proposals are contained within the Local Transport Plan and the relevant Local Plans. [3.101-3.111] The Statement of Case, Proofs of Evidence and other documents have been made available at the proper time and in accordance with the relevant Procedure Rules. [6.21]

7.213 The evidence presented by NET at the inquiry to my mind establishes that a major effort was made to consult with the public and with principal stakeholders. It is unfortunate that in an exercise of this magnitude there were a handful of errors in addressing or delivery of information. Nothing I saw or heard persuaded me that this prejudiced those few people affected as there was wide local dissemination of information. [5.8-5.9][6.13-6.24]

7.214 In any event, the holding of a public inquiry which extended to 28 days [1.3] in my view provided an ample opportunity for those opposed to the scheme to have their objection heard.

Noise and Vibration Policy

7.215 I note Mr Britton’s concerns regarding the NVP and particularly the noise monitoring procedures to test the adequacy of noise mitigation measures. I consider that the two amendments suggested by the Promoter to the wording of Appendix 1 to the NVP are sensible and appropriate and address the objector’s concerns on this matter. [5.133][6.181]

Provision for Cyclists

7.216 It is clear that Pedals do not have an in-principle objection to the scheme. Furthermore I note that no modifications to the Order are being sought. Much of what is raised by the objector is capable of being addressed at the detailed design stage and I welcome the offer by the Promoter to re-establish the GNLRTAC and to invite Pedals to


167

join. From all that I heard I consider that the safety and design concerns of the group would be capable of being addressed through this forum. [5.44-5.48][6.68-6.69]

7.217 On the question of cycle parking facilities at stops I note that NET would consider appropriate locations for these facilities, taking into account important security concerns. In my view this, and the question of possible cycle lockers, are matters that could be addressed through GNLRTAC as well as dialogue with the objector. I see no early solution to the issue of carriage of cycles on trams; this is clearly a matter with broad implications for the operation of the network. [6.66-6.67]

7.218 I conclude that no amendments to the Order are required as a result of the objections relating to provision for cyclists, but that GNLRTAC should be re-established with an invitation to Pedals to join.

Ruddington Lane Crossing

7.219 I cannot accept that there would be any justification for Mr Steel’s argument that the tram should pass in cutting beneath a new bridge on Ruddington Lane. In my view this would be an impractical solution giving rise to problems of access and security. [5.111][6.157]

7.220 I do not consider that the advertised alignment in the Ruddington Lane area would give rise to an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of nearby dwellings by reason of loss of privacy, given the limited differences in levels and the intervening planting and fencing. [5.111][6.158]

Suggested Additional Tram Stop, Silverdale & Suggested Alternative Tram Stop, near Bader Road, Wilford

7.221 I consider that the security and accessibility problems associated with the proposed additional and alternative stops would militate strongly against their adoption. Furthermore both Silverdale and Wilford Village would be served satisfactorily by the proposed tram stop positions as advertised. [5.110][6.167][6.180-6.181]


7.222 I have studied the written representations and the Promoter’s responses to these. To a very large extent they reflect all the points of objection put before me in the inquiry. I find nothing in these objections and responses that leads me to change my conclusions on the scheme that are set out below. [5.137][6.190]

Summary of Conclusions

7.223 I conclude that there is a clearly demonstrated compelling need for


168

the proposed extensions to the NET system, comprising NET Phase Two. It would be wholly consistent with national, regional and local planning and transport policies and would accord with the statutory development plan. The park and ride sites would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt [7.2-7.10][7.11-7.21][7.150-7.151].

7.224 There are no alternatives to the scheme that would come close to delivering its objectives of reducing traffic congestion and reliance on the car, providing improved and integrated sustainable public transport and assisting the major regeneration of the area, whilst providing transport and socio-economic benefits[7.22-7.32][7.40-7.58].

7.225 Furthermore the scheme presents a robust economic case which significantly exceeds those of alternative proposals. I conclude that, in terms of public sector investment, the scheme would offer very good value for money [7.33-7.39].

7.226 I am satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the adoption of powers of compulsory purchase [7.59-7.63]

7.227 I find that there would be short-lived construction impacts on traffic and from associated noise and vibration during construction. However I am satisfied that they would be relatively short-lived and may be managed through application of the CoCP. I recommend early and thorough use of the CoCP liaison groups in a number of areas and in the case of Sandby Court early consideration of the use of the provisions of s28 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for temporary accommodation where appropriate [7.64-7.69][7.83-7.84][7.93-7.96].

7.228 The operational impact of the tram on the highway network would be largely positive or neutral, taking into account associated infrastructure improvements, and I conclude that NET Phase Two would not have unacceptably harmful effects on the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians. I recommend the consideration of the introduction of a residents’ parking scheme in the Lower Road/Fletcher Road area [7.70-7.81][7.85-7.86][7.88-7.90].

7.229 I turn now to the impact of the scheme on the local environment. In the first place I am satisfied that the assessment of noise has been carried out correctly in a manner appropriate to a light rail scheme [7.97-7.103].

7.230 Clearly the occupants of a notable number of dwellings would experience significant increases in noise. However I note that these increases would not give rise to levels that would exceed the statutory noise insulation limits and would not lead to significant noise disturbance or sleep disturbance. I conclude therefore that the noise disturbance case should attract only limited weight in the balance against the public interest case. The NVP would be a vital tool in the monitoring of noise and I recommend additional


169

monitoring at Sandby Court [7.106-7.111].

7.231 I conclude that there would be a small benefit in terms of improved air quality and that flood risk would not be worsened. However I do recommend that the Promoter should investigate the inclusion of an impermeable membrane in the track formation in areas of acknowledged flood risk in order to control seepage [7.112][7.113-7.118].

7.232 There would be significant residual ecological and nature conservation impacts. However, on balance, and taking into account all the mitigation measures proposed I conclude that the effect of the scheme on flora and fauna should carry limited weight against the public interest case. I should stress however that part of the Promoter’s case for mitigation relies on the provision of the three proposed areas of Exchange Land and at present only one of these has been resolved. Objections to the second s19 Exchange Land Certificate, which deals with two areas of Exchange Land, remain unresolved. I heard evidence regarding the appraisal of these areas which indicates that they would meet the requirements of PPG17. However I have not heard or seen the objections [7.140-7.147][7.152-7.155].

7.233 I concur with and endorse the conclusions and recommendations of the Assistant Inspector with regard to the applications for listed building and conservation area consent. These are set out in his appended Report. I echo his recommendation that the Promoter does all that is possible to mitigate adverse effects [7.119-7.121][7.134-7.137].

7.234 I conclude that the ES is satisfactory. I see no issues with respect to the attachment of OLE to buildings nor do I record any outstanding issues with the provisions for the Statutory Undertakers [7,176-7.182][7.188-7.192].

7.235 Whilst local funding is a contentious issue, the majority of funding is in place and I conclude that the scheme is reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funding [7.196-7.199].

7.236 I have had regard to these and all other matters raised both at the inquiry and in written representations, but they do not alter the conclusions I have reached that are set out below [7.203-7.222].

Overall Conclusions

7.237 In my opinion, the wide-ranging regeneration, transportation and socio-economic benefits of providing NET Phase Two from Nottingham Railway Station to Chilwell via Beeston and to Clifton via Wilford would clearly outweigh the effects of the proposal on the local environment, and particularly the ecological impacts and the effect on living conditions by reason of noise.

7.238 Ordinarily I would conclude that the case for making the Order, as


170

amended, and conferring on NET the CPO powers contained therein is compelling and in the public interest. I would likewise conclude that it would be in the public interest to grant the associated application for deemed planning consent subject to conditions. However, given the outstanding matter of the second Exchange Land Certificate I am not in a position to make such a conclusion or a final recommendation.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

I make no recommendations.

R M Barker

INSPECTOR


171

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPEARANCES

FOR THE PROMOTER

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL &

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (NET)

represented by

Mr Charles George QC

Instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell,

50 Broadway, Westminster, London SW1H OBL

He called:

Witnesses

Mr Chris Deas NET Phase Two Project Director

Mr Stephen Tough Team Manager NET

NET Project Office, Lawrence House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5NT

Mr Callum Gibson Associate, Mott MacDonald, Spring Bank House, 33

Stamford Street, Altrincham, Cheshire, United WA14 1ES

Mr David Carter Projects Director MVA Consultancy, First Floor, Dukes

Court, Duke Street, Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH

Dr Dominic Walley Managing Economist

CEBR, Unit 1, 4 Bath Street, London EC1V 9DX


172

Mr Ian Gilder Head of Planning, ERM Ltd.,8 Cavendish Square, London,

W1C 0ER Mr Graham Woodbury Divisional Director Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place,

Stoneham Lane, Southampton, SO50 9NW

Mr Steve Mitchell Technical Director

ERM, 8 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0ER

Mr Colin Mann Director Ardent Management Ltd PO Box 3050, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 3YD

FOR THE SUPPORTERS

Cllr Stan Heptinstall 8 Cranston Rd, Bramcote, Nottingham, NG9 3GU

Nottinghamshire Campaign for Better Transport

3 Shadwell Grove, Radcliffe on Trent, Nottingham, NG12 2ET

represented by Mr David Thornhill Biocity Nottingham Pennyfoot St, Nottingham, NG1 1GF

represented by Dr Glenn Crocker BACIT

21 Foster Avenue, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 1AE

represented by Dr Matthew Frost & Mr Steve Barber

Mr A Dance 2 Audon Avenue, Chilwell, Nottingham,

NG9 2AW

Mr Alan Simpson MP

Vernon House, 18 Friar Lane, East India Dock, Nottingham, NG1 6DQ

Greater Nottingham Partnership

Castle Heights, 72 Maid Marian Way, Nottingham, NG1 6BJ

represented by Mr Martin Gawaith Greater Nottingham Transport Partnership

Castle Heights, 72 Maid Marian Way, Nottingham, NG1 6BJ

represented by Mr Gary Smerdon-White


173

Nottingham Trent University

60 Terrace Royal, Clarendon Street, Nottingham, NG1 5JD

represented by Mr Patrick Downes of Harris Lamb Limited

University of Nottingham

University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD

represented by Mr C Jagger

CW Yes!

41 Ruddington Lane, Wilford, Nottingham, NG11 7BG

represented by Mr Geoffrey Bennett

Light Rail UK Ltd

Warrington Business Park North, Long Lane, Warrington, Cheshire, England, WA2 8TX

represented by Mr J Harkins

Light Rail Transit Association

7 Crofton Avenue, Horfield, Bristol, BS7 0BP

represented by Mr J Harkins

Mr I Cohen 22 Cornwall Avenue, Beeston Rylands, Nottingham, NG9 1NL

Mr P G Davison

11 Sandhurst Drive, Ruddington, Nottingham, NG11 6HY

Castle College, Nottingham

High Rd, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4AH

Represented by Mr N Lewis FOR THE OBJECTORS

Beeston & Chilwell Business and Residents Association (BCBRA)

5 Woodville Close, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 4FU

Represented by Mrs Betty Cliffe Mr D Clack Mr S Williams


174

Mr S Blacklock Mrs P Morris Mr R Yarwood Notts County Council Conservative Group

County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7QP

represented by Cllr Martin Brandon-Bravo,

and Cllr Richard Jackson

and Cllr Thomas Pettengell

P and S Bedding Ltd 57/59 Chilwell Road, Beeston,

Nottingham, NG9 1EN Represented by Mr S Williams Blacklock Carpets 6 High Rd, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9

4AE represented by Mr S Blacklock

Sandby Court Residents

Sandby Court, Bramcote Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4ER

Represented by Mrs R Quinn Beeston Parish Church

Represented by Mr I Eden 52 Enfield Street, Beeston, Nottingham NG9 1DL

Wheatcroft Land Ltd

Ashlea House, South Croxton Road, Queniborough, Leicestershire, LE7 3RU

Represented by Mr C E Bourke

R & S Swaine The Old Chapel, Doncaster Road, Ardsley, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S71 5AY

Represented by Mr M Swaine

Wilkinson Hardware Stores Ltd


175

Represented by Brian Ash QC -

Instructed by: Browne Jacobson Solicitors LLP, 44 Caste Gate, Nottingham, NG1 7BJ

He called

Stephen Coult

Browne Jacobson Solicitors LLP, 44 Caste Gate, Nottingham, NG1 7BJ

David Thornley Wilkinson Hardware Stores Ltd

Phil Sapiro JMP Consulting

Broxtowe Borough Council

Council Offices, Foster Avenue, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 1AB

Represented by

Simon Smith

Tony Ward Broxtowe Borough Council

David Gell

Tim Crawford

Matthew Kirk

Better Community Transport (BCT)

59 Lower Road, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2GT

Represented by

Dr R Coles

Mr L Wildish

Mrs B Joynes

Mrs L Cooke

Mrs S Andrews

Mr K S Long

Deborah Services Ltd

Diamond House, Diamond Business Park, Thornes Moor Road, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF2 8PT

Represented by Mr M Scott

Scotts Property LLP, 94 Alfred Gelder Street, Hull, HU1 2AN


176

Broxtowe Green Party

c/o 24 Heathcote Building, Nottingham Science & Technology Park, Nottingham, NG7 2QJ

Represented by Ms Gaynor Backhouse

Wilford Community Group

6 Vernon Avenue, Wilford, Nottingham, NG11 7AE

Represented by Mr D Boulton

Trent Bridge Rotary Club

Represented by Mr R Steel (who also appeared as an individual objector)

1 Holly Avenue, Wilford Village, Nottingham, NG11 7AF

Tudor House Osteopathic Clinic

281 Wilford Lane, Wilford, Nottingham, NG11 7AX

Represented by Mr T Edwards

Environment Not Trams

29 Lyme Park, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7TR

Represented by Mr G Wheeler

Mr M J Britton

Mr G Court

Mr A Phillips

Mr J Silver

English Heritage

Represented by Mr Eian Caws of Counsel

He called Mr M Hanmore

K & L Gates, 110 Cannon St, London, EC4N 6AR

Dr Valerie Scott

English Heritage

Rushcliffe Borough Council

Civic Centre, Pavilion Rd, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5FE

Represented by Mr R Mapletoft

Formatted: German(Germany)


177

PEDALS 162 Musters Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7AA

Represented by Mr H McClintock

J H Plowright Ltd

Represented by Mr A Benton

Bentons, 47 Nottingham Street, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE13 1NN

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

The Old Ragged School, Brook Street, Nottingham, NG1 1EA

Represented by Mrs J Bradley

Barton-in-Fabis Parish Council

The Forge, Barton in Fabis, Nottingham, NG11 OAE

Represented by Mr P Kacmarczuk

Gotham Parish Council

33 Leake Road, Gotham, Nottingham, NG11 0HW

Represented by Cllr T Green and Cllr C Raynor

Thrumpton Parish Meeting

62 Church Lane, Thrumpton, Nottingham, NG11 0AW

Represented by Mrs M Carswell

The Ramblers Association & Open Spaces Society

Park View, Mapperley, Nottingham, NG3 5FD

Represented by Mr C Thompson

East Midlands Trains

Represented by Mr Andrew Hogan of Counsel

Instructed by: Geldards LLP, The Arc, Enterprise Way, Nottingham, NG2 1EW

Individual Objectors: Mr T Moxon

11 Harlech Rise, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5PD

Mrs B Cliffe

5 Woodville Close, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 4FU

Mr & Mrs Britton

320 Toton Lane, Stapleford, Nottingham, NG9 7JB

Mrs L Ismay

9 Midhurst Close, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5FQ


178

Represented by Mr K Mafham Ken Mafham Associates

Mr J B White 22 Grove Court, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4EH

Mr P Richmond 71 Cator Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4AY

Ms J E Rees 71 Cator Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4AY

Miss B Stafford 179a Inham Road, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4JF

Mrs M Cassidy

5a Babbington Court, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5BT

Mr R Yarwood

35 Cator Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham , NG9 4AY

Mr C Page 30 Holkham Avenue, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5EQ

Mr R Fletcher

50 Holkham Avenue, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5EQ

Mr Nick Palmer MP 23 Barratt Lane, Attenborough, Nottingham, NG9 6AD

Miss M Stanley 16 Babington Court, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 5BT

Professor C A Bates

The Limes, 26 Lime Grove Avenue, Chilwell, NG9 4AR

Mrs M Bates The Limes, 26 Lime Grove Avenue, Chilwell, NG9 4AR

Mr C D Davies

31 Gwenbrook Avenue, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4BA

Mrs M Davies

31 Gwenbrook Avenue, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4BA

Ms S Trench Muskegon, Off Lime Grove Avenue, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4AR

Mrs V Boorman 87 Cator Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4BG

Mr & Mrs Frier

84 Imperial Road, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 1FE

Mr E P Barton & Mrs J Barton

66 Westfield Drive, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3QL

Represented by Mr A Barton and Dr J Barton

Mrs S Andrews 49 Fletcher Road, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2EL

Mr L Wildish 59 Lower Road, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2GT

Mr K H Kirk 6 Lower Road, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2GL

Cllr P Lally 37 Read Avenue, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2FJ


179

Cllr J Briggs 2 Clarkes Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5BG

Professor E & Mrs J Foxley

31 Greenfield Street, Beeston, Nottingham. NG7 2JN

Mr & Mrs Morris Woodlands, 37 Dale Lane, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 4EA

Mr Andrew Harry Day Lambley Paddock, Lambley Road, Lowdham, Nottingham, NG14 7AZ

Represented by

Stuart Andrews and

Eversheds, 1 Royal Standard Place, Nottingham, NG1 6FZ

Gary Lees Pegasus Planning Group

Mr B & Mrs G K Singh 73 Cator Lane, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 4AY

Cllr M Radulovic c/o Broxtowe Borough Council, Council Offices, Foster Avenue, Beeston,

hMr J Baldry 39 Kelso Gardens, The Meadows, Nottingham, NG2 1QA

Nr N Dunn The White Lodge, 219 Melton Road, Edwalton, Nottingham, NG12 4AF

Mr N W Collard & 6 Heathervale, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7ST

Mr R Abdul 20 Heathervale, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7ST

Mr A Phillips 40 Mulberry Close, Compton Acres, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7SS

Mrs E Wheeler 29 Lyme Park, West Bridgford, Nottingham. NG2 7TR

Dr C Grant 50 St Austell Drive, Wilford, Nottingham, NG11 7BP

Mr B Espinasse 19 Heathervale, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7ST

Mr A Baxendale 7 Silverdale, Stapleford, Nottingham, NG9 7EX,

Miss K Daykin

9 Blair Grove, Sandiacre, Nottingham, NG10 5PS

Miss J Perry 30 Thorncliffe Road, Nottingham, NG3 5BQ

Miss M Mason

Tregarthen, 8 Lucknow Drive, Mapperley Park, Nottingham, NG3 5EU

Formatted: Dutch(Netherlands)


180

APPENDIX B

INQUIRY DOCUMENT LIST

Incorporating:

Inquiry document list

List of evidence received

List of Promoters’ documents

Programme Office - Inquiry Document List

INQ/1 Statement of matters

INQ/2 Statement of matters re CAC/LBC applications

INQ/3 Note of Pre-Inquiry Meeting

INQ/4 Attendance list for Pre-Inquiry Meeting

INQ/5 Evening sessions: explanatory notes for third parties

INQ/6 Inspector’s questions of clarification and Promoters’ answers (working

document)

INQ/7 Procedure note for supporters’ and objectors’ cross examination

INQ/8 List of proposed accompanied site visits (working document)

INQ/9 Site visits timetable (working document)

INQ/10 Folder of supporters’ letters

List of evidence received for the inquiry

Doc Ref Name/Organisation Description

Objectors

OBJ/1/SC Mr C E Bourke for Wheatcroft Land Ltd. Statement of case

OBJ/1/1 Letter of 28/09/07 to NET



181

OBJ/1/3 Letter of 19/10/07 to PINS


OBJ/6/SC Dr C Grant Statement of Case

OBJ/6/PE Revised SoC as proof of evidence

OBJ/23/SC Mr S Williams on behalf of P and S Bedding Limited Statement of case

OBJ/23/1 Letter of 21/9/07

OBJ/23/PE Proof of evidence

OBJ/23/PE/1 Summary proof of evidence

OBJ/26/SC Mr J W Baldry Statement of case

OBJ/26/SC/1 Supplementary letter to Statement of case

OBJ/33/1 Mr & Mrs Torr Letter of 25/10/07

OBJ/41/1 Mrs R Quinn for Sandby Court Response to rebuttal proof

OBJ/45/PE Mr & Mrs E & J Foxley Proof of evidence

OBJ/45/PE/1 Appendix 1 - Report

OBJ/45/PE/2 Appendix 2 - Planning permission & plan

OBJ/45/PE/3 Powerpoint presentation

OBJ/45/PE/4 Revised PowerPoint presentation

OBJ/45/PE/5 Addendum documents

OBJ/50/SC Mrs Mary Carswell on behalf of Thrumpton Parish Meeting

Statement of case



OBJ/94/PE Mrs E Wheeler Proof of evidence

OBJ/94/PE/1 Letter of 18/12/07

OBJ/100/PE Mr C Page Proof of evidence

OBJ/102/1 Mr Slade Further written evidence

OBJ/109/SC Mr J B White Statement of case

OBJ/109/1 Response to Promoters rebuttal

OBJ/110/SC Edmund Kirby on behalf of Iceland Foods Limited Statement of case


182



OBJ/110/PE/2 Appendices

OBJ/115/SC Cllr P Lally Statement of case

OBJ/127/SC A R Parker Statement of case

OBJ/127/1 Further written statement

OBJ/165/SC W Bell Statement of case

OBJ/185/SC Messrs Ellis-Fermor & Negus on behalf of Bartons PLC

Statement of case

OBJ/226/662/PE Mr R Abdul Joint proof of evidence with Mr N Collard

OBJ/226/662/PE/1 PowerPoint summary

OBJ/226/662/PE/2 Attachment 1

OBJ/226/662/PE/3 Attachment 14

OBJ/226/662/PE/4 Revised PowerPoint presentation

OBJ/226/662/PE/5 Revised proof of evidence

OBJ/226/662/PE/6 Response to Promoters’ rebuttal and further evidence

OBJ/227/SC Mr S Blacklock for Blacklock Carpets Limited Statement of case



OBJ/242/SC Mr L Wildish on behalf of Better Community Transport (BCT)

Statement of case

OBJ/242/PE/1 Proof of evidence of Brenda Joynes

OBJ/243/SC P Freeley Statement of case


OBJ/245/SC Mr R Fletcher Statement of case

OBJ/245/PE Proof of evidence with CD

OBJ/245/PE/1 Map of possible alternative route

OBJ/309/SC S Andrews Statement of case

OBJ/309/1 Revised statement


183

OBJ/311/SC B Stafford Original as SoC

OBJ/317/SC Dr D Lawrence Statement of case



OBJ/317/PE/1 Summary of Proof of evidence

OBJ/317/PE/2 Appendix - Document 35

OBJ/317/PE/3 Appendix - Video clip on CD

OBJ/317/PE/4 Additional evidence

OBJ/317/PE/5 Correspondence from NET

OBJ/317/PE/6 Appendix - APA Journal report

OBJ/317/PE/7 Planning brief – land at Inham Rd, Chilwell

OBJ/317/PE/8 Planning brief – land at Bramcote Lane, Chilwell

OBJ/326/SC Mr B Stone for Broxtowe Borough Council Statement of case


OBJ/326/PE/1 Further Proof of evidence

OBJ/326/1 Letter from Henry Boot Developments to Broxtowe Borough Council

OBJ/331/SC Mr T C Moxon Original as SoC

OBJ/331/1 Letter of 12/10/07


OBJ/338/1 Mr T Edwards, Tudor House Osteopathic Clinic Email of 7/12/07

OBJ/379/SC J A Raven for Gotham Parish Council Statement of case



OBJ/379/PE/2 Colin Raynor CV

OBJ/379/PE/3 Presentation

OBJ/379/PE/4 Further evidence on costs and benefits

OBJ/390/SC Berryman on behalf of Mellors and Kirk Limited Original as SoC


184

OBJ/392/SC GR Planning Consultancy Limited on behalf of the Home Retail Group Plc

Statement of case

OBJ/392/1 Home Retail Group (Argos) Further written proof

OBJ/392/PE Representations submitted

OBJ/416/SC Dr R Coles MB FRCP (Ed) Statement of case


OBJ/416/PE/1 Attachments to slides

OBJ/416/PE/2 Study on sleep disturbance

OBJ/416/PE/3 Two patterns of noise exposure

OBJ/416/PE/4 NET noise assessment methodology from 2002

OBJ/416/PE/5 NOP Poll, slide 3 (revised)

OBJ/416/1 Letter of 5/12/07 re BACIT rebuttal

OBJ/419/1 Mr J Langman Letter of 12/12/07

OBJ/419/2 Letter

OBJ/452/SC M Cassidy Statement of case

OBJ/479/PE Mr A Phillips Proof of evidence

OBJ/479/PE/1 Appendices to Proof of evidence

OBJ/479/PE/2 Response to Promoters’ rebuttal

OBJ/500/SC Mr B Espinasse Statement of case


OBJ/507/PE Mr Ken Mafham for Mrs Ismay Proof of evidence


OBJ/508/SC J S & P Morris Statement of case



OBJ/508/PE/2 Documents supporting SoC

OBJ/508/PE/3 Arboricultural survey

OBJ/508/PE/4 Extract form Accessibility strategy 2010/11

OBJ/508/PE/5 Opinion polls/research table


185

OBJ/508/PE/6 Existing accessibility figures

OBJ/508/PE/7 Plan showing information not on tree survey

OBJ/508/PE/8 Extract from Net route options consultation report

OBJ/508/PE/9 Existing social need, accessibility and regeneration statistics for the area covered by the Beeston/Chilwell extension route

OBJ/508/PE/10 Arboricultural survey NET Beeston/Chilwell route

OBJ/508/PE/11 Extracts from NET.A14

OBJ/508/PE/12 Letter re NOP poll


OBJ/510/PE Angela Plowright Proof of evidence


OBJ/510/PE/2 Supplementary evidence

OBJ/510/PE/3 Supplementary evidence

OBJ/527/SC A Barton Statement of case

OBJ/527/874/PE Proof of evidence

OBJ/537/SC V Boorman Statement of case

OBJ/538/PE S Trench Proof of evidence

OBJ/538/PE/1 References from Proof of evidence


OBJ/545/Sc J F Hudson for Chillwell Road Methodist Church Statement of case

OBJ/551/SC Cllr Pettengell Original as SoC

OBJ/551/1 Comments on Promoters' rebuttal

OBJ/561/SC Mr P Kaczmarczuk for Barton in Fabis Parish Council

Statement of case



OBJ/574/PE Mrs L Cooke for residents of Neville Sadler Court (BCT)

Proof of evidence

OBJ/584/SC BCBRA Statement of case


186


OBJ/584/PE/1 Appendix A1 to Proof of evidence

OBJ/584/PE/2 Appendix A2 to Proof of evidence

OBJ/584/PE/3 Appendix E to Proof of evidence

OBJ/584/PE/4 Appendix G to Proof of evidence

OBJ/584/PE/5 Proof of evidence - Business submission

OBJ/584/PE/6 Proof of evidence - Business submission, summary

OBJ/584/PE/7 Proof of evidence - detrimental environmental impact

OBJ/584/PE/8 Proof of evidence - detrimental environmental impact, summary

OBJ/584/PE/9 Proof of evidence - Chapter 7 summary

OBJ/584/PE/10 Proof of evidence - financial implications, summary

OBJ/584/PE/11 Proof of evidence of Derek Clack

OBJ/584/PE/12 Summary proof of Derek Clack

OBJ/584/PE/13 Summary proof of evidence - Line 1 failings

OBJ/584/PE/14 Summary proof of evidence - inadequate consultation

OBJ/584/PE/15 Summary proof - unsuitability of the proposed route

OBJ/584/PE/16 BCBRA opening statement

OBJ/584/PE/17 Revised summary proof from Pam Morris

OBJ/584/PE/18 Report re proposed regional road-rail freight interchange at Toton Sidings

OBJ/584/PE/19 Broxtowe Borough Council memo re Green spaces strategy consultation

OBJ/584/PE/20 List of car parks in Beeston

OBJ/584/PE/21 Letter from Broxtowe borough council re park and ride 7/12/07

OBJ/584/PE/22 BCBRA closing statement


187


OBJ/603/SC Miss M Mason Original as SoC

OBJ/603/1 Newspaper cuttings

OBJ/603/2 Note on buses & congestion

OBJ/620/PE Mr N Palmer MP Proof of evidence (Using SOC)

OBJ/627/SC Mr G Wheeler for Environment Not Trams Statement of case

OBJ/627/PE Proof of evidence of Gordon Wheeler

OBJ/627/PE/1 Summary proof of evidence by Gordon Wheeler

OBJ/627/PE/2 Proof of evidence of Alan Phillips

OBJ/627/PE/3 Summary proof of evidence of Alan Phillips

OBJ/627/PE/4 Appendices to Proof of evidence of Alan Phillips

OBJ/627/PE/5 Proof of evidence of Gordon Court

OBJ/627/PE/6 Summary proof of evidence of Gordon Court

OBJ/627/PE/6a Extract from NET.B1/7

OBJ/627/PE/7 Proof of evidence of Jim Silver

OBJ/627/PE/8 Summary proof of evidence of Jim Silver

OBJ/627/PE/8a Additional references from Jim Silver

OBJ/627/PE/8b Letter of 14/12/07 re flood risk assessment

OBJ/627/PE/8c Email of 21/12/07

OBJ/627/PE/9 Unemployment in Nottingham – ethnicity note by NCC

OBJ/627/PE/10 Unemployment in Nottingham report by NCC

OBJ/627/PE/11 NCC Executive Board report 5th March 2002

OBJ/627/PE/12 Letter re NCT/Arrow bus agreement 2000


OBJ/628/PE Mrs B Cliffe Proof of evidence


188



OBJ/641/SC Ms J Perry Statement of case


OBJ/641/2 Questions of clarification

OBJ/641/3 Additional documents referred to

OBJ/655/SC Ms J E Rees Statement of case



OBJ/655/PE/2 Appendices to Proof of evidence

OBJ/655/PE/3 More appendices to Proof of evidence

OBJ/655/PE/4 Response to Promoters rebuttal

OBJ/658/SC M Stanley Original as SoC

OBJ/662/SC Mr N W Collard Statement of case

OBJ/662/1 Letter of clarification to Promoter

OBJ/662/2 Further letter to Promoter 27/10/07

OBJ/665/SC Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of the Environment Agency

Statement of case

OBJ/674/SC Mr M J Britton Statement of case

OBJ/674/1 Letter re Planning condition and Noise and vibration policy



OBJ/674/PE/2 Supplementary proof of evidence

OBJ/674/PE/3 Revised summary proof of evidence

OBJ/674/PE/4 Response to revised Noise and vibration policy

OBJ/678/1 Mr R Yarwood Letter outlining alternative route

OBJ/678/2 Response to Promoters rebuttal

OBJ/711/SC Cllr Jackson Original as SoC

OBJ/711/1 Comments on Promoters' rebuttal


189

OBJ/714/SC Shoosmiths on behalf of the Games Workshop Statement of case

OBJ/717/SC Flint Bishop Solicitors on behalf of Peveril Securities Limited and the Japanese Water Gardens

Original as SoC

OBJ/730/SC Montagu Evans Trillium (PRIME) Property Ltd & DWP

Original as SoC

OBJ/736/SC P Richmond Statement of case

OBJ/736/PE Proof of evidence (Using SOC)

OBJ/736/PE/1 Response to Promoters rebuttal

OBJ/746/SC Bruton Knowles I H Moore & Company (Holdings) Statement of case


OBJ/748/SC Mr A Staniforth & Mr C Thompson for Open Spaces Society/ The Ramblers

Statement of case



OBJ/750/SC Prof. C A Bates Statement of case



OBJ/757/SC A M Browne Original as SoC

OBJ/761/SC M Bates Statement of case

OBJ/761/1 Response to Promoters’ rebuttal


OBJ/761/PE/1 Photographs

OBJ/801/SC Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of National Grid Gas Plc

Original as SoC

OBJ/802/SC Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc

Original as SoC

OBJ/803/SC Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of British Waterways Board

Original as SoC

OBJ/804/SC Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of Royal Mail Group Plc and Post Office Limited

Original as SoC



OBJ/804/1 Letter to Bircham Dyson Bell


190

OBJ/831/SC D Boulton for Wilford Community Group Statement of case

OBJ/831/1 Letter re flood risk assessment

OBJ/831/2 Summary of notes taken 5/12/07

OBJ/835/SC Ms K Baryar Statement of case

OBJ/835/1 Letter of 29/10/07

OBJ/841/SC M Davies Original as SoC

OBJ/853/1 Mr R Hill Further written evidence

OBJ/857/1 Mrs B Saunders Letter of 5/12/07

OBJ/870/PE R & F Britton Proof of evidence

OBJ/870/PE/1 Revised Proof of evidence

OBJ/873/SC Mr Hugh McLintock on behalf of PEDALS Statement of case

OBJ/879/SC Messrs Rees & Freres on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Statement of case

OBJ/887/SC Mills & Reeve LLP on behalf of Nottingham University Trust Hospitals

Statement of case

OBJ/887/PE Proof of evidence by John Simpson

OBJ/887/PE/1 Summary proof of evidence by John Simpson

OBJ/887/PE/2 Proof of evidence by Nic Howarth (DLP Planning)

OBJ/887/PE/3 Summary proof of evidence by Nic Howarth (DLP Planning)

OBJ/889/SC Eversheds & Pegasus on behalf of Andrew Harry Day

Statement of case

OBJ/889/PE Proof of evidence by Gary Lees (Pegasus)

OBJ/889/PE/1 Summary proof by Gary Lees (Pegasus)

OBJ/889/PE/1a Appendices

OBJ/889/PE/2 Companion guide to PPG17

OBJ/889/PE/3 Extract from Broxtowe Local Plan Review: inspector’s report

OBJ/889/PE/4 Closing statement

OBJ/897/SC Montagu Evans on behalf of Homebase Limited Original as SoC


191

OBJ/901/SC CB Richard Ellis Ltd on behalf of HSBC Bank Plc Statement of case

OBJ/912/PE Oxford Hotels and Inns on behalf of the Red Cow Public House

Proof of evidence


OBJ/925/SC Pegasus on behalf of The Christian Centre Statement of case

OBJ/926/PE Mr N Dunn Proof of evidence

OBJ/926/PE/1 Revised proof of evidence

OBJ/926/1 Email 6/12/07

OBJ/927/SC Thomas & Betts UK Ltd on behalf of W J Furse Statement of case

OBJ/928/PE Malcolm Scott of Scotts Property Services on behalf of Deborah Services Ltd

Proof of evidence (Notes for inquiry)

OBJ/929/SC Cllr Martin Brandon Bravo for Nottinghamshire County Council Conservative Group

Original as statement of case

OBJ/929/SC/1 Appendix to Statement of case

OBJ/964/SC Browne Jacobson LLP on behalf of Wilkinson Hardware Stores Ltd

Statement of case

OBJ/964/1 Opening statement

OBJ/964/PE Proof of evidence of Stephen Coult

OBJ/964/PE/1 Summary proof of evidence of Stephen Coult

OBJ/964/PE/1a Revision to proof of evidence

OBJ/964/PE/2 Appendices of Stephen Coult

OBJ/964/PE/3 Proof of evidence of David Thornley for Wilkinson

OBJ/964/PE/4 Summary proof of evidence of David Thormley

OBJ/964/PE/5 Appendices of David Thornley

OBJ/964/PE/6 Proof of evidence of Phil Sapiro: traffic and transport advice

OBJ/964/PE/7 Summary proof of evidence of Phil Sapiro

OBJ/964/PE/8 Appendix to Proof of evidence of Phil Sapiro (Revised 19/11)

OBJ/969/SC Mr L Wildish Original as SoC

OBJ/969/PE Photographic evidence


192

OBJ/969/PE/1 Extract from Review Panel report on transfer mortality

OBJ/969/PE/2 Extract from Human Rights Update

OBJ/969/PE/3 Extract from PPG15 ; Planning & the Historic Environment

OBJ/984/SC Geldards LLP on behalf of Central Trains/Stagecoach

Statement of case

OBJ/984/PE East Midlands Trains (previously Central Trains/Stagecoach)

Proof of evidence of Mark Haslam

OBJ/984/PE/1 Summary proof of evidence Mark Haslam

OBJ/984/PE/2 Proof of evidence of David Mather

OBJ/984/PE/3 Proof of evidence of John Hillman

OBJ/984/PE/4 Proof of evidence of Suzanne Page

OBJ/987/SC Mr C D Davies Original as SoC

OBJ/987/PE Presentation on disk

OBJ/987/PE/1 Notes to slides

OBJ/988/SC Browne Jacobson LLP on behalf of Graham Group Ltd (Jewson)

Original as SoC

OBJ/989/PE Mr A Benton for J H Plowright Ltd Update to objection

OBJ/990/SC Marrons on behalf of Mr David Gelling of David Wilson Estates (North) for Barratt Developments plc

Statement of case

OBJ/1020/SC Mr P Anderson for Broxtowe Green Party Statement of case

OBJ/1020/1 Comparative performance data from French tramway systems

OBJ/1020/2 What light rail can do for cities (NET.C37)

OBJ/1021/SC Nabarro on behalf of Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited

Statement of case

OBJ/1022/SC Mr R Steel Original as SoC

OBJ/1024/SC Berryman on behalf of Mr Andrew Dyke Original as SoC

OBJ/1033/SC Ms J Bradley for Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust Statement of case




193

OBJ/1033/PE/2 Updated objection letter

OBJ/1037/1 Mr R Steel for Nottingham Moderns Rugby Club Letter of 24 October 2007

OBJ/1037/2 Additional comments by email 12/12

OBJ/1037/3 Additional comments by email 21/12

OBJ/1044/PE Mr I Eden for Beeston Parish Church Proof of evidence

OBJ/1048/1 Mr Varley Further written evidence

OBJ/1048/2 Further letter of 10/12/07

OBJ/1052/SC Cllr B Venes on behalf of Ruddington residents Original as SoC

OBJ/1052/1 Further evidence

OBJ/1066/1 Mr A Connolly Further written evidence

OBJ/1076/PE Cllr J Briggs Proof of evidence

OBJ/1076/PE/1 Closing statement

OBJ/1081/PE Miss Kerry Daykin Proof of evidence

OBJ/1082/SC Pinsent Masons on behalf of Imperial Commercials Ltd

Original as SoC

OBJ/1088/SC Mr R Mapletoft for Rushcliffe Borough Council Statement of case



OBJ/1094/SC Cleggs Solicitors on behalf of Gleeds Statement of case

OBJ/1097/1 Mr R Howard Further written evidence

OBJ/1109/SC Messrs Ellis-Fermor & Negus on behalf of Mr B and Mrs G K Singh

Statement of case


OBJ/1109/PE/1 Statement of case as basis of Proof of evidence

OBJ/1109/PE/2 Email re NET rebuttal

OBJ/1109/PE/3 ` Supporting letter of 18/12/07


OBJ/1110/SC Messrs Ellis-Fermor & Negus Statement of case

OBJ/1112/1 Mr Paul Hayward Email of 9/11/07

OBJ/1115/PE Mr A Baxendale Proof of evidence


194

Representors

REP/6/SC Mr P Davison Statement of case

REP/8 Mr S Abbott for Travelwatch East Midlands Original as statement of case

Rep/9/PE Mr David Thornhill for Campaign for Better Transport

Proof of evidence

GOEM/8/1 K & L Gates on behalf of English Heritage Letter of 5/11/07

GOEM/8/PE K & L Gates on behalf of English Heritage Proof of evidence of Dr Valerie Scott

GOEM/8/PE/1 Summary proof of evidence of Dr Valerie Scott

GOEM/8/PE/2 Appendices

GOEM/8/PE/3 Documents referred to in proof of evidence

GOEM/8/PE/4 Letter re reserved conditions 21/12/07

GOEM/8/PE/5 EH.P1/D Further conditions

GOEM/8/PE/6 Closing submissions

Supporters’ Documents

SUPP/03/SC Mr S Abbott for Travel Watch East Midlands Statement of case

SUPP/03/PE Proof of evidence

SUPP/03/PE/1 Supplementary proof - Oslo PM report

SUPP/12/SC Cllr S Heptinstall Statement of case


SUPP/23/SC G Crocker on behalf of BioCity Nottingham Limited Statement of case


SUPP/42/PE Nottingham Trent University Proof of evidence

SUPP/52/SC Mr A Dance Original as statement of case


SUPP/53/SC Mr A Simpson MP Statement of case


SUPP/53/PE/1 Alternative route around University Arts Centre


195

SUPP/55/SC Greater Nottingham Partnership Statement of case


SUPP/65/SC The University of Nottingham Statement of case


SUPP/67/SC D Brewer for Greater Nottingham Transport Partnership

Statement of case


SUPP/68/SC Dr M Frost for BACIT Statement of case

SUPP/68/PE Dr M Frost for BACIT Summary proof of evidence

SUPP/68/PE/1 Rebuttal Proof of evidence - noise issues

SUPP/68/PE/2 Summary Rebuttal Proof of evidence - noise issues

SUPP/68/PE/3 Rebuttal evidence against BCBRA (OBJ/584)

SUPP/68/PE/4 Summary rebuttal evidence against BCBRA (OBJ/584)

SUPP/68/PE/5 Appendices to rebuttal evidence against BCBRA (OBJ/584)

SUPP/68/PE/6 Supporting evidence from Broxtowe Borough Council

SUPP/68/PE/7 Powerpoint slides

SUPP/68/PE/8 Statement by Michael Rich

SUPP/68/PE/9 Rebuttal evidence against Mr Turner (OBJ/535)

SUPP/68/PE/10 Rebuttal evidence against ENT (OBJ/627) – pollution/green house gas emissions from trams

SUPP/68/PE/11 Rebuttal evidence against ENT (OBJ/627) – Scheme cost estimates and cost issues

SUPP/68/PE/12 Additional rebuttal on noise against Dr Coles (OBJ/416)

SUPP/69/SC Mr G Bennett for CW Yes Statement of case


SUPP/69/PE/1 Rebuttal evidence against ENT (OBJ/627)


196

SUPP/69/PE/2 Rebuttal evidence against NWT (OBJ/1033)

SUPP/69/PE/3 Rebuttal evidence against WCG (OBJ/831)

SUPP/96/SC Mr S Barber (BACIT) Statement of case

SUPP/96/PE Proof of evidence (using SOC)

SUPP/96/1 Broxtowe Conservative newsletters April 2007

SUPP/97/SC Mr A Hirst Statement of case


SUPP/97/PE/1 Email to the Promoters

SUPP/152/SC Miller Birch Ltd on behalf of Cedar (Queens Drive) Ltd & Miller (Queens Drive) Ltd (Previously OBJ/1064)

Statement of case

Promoter’s

documents

Category A

Documents

Transport and Works Order and Related Applications Documents

NET.A1 Letter of Application dated 26 April 2007

NET.A2 Concise statement of the aims of the proposals

NET.A3 Report summarising the consultations that have been undertaken

NET.A4 Draft TWA Order

NET.A5 An Explanatory Memorandum explaining the purpose and effect of each article and Schedule

in the draft Order

NET.A6 A request for direction under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,

including elements of the proposed development and proposed planning conditions

NET.A7 Declaration of the status of the applicant

NET.A8 List of consents, permissions or licences required under other enactments for the purpose of

the powers sought in the application

NET.A9 Details of the applicant’s proposals for funding the cost of implementing the Order

NET.A10 An estimate of the costs of carrying out the works provided for in the Order

NET.A11 Waiver directions

NET.A12 Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications dated 26 April 2007

NET.A12/1 Revised LBC1 Drawing

NET.A12/2 Word Note on Drawing


197

NET.A12/3 CAC5: Application for conservation area consent for alterations to boundary wall to Chilwell

Road Methodist Church

NET.A12/4 LBC1: Alterations to Nottingham Station, Preliminary Method Statement for Installation of

Bridge Piers, Platform 4/5

NET.A12/5 Amendments to LBC1: Alterations to Nottingham Station and Withdrawal of CAC7:

Demolition of Line One Link Bridge

NET.A12/6 Rev P9 Nottingham Station Bridge Heritage Issues Drawing (A1)

NET.A12/7 Rev P9 Nottingham Station Bridge Heritage Issues Drawing (A3)

NET.A12/8 Station Dispersal Bridge Connection

NET.A13 Environmental Statement Non-technical summary

NET.A14 Environmental Statement Volume 1: Main Report

NET.A15 Environmental Statement Volume 2 Part 1: Appendices

NET.A16 Environmental Statement Volume 2 Part 2: Appendices [Tree Survey]

NET.A17 Environmental Statement Volume 3: Figures and Plans

NET.A18 Environmental Statement Volume 4: Urban and Landscape Design Statement

NET.A19 Book of reference

NET.A19/1 Revised Book of reference

NET.A19/2 Further Revised Book of Reference

NET.A20 Composite works and land plans and sections and planning direction plans (A3 Size)

NET.A20/1 Open Space and Exchange Land Plan Revision A (A3)

NET.A20/2 Revised Works and Land Plans (A3) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 9A, 10, 13, 14, 17,

18, 24, 25, 30 and 35)

NET.A20/3 Revised Planning Directions Drawings (A3) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18,

24, 25, 29 and 39)

NET.A20/4 Additional Open Space and Exchange Land Plans (A3) (Sheets 1-10201)

NET.A20/5 Revised Planning Direction Drawings (A3) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 9, 13, 14 and 16)

NET.A20/6 Revised Works and Lands Plans (A3) (Sheets 5-7, 14 19, 21-23 and 25, and Planning

Direction Drawings Sheets 6, 21-23) and Open Space and Exchange Land Plan (Sheet 7)

NET.A20/7 Works and Lands Plans (A3) (Sheet 6 Alternative) and Planning Direction Drawings (Sheet 6

Alternative)

NET.A21 Works and land plans and sections (A1 Size)

201 Note that Sheet 7 would have been Revision B of NETA.20/1


198

NET.A21/1 Open Space and Exchange Land Plan Revision A (A1)

NET.A21/2 Revised Works and Land Plans (A1) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 9A, 10, 13, 14, 17,

18, 24, 25, 30 and 35)

NET.A21/3 Additional Open Space and Exchange Land Plans (A1) (Sheets 1-10202)

NET.A21/4 Revised Works and Lands Plans (A1) (Sheets 5, 6, 7, 14, 19, 21-23 and 25, and Planning

Direction Drawings Sheet 6, 21-23) and Open Space and Exchange Land Plan (Sheet 7)

NET.A21/5 Works and Lands Plans (A1) (Sheet 6 Alternative)

NET.A22 Planning direction drawings (A1 Size)

NET.A22/1 Revised Planning Directions Drawings (A1) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18,

24, 25, 29 and 39)

NET.A22/2 Revised Planning Direction Drawings (A1) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 9, 13, 14 and 16)

NET.A22/3 Revised Planning Direction Drawings (A1) (Sheets 6A 21A-23A)

NET.A22/4 Planning Direction Drawings (A1) (Sheet 6 Alternative)

NET.A23 Traffic regulation and rights of way plans

NET.A23/1 Revised Traffic Regulation and Rights of Way Plans (A1) (Key Plan and Sheets 1-3, 5, 6, 9,

13-15, 17-19, 24 and 25)

NET.A23/2 Revised Traffic Regulation and Rights of Way Plans (A1) (Sheets 6B 21A-23A)

NET.A23/3 Traffic Regulation and Rights of Way Plan (A1) (Sheet 6 Alternative)

NET.A24 Application for Certificate in respect of Open Space and Exchange Land dated 27 April 2007

together with subsequent correspondence with GOEM and public notice.

NET.A25 Affidavits of compliance with Applications Rules (with extracts of exhibits – redacted in

particular to comply with data protection considerations) and note responding to objectors’

compliance points.

NET.A26 Promoter’s Statement of Case

NET.A27 Statement of Matters of the Secretary of State for Transport, 29 August 2007

NET.A28 Statement of Matters of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, 31

August 2007

NET.A29 Note summarising the Promoters’ compliance with the Transport and Works Act procedures

NET.A30 Schedule of Submitted Plans & Sections and Drawings

NET.A30/1 Revised Schedule of Submitted Plans and Sections and Drawings

NET.A30/2 Schedule of ‘Live’ Submitted Plans and Sections and Drawings

202 Note that Sheet 7 would have been Revision B of NETA.21/1


199

NET.A31 Promoter’s Note on their evidence relevant to the Statement of Matters of the Secretary of

State for Transport

NET.A32 Promoter’s Note on their evidence relevant to the Statement of Matters of the Secretary of

State for Communities and Local Government

NET.A33 Note for the Inspector regarding events relating to the Inquiry Venue on 8 and 9 November

2007

NET.A34 Not used

NET.A35 Promoter’s Opening Statement

NET.A36 Second Application for Certificate in respect of Open Space and Exchange Land dated 07

November 2007

NET.A37 Draft filled-up draft Order

NET.A38 Promoter’s Suggested Itinerary for Site Visits, 19 December 2007

NET.A39 Filled-up draft Order

NET.A40 Note on alternative alignment through Beeston Town Centre

NET.A41 Plan of Plowrights Land at Clifton Park and Ride Site

NET.A42 Closing Statement of Mr Charles George QC on behalf of the Promoter


200

Category B Documents

Project Development, Appraisal and Funding Documents

NET.B1 Key City and County Reports and Resolutions up to and including s.239 process, in particular:

NET.B1/17 Nottingham City Council Report of the Corporate Director of City Development, dated 20 April 2004

NET.B1/18 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council Executive Board of 20 April 2004

NET.B1/19 Nottinghamshire County Council Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 6 May 2004

NET.B1/20 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council of 6 May 2004 [Extract]

NET.B1/21 Nottinghamshire County Council Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 17 June 2004

NET.B1/22 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council of 17 June 2004

NET.B1/23 Nottingham City Council Report of the Corporate Director of City Development dated 22 June 2004

NET.B1/1 Nottingham City Council Report of the NET Executive Director dated 6 February 2001

NET.B1/2 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council Executive Board of 6 February 2001

NET.B1/3 Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 9 May 2001

NET.B1/4 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet of 9 May 2001

NET.B1/5 Nottinghamshire County Council Environment Portfolio Report of the Assistant Director of Environment dated 11 June 2001

NET.B1/6 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council Environment Portfolio of 11 June 2001

NET.B1/7 Nottinghamshire County Council Environment Portfolio Report of the Environmental Planning Division dated 29 October 2001

NET.B1/8 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council Environment Portfolio of 24 October 2001

NET.B1/9 Nottingham City Council Report of the NET Executive Director dated 29 October 2001

NET.B1/10 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council Executive Board of 29 October 2001

NET.B1/11 Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 27 March 2002

NET.B1/12 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet of 27 March 2002 [extract]

NET.B1/13 Nottingham City Council Report of the NET Executive Director dated 24 April 2002

NET.B1/14 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council Executive Board of 24 April 2002

NET.B1/14A Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet Report dated 16 May 2002

NET.B1/14B Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet of 16 May 2002 [Extract]

NET.B1/15 Nottinghamshire County Council Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 25 September 2003

NET.B1/16 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council of 25 September 2003


201

NET.B1/24 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council Executive Board of 22 June 2004

NET.B1/25 Nottinghamshire County Council Report of the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 22 February 2007

NET.B1/26 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council of 22 February 2007

NET.B1/27 Nottingham City Council Report of the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Transport & Street Services dated 5 March 2007

NET.B1/28 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council of 5 March 2007

NET.B1/29 Nottinghamshire County Council Report of the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Environment dated 17 May 2007

NET.B1/30 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottinghamshire County Council of 17 May 2007

NET.B1/31 Nottingham City Council Report of the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Transport & Street Services dated 25 June 2007

NET.B1/32 Minutes of the Meeting of Nottingham City Council of 25 June 2007

NET.B2 Key NET Public Consultation Materials

NET.B2/1 2001 A tram network for Nottingham (234)

NET.B2/2 2001 Future tram routes (234)

NET.B2/3 2001 Consultation news: Clifton via Wilford

NET.B2/4 2001 Consultation news: Chilwell

NET.B2/5 2001 Consultation news: Beeston

NET.B2/6 2001 Route options consultation: Have your say - Beeston & Chilwell

NET.B2/6A NET Attitudes & Perceptions Study, Riley Consulting, September 2001

NET.B2/7 2002 Route options consultation: Have your say - Clifton

NET.B2/8 2002 Route options consultation: Have your say - West Bridgford

NET.B2/9 2002 Route options consultation: Have your say - Meadows

NET.B2/10 2002 Consultation news: Your questions answered Beeston & Chilwell

NET.B2/11 2002 Consultation news: Your questions answered Clifton

NET.B2/12 2002 Introducing Line Two: Clifton via Wilford

NET.B2/13 2002 Introducing Line Three: Chilwell via Beeston

NET.B2/13A NET Route Options Consultation Reports (Clifton Extension and Beeston/ Chilwell Extension), Keydata, April 2002

NET.B2/14 2003 Network Update: Chilwell via Beeston

NET.B2/15 2003 Network Update: Clifton via Wilford


202

NET.B2/16 2003 Press release: Beeston tram goes public in 2004 (about public exhibition in January 2004)

NET.B2/17 2003 NET Phase Two consultation: Chilwell, section between Toton Lane P&R and Broxtowe College

NET.B2/18 2003 NET Phase Two consultation: Clifton, section between Clifton P&R and Farnborough Road

NET.B2/19 2003 NET Phase Two consultation: Clifton, section between Wilford Toll Bridge and Nottingham Station

NET.B2/20 2003 NET Phase Two consultation: Clifton, section between Farnborough Road and Wilford Toll Bridge

NET.B2/21 2003 NET Phase Two consultation: Chilwell, section covering Beeston Town Centre and Chilwell Road/High Road

NET.B2/22 2004 NET Phase Two consultation: Chilwell, section between Abbey Street and Nottingham Station

NET.B2/23 2004 NET Phase Two consultation: Chilwell, section between Fletcher Road and Abbey Street

NET.B2/24 2004 Express issue 1

NET.B2/25 2004 Consultation on a proposed Financial Assistance Package, 27 August 2004

NET.B2/26 2004 NET Phase Two consultation: Nottingham Emmanuel School

NET.B2/27 2004 Consultation on a proposed Financial Assistance Package, 25 November 2004

NET.B2/27A Clifton Route and Beeston/ Chilwell Route Public Consultation Summary Reports, Keydata, May 2004



NET.B2/30 2007 NET Phase Two update: Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane


NET.B2/31A 2007 Express issue 5

NET.B2/32 NOP Consumer Survey – Clifton

NET.B2/33 NOP Consumer Survey – Beeston

NET.B2/34 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Chilwell via QMC and Beeston Route – Section between Fletcher Road and Abbey Street

NET.B2/35 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Clifton via Wilford Route – Section between Clifton P&R and Farnborough Road

NET.B2/36 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Clifton via Wilford Route – Section between Clifton P&R and Farnborough Road

NET.B2/37 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Chilwell via QMC and Beeston Route –


203

Section between Toton Lane P&R and Broxtowe College

NET.B2/38 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Chilwell via QMC and Beeston Route – Section covering Beeston Town Centre and Chilwell Road/High Road

NET.B2/39 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Clifton via Wilford Route – Section between Wilford Toll Bridge and Nottingham Station

NET.B2/40 Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Clifton via Wilford Route – Section between Farnborough Road and Wilford Toll Bridge

NET.B2/41 Number not used – document is a duplicate of NET.B2/34 (Nottingham Express Transit - Phase 2 Development: Proposed Chilwell via QMC and Beeston Route – Section between Fletcher Road and Abbey Street)

NET.B2/42 2006 NET Moving Forward

NET.B3 Nottingham City Council: The economic impact of Nottingham “Streamlined Interchange” and NET Phase Two. Roger Tym and Partners, October 2004

NET.B4 Major Scheme Appraisal Report (annotated), September 2003

NET.B4/1 Update to the Major Scheme Appraisal Report, February 2005

NET.B5 Outline Business Case (annotated), March 2006

NET.B6 Programme Entry Approval Letter, October 2006

NET.B7 Transport Assessment – September 2007

NET.B8 Flood Risk Assessment – August 2007

NET.B8/1 Flood Risk Assessment, December 2007

NET.B9 Mott MacDonald Station Construction Report

NET.B10 Technical Development Drawings, August 2007:

NET.B10/1 Chilwell via QMC and Beeston (Bound with NET.B10/2)

NET.B10/1A Stapleford Park and Ride (West), Drawing 223700/TD03

NET.B10/1B Beeston Centre/Styring Street Drawing 223700/TD12

NET.B10/1C Alternative Beeston Centre/Styring Street Drawing 223700/TD12Alt

NET.B10/2 Clifton via Wilford (Bound with NET.B10/1)

NET.B10/2A Corrected front sheet for NET.B10/2

NET.B10/2B Farnborough Road/Southchurch Drive, Drawing 223700/TD39

NET.B10/2C Southchurch Drive, Drawing 223700/TD42

NET.B10/2D Southchurch Drive/Farnborough Road, Drawing 223700/TD43

NET.B11 Mott MacDonald Report 223700/16 re White Hart Junction layout

NET.B12 Workplace Parking Levy documentation:


204

NET.B12/1 Draft Business Case, 17 July 2007

NET.B12/2 Business Consultation leaflet, July 2007

NET.B12/3 Public Consultation leaflet, July 2007

NET.B13 Rushcliffe Borough Council Reports and Resolutions:

NET.B13/1 Rushcliffe Borough Council Cabinet Report of the Borough Development Officer dated 9 April 2002

NET.B13/2 Extract from the Minutes of the Meeting of Rushcliffe Borough Council Cabinet of 9 April 2002

NET.B13/3 Rushcliffe Borough Council Cabinet Report of the Executive Management Team dated 8 January 2004

NET.B13/4 Minutes of the Meeting of Rushcliffe Borough Council Cabinet of 8 January 2004

NET.B13/5 Rushcliffe Borough Council Report of the Development Framework Manager dated 28 June 2007

NETB13/6 Minutes of the Meeting of Rushcliffe Borough Council of 28 June 2007

NET.B14 Broxtowe Borough Council Reports and Resolutions:

NET.B14/1 Minutes of the Meeting of Broxtowe Borough Council of 28 April 2004

NET.B14/2 Broxtowe Borough Council Cabinet Report of the Acting Director of Technical and Works Services and Director of Planning and Community Development of 29 April 2004

NET.B14/3 Minutes of the Meeting of Broxtowe Borough Council Cabinet of 29 April 2004

NET.B14/4 Broxtowe Borough Council Report dated 20 July 2004

NET.B14/5 Minutes of the Meeting of Broxtowe Borough Council Cabinet of 20 July 2004

NET.B14/6 Broxtowe Borough Council Report dated 27 June 2007

NET.B14/7 Minutes of the Meeting of Broxtowe Borough Council of 27 June 2007 (draft subject to approval by the Council)

NET.B14/8 Joint report of the Director of Planning and Community Development, the Director of Technical and Works Services and the Director of Housing Health and Leisure dated 10 October 2007

NET.B15 Review of NET Extension Study – Final Report, GIBB, January 2001

NET.B16 Appraisal of Additional Route Extensions Final Report, Gibb, March 2001

NET.B17 Supplementary Transport Assessment, November 2007

NET.B18 Attenborough Route Options: Economic Appraisal, MVA, 3 October 2002

NET.B19 Beeston and Chilwell Route Alternative- Attenborough Route, ERM

NET.B20 Extracts of Attenborough Route Corridor Option, Mott MacDonald, October 2002

NET.B21 Extracts of Nottingham Express Transit Phase 2 Project Management Plan, March 2007


205

NET.B22

NET.B22/1 Development Sites along NET Line One

NET.B22/2 Map- Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas in the City Centre

NET.B23 A52 Bardills Roundabout Signalisation Plan

NET.B24 Chilwell Road Construction Strategy, Mott MacDonald, November 2007

NET.B25 Appeal decision regarding 34 Gregory Street, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2LT, 10 October 2005

NET.B26 Workplace Parking Levy Executive Board Report, 18 December 2007


206

Category C

Documents

National, Regional and Local Planning and Transport Reports, Policies and

Guidance

National

NET.C1 DfT Guidance on Value for Money, 25 January 2006

NET.C2 DfT Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 2.5, The Appraisal Process

NET.C3 Commission for Integrated Transport Guidance, Affordable Mass Transit, September 2005

NET.C4 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, February 2005

NET.C5 Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts, March 2001

NET.C6 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, November 2006

NET.C7 Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, March 2005

NET.C8 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, 2005

NET.C9 Extract of Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, March 2001

NET.C10 Extract of Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, September 1994

NET.C10/1 Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, September 1994

NET.C11 Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning, 2001

NET.C12 Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, July 2002

NET.C13 Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise, September 1994

NET.C14 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, December 2006

NET.C15 Extracts of DfT White Paper, The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030, July 2004

NET.C16 Extracts of DfT White Paper: A New Deal for Transport, 1998

NET.C17 House of Commons Transport Committee Tenth Report of Session 2004-05, Integrated Transport: The Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom, Volume 1 Report, HC 378-1 published on 3 April 2005.

NET.C17/1 House of Commons Transport Committee Third Special Report of Session 2005-06, Integrated Transport: the Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom: Government Response to the Committee's 10th Report of Session 2004–05, HC 526 published on 18 October 2005.

NET.C18 Improving Public Transport in England through Light Rail, Report by The Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 518 Session 2003-2004: 23 April 2004

NET.C18/1 House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts Eleventh Report of Session 2004-05, Improving Public Transport in England through Light Rail, HC 440 published on 5 April 2005 [includes formal evidence and minutes]

Regional

NET.C19 ‘A Flourishing Region’ Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006 – 2020


207

NET.C20 Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8), 2005

NET.C21 Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan, Written Statement and Explanatory Memorandum, Adopted February 2006

NET.C22 Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham 2006/7 to 2010/11 Final Plan, March 2006

NET.C23 Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan Delivery Report 2006

NET.C24 Economic Costs of Congestion in the East Midlands, Technical Report 2, 15 June 2007

NET.C25 Greater Nottingham Bus Strategy, Nottingham City Council (2006) March.

NET.C26 Nottinghamshire County Cycling Strategy 2006/7 – 2010/2011.

NET.C27 The Greater Nottingham Economic Review, May 2007

Local

NET.C28 City of Nottingham Local Plan and Proposals Map, Adopted November 2005

NET.C29 Southside Regeneration Interim Planning Guidance, July 2003

NET.C30 Draft Meadows and Southside Area Action Plan, November 2006

NET.C31 Extracts (Design Statement, February 2006) from Nottingham Station Masterplan planning application dated 10 April 2006

NET.C32 Extracts from the M1 and A453 Multi Modal Studies, dated April 2002 and July 2002 respectively

NET.C33 Highways Agency A453 Public Consultation Documents, May 2007

NET.C34 Rushcliffe Borough Non-statutory Replacement Local Plan and Proposals Map, adopted December 2006

NET.C35 Broxtowe Borough Local Plan and Proposals Map, adopted September 2004

NET.C36

NET.C36/1 Beeston Town Centre Area Action Plan, Preferred Options Report February 2007

NET.C36/2 Beeston Town Centre Plan, Consultation on Preferred Options

NET.C36/3 Beeston Town Centre Plan, Comments Form

Additional

NET.C37 What Light Rail Can Do For Cities, Steer Davies Gleave, February 2005

NET.C38 Bus and Light Rail Statistics GB: July – September 2005, DfT

NET.C39 Draft Guidance for Local Authority Promoters Considering Light Rail Scheme, DfT, December 2006

NET.C40 Transport Statistics Great Britain 2005, 31st Edition, DfT, October 2005

NET.C41 The English Indices of Deprivation 2004 (revised), ODPM


208

NET.C42 Extracts from Better Public Building, CABE, 2006

NET.C43 European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to decide, European Commission, 2001

NET.C44 Draft East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS8)

NET.C45 Integrated Regional Strategy, East Midlands Regional Assembly, January 2005

NET.C46 Extract from Three Cities and Counties New Growth Points Bid, October 2006

NET.C47 East Midlands Regional Funding Allocation Advice, East Midlands Regional Assembly, January 2006

NET.C48 Number not used

NET.C49 Extract from Accessibility of Employment and Training Opportunities in Greater Nottingham, One Nottingham, July 2007

NET.C50 The Nottinghamshire Air Quality Strategy – A Framework for Action, October 2001

NET.C51 Social Need in Nottinghamshire, 2004

NET.C52 Extract from NET 2005 Customer Satisfaction Survey

NET.C53 Nottingham Station Heritage Report, BDP, February 2006

NET.C54 Station Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, Consultation Draft: October 2007

NET.C55 Office of Rail Regulation Guidance on Tramways: November 2006

NET.C56 Making it Happen: Urban renaissance and prosperity in our Core Cities- A Tale of Eight Cities, ODPM, April 2004

NET.C57 Highfields Park Entry Boundary Map

NET.C58 Trent Basin Development

NET.C59 Proposed Development of Station House, Crocus Street, 5 December 2007

NET.C60 Wilford Village Conservation Area Entry and Map

NET.C61 Government Office for the East Midlands Direction to Broxtowe Borough Council

NET.C62 Government Office for the East Midlands Direction to Rushcliffe Borough Council

NET.C63 Application for planning permission for Bartons development

NET.C64/1 Bus and Tram Journey Planner for Greater Nottingham

NET.C64/2 Bus and Tram Services, March 2007

NET.C65 Report on a field study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance, DfT, December 1992

NET.C66 Extracts from Crossrail Technical Report: Assessment of Noise and Vibration Impacts, February 2005

NET.C67 Understanding the travel needs, behaviour and aspirations of people in later life, DfT, 2007


209

NET.C68 TUBA Guidance, Mott MacDonald, June 2004

Category D

Documents

Legal Materials and Guidance

Transport and Works Act 1992 and Related Legislation

NET.D1 Transport and Works Act 1992, Part I

NET.D2 Section 239, Local Government Act 1972

NET.D3 Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004, S.I. 2004/2018

NET.D4 The Transport and Works (Application and Objections Procedures) England and Wales Rules 2006, S.I. 2006/1466

NET.D5 Section 90(2A) Town and Country Planning Act 1990

NET.D6 Section 19 Acquisition of Land Act 1981

NET.D7 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

NET.D8 Transport and Works Applications (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Ancient Monuments Procedure) Regulations 1992, S.I. 1992/3138

NET.D9 Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996, S.I. 1996/428 (as amended)

NET.D10 Extracts of ODPM Circular 06/04: Compulsory Purchase and The Crichel Down Rules

Additional Documents

NET.D11 London Borough of Bexley and (1) The Secretary of State for the Environments Transport and the Regions (2) Sainsburys’ Supermarkets Limited

Sainsburys’ Supermarkets Limited and (1) The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2) London Borough of Bexley

[2001] EWHC Admin 232

NET.D12 Chesterfield Properties PLC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1998) 76 P. & C.R.

NET.D13 R v Secretary of State for Transport and others, ex parte de Rothschild and another [1989] 1 ALL ER 933

NET.D14 R. v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex p. Milne [2001] Env. L.R. 22

NET.D15 Harrow London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and another [1990] 2 PLR 63

NET.D16 Brian Atkinson and The Secretary of State for Transport and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority [2006] EWHC 995 (Admin)

NET.D16/1 Bryan Atkinson v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] EWCA Civ 1208

NET.D17 Land Compensation Act 1973, Extracts


210

NET.D18 Andrews v Reading Borough Council [2005] EWHC 256 (QB)

NET.D19 (1) First Secretary of State (2) West End Green (Properties) Limited -and- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited

NET.D20 Responsibility for Land Drainage

Category P

Documents

Promoters’ Proofs of Evidence

NET.P1/A Chris Deas: Main Proof

NET.P1/B Chris Deas: Appendices

NET.P1/C Chris Deas: Summary Proof

NET.P1/D Responses of Chris Deas to Inspector’s questions

NET.P1/E Correction of Chris Deas’ Main Proof

NET.P1/F NET Phase Two Communications and Public Liaison During Construction

NET.P1/G Promoters’ Note to the Inquiry on the transport gap satisfied by high quality bus alternative to NET Phase Two. Supplementary to question 19 of NET P1/E (Inspector’s Questions of Clarification)

NET.P1/H Proposed NET Financial Assistance Package – Consultation with Chilwell High Road Businesses

NET.P1/I Note on tram capacity, 5 December 2007

NET.P1/J Net Line One – Electrical Isolations/Power Failures Affecting Service, 18 December 2007

NET.P1/K Response to the Inspector’s Questions of Clarification INQ/6 Q.130

NET.P1/L Sheltered Accommodation in Beeston, 20 December 2007

NET.P2/A Callum Gibson: Main Proof

NET.P2/B Callum Gibson: Appendices

NET.P2/C Callum Gibson: Summary Proof

NET.P2/D Responses of Callum Gibson to Inspector’s questions

NET.P2/E Examples of Knee-High Fencing

NET.P2/F Fletcher Road/Lower Road – Possible alternative layout

NET.P2/G Art Centre Route Options

NET.P2/H Clifton via Wilford – Route (Avoiding Queens Walk), 5 December 2007

NET.P2/I Castle College, Chilwell – NET Line One, Similar tram/other vehicle diverge arrangements

NET.P2/J Nottingham Station Asymmetric Cable Stay Options

NET.P2/K Note on Wilford Lane Maintenance Area


211

NET.P2/L Note on Wilford Embankment Flood Defence

NET.P2/M Chilwell Road Construction Note

NET.P2/N Note on contractor’s Parking, 18 December 2007

NET.P2/O Croydon Tramlink – Speeds Through Lloyd Park

NET.P3/A David Carter: Main Proof

NET.P3/B Not used

NET.P3/C David Carter: Summary Proof

NET.P3/D Responses of David Carter to Inspector’s questions

NET.P3/E Evidence of David Carter: Forecasting and Appraisal

NET.P3/F Inspectors’ Question on an A52 Alternative Route

NET.P3/G Clarification of Construction Cost Estimates over time: Reworking of Nick Collard and Ryaan Abdul’s tables in section 4 of their proof providing direct comparisons using cost units

NET.P3/H Response to Inspector’s Question on Disaggregation of the NET Phase Two economic appraisal to identify costs, demand and benefits of the individual Phase Two route extensions

NET.P3/I Clarification of NET Phase Two operating cost efficiencies, 18 December 2007

NET.P3/J Promoters’ Note on Capacity of the Proposed Toton Lane Park and Ride Site

NET.P4/A Dominic Walley: Main Proof

NET.P4/B Dominic Walley: Appendices

NET.P4/C Dominic Walley: Summary Proof

NET.P4/D Responses of Dominic Walley to Inspector’s questions

NET.P4/E Inquiry Note in relation to the implications of the proposed Workplace Parking Levy for the employment impacts of NET Phase Two

NET.P4/F Changes in Employment and Unemployment Since The Opening of NET Line One, 20 December 2007

NET.P5/A Graham Woodbury: Main Proof

NET.P5/B Graham Woodbury: Appendices

NET.P5/C Graham Woodbury: Summary Proof

NET.P5/D Graham Woodbury: Supplementary Proof

NET.P5/E Responses of Graham Woodbury to Inspector’s questions

NET.P5/F Responses of Graham Woodbury to Inspector’s questions in relation to the change in queuing at the Station Road/Queens Road off-line junction between the Do Minimum (No Tram) and Do Something (with Tram) situation


212

NET.P5/G Traffic Impact of NET upon new Lidl Store, Beeston (OBJ/1044 Mr Eden for Beeston Parish Church)

NET.P5/H Plan indicating School Accesses in the vicinity of Toton Lane Park & Ride Site

NET.P5/I Note on support from Local Highway and Traffic Authorities

NET.P5/J Traffic changes at A52 Bardills junction in relation to Park & Ride operation

NET.P6/A Ian Gilder: Main Proof

NET.P6/B Ian Gilder: Appendices

NET.P6/C Ian Gilder: Summary Proof

NET.P6/D Ian Gilder: Supplementary Proof

NET.P6/D Ian Gilder: Supplementary Proof

NET.P6/E Responses of Ian Gilder to Inspector’s questions

NET.P6/F Responses to Information Requested by Mr Novitsky on 6 November 2007

NET.P6/G Examples of Tramways Associated with Street Trams and Avenues

NET.P6/H Additional Planning Condition: Operational Noise

NET.P6/I Tram, Car and Bus Lifecycle Carbon Emissions Analysis, 28 November 2007

NET.P6/J Note to the Inquiry on the East Midlands Regional Plan Panel Report, 5 December 2007

NET.P6/K Proposed Park and Ride site at Clifton, 6 December 2007

NET.P6/L Planning Application for Nottingham Station ‘Masterplan’, 4 December 2007

NET.P6/M Planning Condition Relating to Residential Development at Neville Sadler Court

NET.P6/N Assessment of Levels of Deprivation within the NET Phase Two Corridor

NET.P6/N1 Revised Deprivation Note

NET.P6/O Further Revisions to Draft Planning Conditions, 11 December 2007

NET.P6/P Further Revisions to Draft Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent Conditions

NET.P6/P1 Revised P6/P

NET.P6/Q Further Revisions to Draft Planning Conditions, 20 December 2007

NET.P6/R Further Revisions to Draft Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Consent Conditions, 17 December 2007

NET.P6/S Response to Mr Britton’s Supplementary Proof Appendix A (obj/674) Suggesting Changes to Planning Conditions and Noise and Vibration Policy

NET.P6/T Note on Water Voles, 19 December 2007

NET.P6/U Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures


213

NET.P6/V Final Draft of Proposed Planning Conditions

NET.P7/A Steve Mitchell: Main Proof

NET.P7/B Steve Mitchell: Appendices

NET.P7/C Steve Mitchell: Summary Proof

NET.P7/D Responses of Steve Mitchell to Inspector’s questions

NET.P7/E Inquiry Note in relation to example noise barriers

NET.P7/F Inquiry Note in relation to the effect of Phase Two trams on times at Wilkinson Street Depot, 21 November 2007

NET.P7/G Note in relation to tight bends and wheel squeal

NET.P7/H Clifton and Chilwell Extensions Noise and Vibration Policy (December 2007)

NET.P7/I Note on the relevance of Andrews v Reading Borough Council on the objection of Lloyd Wildish [OBJ/969], 20 December 2007

NET.P8 Objection Response Proof

NET.P9 Response to Inspector’s Questions of Clarification INQ/6 on 13 November 2007

Category R

Documents

Promoters’ Responses to Objectors and Supporters

NET.R1/1 Files of correspondence with Objectors 1 – 50
















214








NET.R1/23 List of objectors with whom negotiations are ongoing

NET.R1/24 Promoters’ Response to Objections, 30 November 2007. Revised 5 December 2007

NET.R1/25

NET.R1/25a Issues Raised in Objections

NET.R1/25b Listing of Bespoke Responses

NET.R1/26 Note on withdrawn objections (includes updated figures on the number of supporters and representations) 21 December 2007

NET.R2 Undertaking to Environment Agency dated 25 October 2007

NET.R3 Promoters’ Note to the Inquiry in relation to the statement of supporting evidence from Mr A Hirst dated 6 November

NET.R3/1 Promoters’ Further Consideration of Mr A R Hirst’s Concern over the Promoters’ Initial Note to the Inquiry in relation to the Statement of Supporting Evidence

NET.R4 Promoters’ Note to the Inquiry in relation to the statement of supporting evidence from Beeston and Chilwell for Integrated Transport dated 6 November

NET.R5 Promoters’ Note to the Inquiry in relation to the statement of supporting evidence from Geoffrey Bennett, Chair, CW Yes! Group dated 6 November

NET.R6 Response to Fletcher Road / Lower Road concerns

NET.R7 Rebuttal of Proofs of Evidence of BCBRA, OBJ/584

NET.R7/1 Objection location plan for BCBRA

NET.R8 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Betty Cliffe, OBJ/628

NET.R8/1 Objection location plan for Betty Cliffe

NET.R9 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Cllr Brandon Bravo, OBJ/929

NET.R9/1 Objection location plan for Cllr Brandon Bravo

NET.R10 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Cllr Thomas Pettengell (OBJ/551) and Cllr Jackson (OBJ/711)


215

NET.R10/1 Objection location plan for Cllr Thomas Pettengell

NET.R10/2 Objection location plan for Cllr Jackson

NET.R11 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr T C Moxon, OBJ/331

NET.R11/1 Objection location plan for Mr T C Moxon

NET.R12 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of P&S Bedding, OBJ/23

NET.R12/1 Objection location plan for P & S Bedding

NET.R13 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Blacklock Carpets, OBJ/227

NET.R13/1 Objection location plan for Blacklock Carpets

NET.R14 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr and Mrs R & J Britton, OBJ/870

NET.R14/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs R & J Britton

NET.R14/2 Promoters’ Rebuttal Proof of Evidence in relation to Mr Richard Britton (NET.R14); Note of Clarification

NET.R15 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr J Crouch, OBJ/677

NET.R15/1 Objection location plan for Mr J Crouch

NET.R16 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr J B White, OBJ/109

NET.R16/1 Objection location plan for Mr J B White

NET.R17 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr Ken Mafham on behalf of Mrs L A Ismay, OBJ/507

NET.R17/1 Objection location plan for Mrs L A Ismay

NET.R18 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mrs Kath McGann of Focus Futures for Sandby Court, OBJ/41

NET.R18/1 Objection location plan for Mrs K McGann of Focus Features for Sandby Court

NET.R19 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of M Cassidy, OBJ/452

NET.R19/1 Objection location plan for M Cassidy

NET.R20 Number not used

NET.R21 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Ms J E Rees, OBJ/655

NET.R21/1 Objection location plan for Ms J E Rees

NET.R21/2 Rebuttal of further evidence of Ms J E Rees

NET.R22 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of P Richmond, OBJ/736

NET.R22/1 Objection location plan for P Richmond

NET.R23 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of B Stafford, OBJ/311


216

NET.R23/1 Objection location plan for B Stafford

NET.R24 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr R Fletcher, OBJ/245

NET.R24/1 Objection location plan for Mr R Fletcher

NET.R25 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr R Yarwood, OBJ/678

NET.R25/1 Objection location plan for Mr R Yarwood

NET.R26 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr C Page, OBJ/100

NET.R26/1 Objection location plan for Mr C Page

NET.R26/2 Alternative Alignment Response – Mr Page (OBJ/100)

NET.R27 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of A M Brown, OBJ/757

NET.R27/1 Objection location plan for A M Brown

NET.R28 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence of Mr and Mrs Singh, OBJ/1109

NET.R28/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs Singh

NET.R28/2 Promoters’ letter to Mr and Mrs Singh, 17 October 2007

NET.R28/3 Statement by Colin R Mann in relation to the objection of Mr and Mrs G K Singh, OBJ/1109

NET.R29 Photographs of Inham Nook Recreational Ground

NET.R30 Photographs of Cator Lane Recreational Ground

NET.R31 Number not Used

NET.R32 Rebuttal of proof of Evidence of Daniel Lawrence, OBJ/317

NET.R32/1 Objection location plan for Daniel Lawrence

NET.R32/2 Promoters’ Note to the Inquiry on car sharing opportunities in Nottingham

NET.R33 Rebuttal of proof of Veronica M. Boorman, OBJ/537

NET.R33/1 Objection location plan for Veronica M Boorman

NET.R34 Rebuttal of proof of Nick Palmer MP, OBJ/620

NET.R34/1 Objection location plan for Nick Palmer MP

NET.R35 Rebuttal of proof of Mary Stanley, OBJ/658

NET.R35/1 Objection location plan for Mary Stanley

NET.R36 Rebuttal of proofs of Professor Colin Bates (OBJ/750) and Margaret Bates (OBJ/761)

NET.R36/1 Broxtowe Borough Council Notice of Refusal under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 12 October 2004

NET.R36/2 Objection location plan for Professor Colin Bates and Margaret Bates


217

NET.R37 Rebuttal of proofs of M Davies (OBJ/841) and CD Davies (OBJ/987)

NET.R37/1 Objection location plan for M Davies and CD Davies

NET.R38 Rebuttal of proof of Mrs S Trench, OBJ/538

NET.R38/1 Objection location plan for Mrs S Trench

NET.R39 Rebuttal of proof of Stepping Out, OBJ/123

NET.R39/1 Objection location plan for Mr J Andrews, Stepping Out

NET.R40 Rebuttal of proof of Mrs Parker, OBJ/127

NET.R40/1 Objection location plan for Mrs Parker

NET.R41 Rebuttal of proof of Mr and Mrs Frier, OBJ/384

NET.R41/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs Frier

NET.R42 Promoters’ Rebuttal Proof of Evidence in relation to the objections of Mr A Barton and Dr J Barton appearing for themselves and Mr E P Barton and Mrs J Barton, OBJ/527, 753, 754 and 874

NET.R43 Promoters’ Rebuttal Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr Clinton Bourke submitted on behalf of Wheatcroft Land Limited, OBJ/01

NET.R43/1 Promoters’ Supplementary Rebuttal Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr Clinton Bourke submitted on behalf of Wheatcroft Land Limited, OBJ/01

NET.R43/2 Objection location plan for Mr Bourke

NET.R44 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of R & M Swaine Limited, OBJ/1108

NET.R45 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr Ian Eden submitted on behalf of Beeston Parish Church, OBJ/1044

NET.R45/1 Objection location plan for Mr Eden

NET.R46 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection on behalf of Wilkinson Hardware Stores, OBJ/964

NET.R46/1 Beeston Town Centre Photo Montages and Plans

NET.R47 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Broxtowe Borough Council, OBJ/326

NET.R47/1 3rd Draft of Agreement with Broxtowe Borough Council

NET.R48 Promoters’ Response to Evidence of Mr Simpson MP (SUPP/53) East Drive Alternative Route

NET.R49 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Dr Ross Coles, OBJ/416

NET.R49/1 Objection location plan for Dr Ross Coles

NET.R50 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection on behalf of BCT


218

NET.R50/1 Objection location plan for BCT

NET.R51 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mrs S Andrews, OBJ/309

NET.R51/1 Objection location plan for Mr s Andrews

NET.R52 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Cllrs Lally, OBJ/115

NET.R52/1 Objection location plan for Cllrs Lally

NET.R53 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr and Mrs Cooke for Neville Sadler Court, OBJ/574

NET.R53/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs Cooke

NET.R54 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr L Wildish, OBJ/969

NET.R55 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr K S Long, OBJ/126

NET.R55/1 Objection location plan for Mr K S Long

NET.R56 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr and Mrs Morris, OBJ/508

NET.R56/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs Morris

NET.R57 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr Kirk, OBJ/108

NET.R57/1 Objection location plan for Mr Kirk

NET.R58 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Broxtowe Green Party, OBJ/1020

NET.R58/1 Green Party News, Spring 2007

NET.R58/2 National Rail Enquiries Live Departures Board – Beeston Station

NET.R58/3 Objection location plan for Broxtowe Green Party

NET.R59 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Cllr Radulovic, OBJ,894

NET.R60 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Cllr Briggs, OBJ/1076

NET.R61 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr and Mrs Foxley, OBJ/45

NET.R61/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs Foxley

NET.R62 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr Andrew Harry Day, OBJ/889

NET.R63 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Oxford Hotels and Inns Management Limited, OBJ/912

NET.R63/1 Objection location plan for Oxford Hotels and Inns Management Limited


219

NET.R64 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of DSL, OBJ/928

NET.R64/1 Objection location plan for Deborah Services Limited

NET.R65 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Wilford Community Group, OBJ/831

NET.R65/1 Objection location plan for Wilford Community Group

NET.R66 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of W J Furse Limited, OBJ/927

NET.R66/1 Objection location plan for W J Furse Limited

NET.R67 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr Justin Baldry, OBJ/26

NET.R67/1 Objection location plan for Mr Baldry

NET.R68 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr R Steel, OBJ/1022, NMRC, OBJ/1037 and TBRC, OBJ/1038

NET.R68/1 Promoters’ Rebuttal of further evidence submitted by Mr R Steel, OBJs 1022, 1037 & 1038

NET.R68/2 Objection location plan for Mr Steel

NET.R69 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr N Dunn, OBJ/926

NET.R69/1 Objection location plan for Mr Dunn

NET.R70 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Tudor House Osteopathic Clinic, OBJ/338

NET.R70/1 Objection location plan for Tudor House Osteopathic Clinic

NET.R71 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Environment Not Trams, OBJ/627

NET.R71/1 Letter from Richard Baker to Derek Twigg MP, 12 December 2005

NET.R71/2 Patronage information for Wilford Lane and Compton Acres Tram Stops, Email from Nazia Tanveer to Gordon Wheeler, 4 December 2007

NET.R71/3 Map; Schools within 800m of NET stops

NET.R71/4 Documents requested by Jim Silver, ENT (OBJ/627)

NET.R71/5 Objection location plans (3) for ENT

NET.R72 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of East Midlands Train, OBJ/984

NET.R72/1 Agreement with East Midlands Train Limited

NET.R73 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Dr C Grant, OBJ/06

NET.R73/1 Objection location plan for Dr C Grant

NET.R74 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr G Wood, OBJ/360


220

NET.R74/1 Objection location plan for Mr Wood

NET.R75 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr A Phillips, OBJ/479

NET.R75/1 Objection location plan for Mr Phillips

NET.R76 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objections of Mr N W Collard (OBJ/662) and Mr R Abdul (OBJ/226)

NET.R76/1 Supplementary rebuttal to Mr Collard and Mr Abdul

NET.R76/2 Objection location plans for Mr Collard and Mr Abdul

NET.R77 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mrs Wheeler, OBJ/94

NET.R78 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr and Mrs Espinasse, OBJ/500

NET.R78/1 Objection location plan for Mr and Mrs Espinasse

NET.R79 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Rushcliffe Borough Council, OBJ/1088

NET.R79/1 Workplace Parking Levy Public Examination, Extracts of Transcript dated 4 October 2007

NET.R79/2 Note on Multi-Modal Study, A453 Nottingham to M1 Junction 24 [NET.C32]

NET.R80 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of English Heritage, GOEM/08

NET.R80/1 Nottingham Station Online Feasibility Report, Mott MacDonald, December 2004

NET.R80/2 Extracts from Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 1

NET.R80/3 Listed Building Consent, Wollaton Hall, Application No. 05/00513/LNLIS

NET.R80/4 Bird’s Eye Photographs

NET.R81 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Kerry Daykin, OBJ/1081

NET.R82 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mr A W Baxendale, OBJ/1115

NET.R83 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the Statement of Case and Questions of Clarification submitted by June Perry, OBJ/641

NET.R83/1 Queens Walk: Status as Highway

NET.R83/2 Clifton via Wilford Route – Segregation from highway traffic

NET.R84 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, OBJ/887

NET.R84/1 Objection location plan for Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

NET.R84/1 Letter of Support from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, 13 December 2007


221

NET.R85 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Pedals, OBJ/873

NET.R86 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Ms Milligan, OBJ/876

NET.R86/1 Objection location plan for Ms Milligan

NET.R87 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of J H Plowright Limited, OBJ/989

NET.R87/1 Email from Bentons re Plowright land and permanent acquisition

NET.R88 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Mrs Mason, OBJ/603

NET.R89 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Gotham Parish Council, OBJ/379

NET.R90 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Barton in Fabis Parish Council, OBJ/561

NET.R91 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Thrumpton Parish Meeting, OBJ/50

NET.R92 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, OBJ/1033

NET.R93 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of I H Moore & Company (Holdings) Limited, OBJ/746

NET.R94 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Liverpool Victoria Friendly Limited, OBJ/1021

NET.R94/1 Objection location plan for Liverpool Victoria Friendly Limited

NET.R95 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of The Open Spaces Society and The Ramblers, OBJ/748

NET.R96 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Games Workshop Limited, OBJ/714

NET.R96/1 Objection location plan for Games Workshop Limited

NET.R97 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of the Co-Operative Group, OBJ/893

NET.R98 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Homebase Limited, OBJ/897

NET.R98/1 Objection location plan for Homebase Limited

NET.R99 Promoters’ Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence in relation to the objection of Trillium (Prime) & DWP, OBJ/730

NET.R99/1 Objection location plan for Trillium (Prime) & DWP

NET.R100 Agreement with Royal Mail Group Limited and Post Office Limited


222

APPENDIX C

DRAFT PLANNING CONDITIONS

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

THE NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM ORDER 200[8]

DRAFT/CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE DIRECTION AS TO DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION DATED [ 200[8] [FINAL REVISIONS 20 DECEMBER 2007]

DEFINITIONS

In these conditions, unless the context otherwise requires—

“building” means any structure or erection, or any permanent gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure, above the surface of the ground, but does not include any plant or machinery; “the development” means the works authorised by the Order; “the Environmental Statement” means the documents of that description submitted with the application for the Order on 26 April 2007; “the local planning authority” means Nottingham City Council in relation to any part of the development within its area, Broxtowe Borough Council in relation to any part of the development within its area and Rushcliffe Borough Council in relation to any part of the development within its area; “NET Line One” means the tramway system authorised by, and constructed and operated under the powers contained in the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act 1994; “the Noise and Vibration Policy” means the noise and vibration policy relating to the operation of the development, submitted to the Inquiry as NET.P7/H; “the Order” means The Nottingham Express Transit System Order 2008; “part” means a defined part, section or stage of the development, the extent of which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; “the planning direction drawings” means the drawings of that description submitted with the application for the Order on 26 April 2007, as amended by public inquiry document NET.A20/3; “the relevant limits” means the limits within which, under the deemed planning permission to which these conditions relate, the development may be carried out;


223

“retained tree” means an existing tree within the relevant limits other than a tree identified for removal in accordance with the details approved under Condition 7 below; “the Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures” means the public inquiry document, NET.P6/U; and “the Urban and Landscape Design Statement” means the Urban and Landscape Design Statement for Nottingham Express Transit (NET) Phase Two Development, comprising Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement.

and references to “numbered works” are references to the Works set out in Schedule 1 to the Order.

Time limits

1. The development shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date that the Order comes into

force.

Reason: To ensure that the development is commenced within a reasonable period of time.

Contaminated land

2. No part of the development shall be commenced until a scheme to deal with contamination of any land likely to cause significant harm to persons, pollution of controlled waters or the environment, and being within the relevant limits and the part concerned, has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment report which shall identify the extent of any such contamination and the remediation measures to be taken to render the land fit for the intended purpose, together with a management plan setting out any long term measures with respect to contaminants remaining on the site.

The remediation measures identified in any scheme so approved shall be carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the Code of Construction Practice, which is Annex C to the Environmental Statement, before the part of the development to which the scheme relates has been commenced, or within such other period as the local planning authority may agree.

Reason: To ensure that any necessary site investigation and remedial action is undertaken in relation to contaminated land.

Detailed design approval

3 No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the layout, scale and external appearance of the following elements of the development within that part have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority:

each of the tram stops; any bridges or viaducts; any permanent fences, walls or other barriers (including bunds); property boundary treatments, where permanently altered;


224

poles, brackets and all other equipment supporting the overhead line equipment; electricity sub-stations, transformers and ancillary equipment; lighting equipment; any terracing, cuttings, embankments or other earth works; the Park and Ride sites;

hard surfaced areas to be used by vehicles or pedestrians; any other ancillary buildings or structures; and full details of how any building, structure or site shall be restored or made good where it adjoins a building

or structure which is to be demolished or altered.

Reason: To enable reasonable and proper control to be exercised over aspects of the details of the development.

Design statement

4. Unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority, the development shall be designed and

constructed substantially in accordance with Sections One and Two of the Urban and Landscape Design Statement and with due regard to Sections Three and Four of the Urban and Landscape Design Statement.

Reason: To ensure high quality design and to safeguard amenity, especially in conservation areas.

Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation

5. Before any landscaping or related works commence in any part of the development, a landscaping scheme

shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This shall include details of: (a.) proposed finished ground levels and any ditches, drains and other water areas to be created; (b.) location, species, plant sizes and densities for any proposed planting; (c.) existing plant material to be translocated from other locations within the relevant limits;. (d.) cultivation, soils and composts to be imported and any other relevant operations to ensure plant

establishment; and (e.) the management regimes to be implemented to ensure that created habitats are maintained as intended.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate landscaping and ecological mitigation is provided..

Landscaping Maintenance

6. Any tree or shrub planted as part of an approved landscaping scheme that, within a period of five years

after planting, is removed, dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously


225

damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the first available planting season with a specimen of the same species and size as that originally planted, unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that landscaping is properly maintained.

Tree survey

7. Before any works that may affect trees commence in any part of the development, the following

details in relation to all trees within the relevant limits in that part likely to be affected, having a stem diameter of 100mm or greater, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority:

their location, species, girth, stem diameter, crown spread, assessment of condition and whether they are covered by any tree preservation order;

existing and proposed ground levels at the base of retained trees where nearby changes of level or

excavations are proposed; the trees to be removed or pruned, looped or topped in conjunction with the proposed development clearly

marked on a plan; and

all fencing, hoardings or other means of protecting retained trees during the construction period.

Where practicable, the fencing and hoardings shall be erected at the distances from each tree to be retained as set out in BS5837: 2005 ‘Trees in relation to Construction’. All protection measures shall be implemented and remain in place throughout the construction period of that part of the development. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to ensure adequate protection of existing trees.

Retained trees

8. Until the expiration of 5 years from the commencement of operation of the tramway authorised

by the Order no retained tree shall be felled, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped, save to the extent approved under Condition 7, without the approval of the local planning authority. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or dies within that same period, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

Bat Check Survey

9. No development shall take place until the results of a survey and monitoring to establish the presence or otherwise of bats in any trees or structures to be removed or altered externally within the relevant limits, together with any programme of mitigation measures, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Any such survey, monitoring or mitigation measures shall be undertaken and prepared in consultation with English Nature and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.


226

Reason: To ensure adequate mitigation is provided for bats.

Prevention of water pollution

10. In carrying out the development, all reasonable steps shall be taken to prevent the pollution of watercourses

and groundwater, including by the following methods:—

(a) no contaminated material, or polluting construction or demolition material or refuse shall be deposited within the relevant limits;

(b) no rainwater contaminated with silt or soil from ground disturbed during construction works

shall be permitted to drain to any surface watercourse or water sewer without sufficient prior settlement;

(c) no foul drainage or contaminated surface water run-off shall be discharged into any bore-hole,

well, spring soak-away or watercourse, including dry ditches connected to a watercourse; (d) all surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas, new roadways and hardstandings for

vehicles comprised in the development shall be passed through an oil interceptor or other appropriate device before being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soak-away system; and

(e) prior approval of the construction details of any storage facilities for oils, fuels or chemicals

shall be obtained from the local planning authority before that element of the development is commenced.

Reason: To ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the pollution of watercourses and groundwaters during and after the construction process.

Archaeology

11. No part of the development within or immediately adjacent to an area which is identified in Tables 11.1 to

11.3 of the Environmental Statement as being of medium or high archaeological potential shall commence until a scheme to deal with any archaeological remains on the land covered by that part has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

The scheme shall also identify areas where a watching brief is required and also the appropriate measures to be taken during and after construction should any significant archaeological remains be found. The scheme shall also require that any archaeological works carried out on site shall be by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure adequate protection and recording of archaeological remains.

Contamination encountered during construction

12. If at any time while the development is being carried out any contamination is encountered which was not

identified and dealt with under the terms of Condition 2, that part the development concerned shall not proceed (except to the extent that it would not disturb that contamination) until an assessment of the


227

contamination and a scheme and timetable to contain, treat or remove it have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken in relation to contamination encountered in land in the course of construction in the interests of safety and amenity.

Construction Hours of Work

13. Normal construction hours of work shall be 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300

on Saturdays, unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority. In addition, on weekdays, there will be a start up period from 0730 to 0800 and a shut down period from 1800 to 1830. During these periods, activity may take place on site, provided that this does not cause disturbance to nearby residents,

Reason: To protect local amenity.

Operational Noise and Vibration

14. The tramway forming part of the development shall be designed and operated so that airborne

noise and vibration arising from the running of trams is dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Noise and Vibration Policy at all times, unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect local amenity.

15. The tramway forming part of the development shall not be operated for fare-paying services until the local planning authority has certified that such steps have been taken as are reasonably practicable to reduce the noise arising from the passage of a tram over the rail crossing situated at the junction of Noel Street with Terrace Street on NET Line One to a level below that existing at the date of the Order coming into force.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the local amenity of residents in the vicinity of the Noel Street crossing.

Environmental mitigation measures

16. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the

Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures, unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority. Where the siting of any of the works set out in Schedule 1 to the Order is proposed to deviate materially from the centre line and vertical alignment of that work shown on the Works and Land Plans referred to in the Order, a scheme of additional and/or different environmental mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This approval shall not be withheld nor conditions imposed unless the local planning authority considers that the scheme is inadequate to mitigate any significant environmental impact arising from the proposed deviation not taken into account in the Environmental Statement.

Reason: To ensure the mitigation of additional environmental impacts arising from deviation from the centre lines shown for the development within the relevant limits.

Residential development at Neville Sadler Court


228

17. The residential development of part of Neville Sadler Court shall be located as shown on planning direction drawing 31, but shall not be commenced until details of the siting, vehicular access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the development, including any necessary noise mitigation measures, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To enable reasonable and proper control to be exercised over the details of the

development.

Nottingham Station Bridge

18. The tramway bridge at Nottingham Station, forming part of Works Nos. 10, 10A and 10B and

all related structures, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the design shown on the planning direction drawings nos. 36 and 37, unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority. The bridge, including any maintenance walkways, shall be no wider than 16200 mm and shall have no less clearance above the platform canopies than is shown in Sections 7 and 8 on those drawings.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate design, to minimise adverse impacts on the listed building and the conservation area.

Wilford Toll Bridge

19. The alterations to Wilford Toll Bridge, to carry the tramway, cycleway and footway, shall be

designed and constructed in accordance with the design shown on the planning direction drawing no.38, unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority. Alterations to the listed building shall be no greater than those shown on planning direction drawing 38. Reason: To ensure an appropriate design, to minimise adverse impacts on the listed building.

Bardills roundabout and Toton Lane highway improvements

20. The park and ride site at Toton shall not be brought into use until the local planning authority

has certified that the works to the A52 Bardills roundabout, and the widening and realignment of Toton Lane between the roundabout and the entrance to the park & ride site that the local planning authority (in consultation with the highway authorities) considers necessary to secure sufficient highway network capacity, have been completed to its satisfaction and brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the junction of the A52 with Toton Lane works effectively when the park and ride

site is operational.

Approval under these conditions

21. Where under any of these conditions the approval, agreement or consent of the local planning authority is

required, it shall be given in writing and in accordance with article 21 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

Reason: To provide certainty in the approvals process.

Implementation


229

22. With respect to any condition set out above that requires the approval of the local planning authority, the works or matters thereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timescales, unless otherwise approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that any development carried out complies with requisite approvals.


230

APPENDIX D

THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR

Note – this starts on the next page

NET Report – Applications for LB and CA Consents

Page 231

Report to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

GTN 1371 8000

by Alan Novitzky BArch(Hons) MA(RCA) PhD RIBA

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to assist the Lead Inspector

Robert M Barker BEng(Hons) CEng MICE FIHT

Date: 15 August 2008

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

THE NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM ORDER

APPLICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS

Case Details

• Three applications for listed building consent and seven applications for conservation area consent were made on 26 April 2007 by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council in connection with the draft Nottingham Express Transit System Order (NET) under section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. They were referred to the Secretary of State for decision under section 12 of the Act. One application for conservation area consent has subsequently been withdrawn, and a further application incorporated into one of the applications for listed building consent.

• The applications, which are set out in Document NET.A12, are as follows. The descriptions have been reworded to more accurately reflect the content of the works:

LBC1 – Nottingham Railway Station: Works to the upper parts of the Western Platform Buildings on Platforms 1, 3, 4 & 5; part of the façade of the Western Platform Building on Platform 5; the curtilage wall on Station Street; and the southern end wall of the dispersal bridge to enable the construction and operation of a new bridge over the station to support NET Phase Two, a tramstop and pedestrian walkway, and a raised pedestrian link bridge linking the tramstop to the main concourse and the car park on Queens Road car park.

LBC2 – Wilford Toll Bridge: Widening and strengthening of the bridge to carry the proposed NET Phase Two tramway, a footway and cycleway.

LBC3 – Beeston Police Station (The Grange): Demolition of the brick curtilage wall of The Grange, along the boundaries to Chilwell Road and Middle Street to enable the creation of a safe highway junction incorporating the tramway.

CAC1 – Queens Road Warehouse: Demolition of the warehouse, hoardings, fence, wall and gate located to the south side of Queens Road, opposite the entrance to the Station car park, to enable the construction of a new viaduct as part of NET Phase Two.

CAC2 – 1A Arkwright Street: Application withdrawn

CAC3 – Warehouse Building to the East of Crocus Place: Demolition of the red brick building with a slate tile roof, connected to an adjoining building of similar design and materials, which extends to the rear of Station House.

CAC4 – West Wing of Station House, 1A Crocus Street: Demolition of the mid 19th century extension to Station House.

CAC5 – Boundary Wall to Chilwell Road Methodist Church: Demolition of part of the front boundary wall and railings to Chilwell Road Methodist Church, on the south side of Chilwell Road, south-west of Middle Street.

CAC6 – Boundary Wall to 2 Devonshire Avenue, Beeston: Demolition of part of the brick boundary wall to the offices of Ellis Fermor Negus Solicitors.

CAC7 – Station Street Link Bridge: Incorporated into LBC1

Summary of Recommendations: All applications for listed building consent and conservation area consent be granted subject to conditions.

Preamble

1. Of the 11 objectors only English Heritage appeared at the Inquiry, on 11 December 2007. The other objections are dealt with as written representations. The Inquiry into the listed building consent (LBC) and conservation area consent (CAC) applications was conducted concurrently with that into the draft Transport and Works Order. Appearances and documents are as set out in the Lead Inspector’s report.

2. Accompanied site visits of relevance to the LBC and CAC applications were made each day from 7 to 10 January 2008. I also made several unaccompanied visits before, during, and after the Inquiry closed.

3. Besides the main Statement of Matters, about which the Secretary of State for Transport wishes to be informed, a further Statement of Matters, relating to the applications for LBC and CAC, about which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wishes to be informed, was issued on 31 August 2007. These are:

1. The extent to which the proposals are consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, in particular, the issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of listed building consents as set out in Paragraph 3.5(i) – (iv) and conservation area consents as set out in Paragraph 4.14.

2. Whether all the applications for conservation area and listed building consent in the precise form applied for would be necessary to the Nottingham Express Transit System to be implemented, or could impacts be mitigated by varying the design.

3. If the development proceeds, whether any harm to the conservation area and listed buildings would ensue, and how significant would that harm be. In this regard, section 66(1) of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for a development, which affects a listed building or its setting, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest, which it possesses. The desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas is also required by section 72(1) of the same Act.

4. Whether there is a compelling case for the Nottingham Express Transit System in the public interest, which justifies any unavoidable harm that would result to the conservation areas and listed buildings in consequence of the necessary consents.

5. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the applications for the listed buildings and conservation areas consent.

6. The form of any conditions that should be attached to any consent.

7. Any other matters that the Inspector considers relevant.

The Site and Surroundings

4. Section 2 of Inspector Barker’s report as Lead Inspector, describes the proposed tramway routes and their surroundings. Listed buildings and conservation areas are shown in relation to the routes on Maps 1-5 of figure 11.1 in Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement,203 and in more detail on the Planning Direction Drawings.204

5. The List descriptions for the Midland Railway Station (Nottingham Station), The Grange on Chilwell Road, and Wilford Bridge Toll House are contained within English Heritage’s documents.205 The descriptions and maps for the St John’s Conservation Area and the Beeston West End Conservation Area also contained within English Heritage’s documents,206 as are the Station Conservation Area map,207 and the Highfields Park register description and map.208 The Station Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, Consultation Draft: October 2007 can be found at NET.C54.

THE CASE FOR THE PROMOTERS


LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPLICATIONS209

6. Virtually all tram projects affect the setting of listed buildings and involve the demolition of, or works to, listed buildings, and therefore separate authorisation is required. The present proposal does not intrude into historic areas as was the case with the waterfront in Liverpool and the Heritage Area in Portsmouth, nor would it be necessary to apply fixings to a Grade I listed building which was a feature of the Leeds tram scheme. In all these cases listed building consents (LBCs) were granted, even though the particular schemes have not been implemented for reasons unrelated to their impact on historic fabric.

7. PPG15210 para 5.5 advises, under the heading New Traffic Routes, that: Wherever possible, new roads (and any other transport infrastructure) should be kept away from listed buildings, conservation areas and other historic sites. However, in each case a suitable balance must be struck between conservation, other environmental concerns, economics, safety and engineering feasibility.

203 NET.A17

204 NET.A20

205 GOEM/8/PE/3 Tabs 5, 6, and 7

206 GOEM/8/PE/3 Tabs 9 and 10

207 GOEM/8/PE/3 Tab 11

208 GOEM/8/PE/3 Tab 8

209 NET.A12

210 NET.C10/1

8. This accords with the approach towards all LBC applications set out in para 3.19(iii) of PPG15: There may very exceptionally be cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community which have to be weighed against the arguments in favour of preservation.

9. There are three LBC applications:

• LBC1 – Nottingham Railway Station

• LBC2 - Wilford Toll Bridge

• LBC3 – Beeston Police Station (The Grange)

LBC1

10.The Railway Station is an early Edwardian Grade II* Listed Building by Lambert and Trubshaw in Neo-Baroque style. Though largely intact, it has been neglected and the Station Masterplan, if implemented, would provide a considerable upgrade far beyond the scope of LBC1.

11.Mr Gibson, the Project Engineer describes the individual works at the station, arising from the proposal.211 There are three key elements:

• A new bridge to support NET Phase Two over the mainline railway station, incorporating a tramstop (replacing the existing Station Road stop, which lies just to the north of the Station), and a pedestrian walkway between the tramstop and the existing stop. The bridge follows the line of the former Great Central Railway (GCR) viaduct demolished in the 1980s above the western platform buildings, allowing the re-use of the extant foundations of the bridge piers, reducing the physical impact on the station. However, removal of various parts of the existing roof parapet is inevitable, as well as some demolition of internal walls and the demolition and subsequent reinstatement of one bay of the Edwardian façade fronting Platform 5, of particular interest to English Heritage.212

• A raised pedestrian link bridge to provide access from the proposed tramstop to the main station concourse and car parking to the rear of the station on Queen's Road. As Mr Gibson explains, this will only go ahead if the Master Plan proposals do not proceed.213

• The demolition of an adjoining structure, the stairway and footbridge across Station Street leading to the existing Nottingham Station stop. CAC7, which originally covered these works, has been withdrawn. The works are now included in LBC1, following submissions by English Heritage concerning the attachment of the structure to the listed building and the replacement of end panels to the listed building once the structure is removed.214

211 NET.P2/A paras 2.7.1 to 2.7.11

212 GOEM/8

213 NET.B10/1 TD27

214 NET.A12/5




12.The Environmental Statement (ES)215 and the detailed supporting material to LBC1 recognises the importance of safeguarding the Grade II* listed Railway Station. Following discussions with English Heritage (EH), revised details have been submitted.216 These show the retention of part of the glazed roof structure on the Platform 1/3 buildings; the commitment to reinstate the chimney on the Platform 4/5 building; and the decision to create a temporary works access through the façade of the Platform 4/5 building, using the two doorways rather than demolishing the adjoining section of brickwork.

13.Construction of the new bridge over the station platforms would involve minor parapet wall demolition to gain the necessary clearance, but EH does not regard this as a reason for refusal. At the Inquiry, Dr Scott acknowledged the benefits of building the new bridge on the line of the former bridge and reuse of its pier foundations. Given the £2m extra cost of the asymmetrical cable-stay alternative,217 she agreed that it was not an alternative worth pursuing, accepting that PPG15 section 5 on transport proposals emphasises the relevance of cost considerations. Contrary to EH’s assertion, this alternative was described in the information accompanying the application for LBC1.218

14.Initially Dr Scott suggested further exploration of the possibility of access through the roof of the building on Platforms 4/5, rather than through the wall, to allow installation of the new bridge supports. However, she now accepts that all alternatives have been explored and the solution proposed is appropriate.219 EH’s Closing220 reiterates the view that access through the roof should have been explored in the ES and the original supporting material. However, both parties now accept the solution which emerged at the Inquiry by which a lintel or shelf angle could be introduced to preserve the handsome terracotta features above door height. Dr Scott remains unhappy about the lack of detail of what lies behind the two doors in the modern male and female toilets. In the Promoters’ view the detail contained in the revised drawing221 is sufficient.

15.Dr Scott’s second concern related to the proposed junction with the Edwardian dispersal bridge of the new stairway to the relocated Nottingham Station stop. Her suggestion involves removing the recently installed steel and glass footbridge, adapting it to receive the new stairway, and therefore avoiding the need to penetrate the glazed screen with brickwork below at the end of the dispersal bridge. This approach has now been examined,222 and it is not

215 NET.A14

216 NET.A12/6 and 7

217 NET.R80/1

218 NET.A12

219 NET.A12/4

220 GOEM/8/PE/6 para 27

221 NET.A12/6 Rev P9

222 NET.A12/8

considered that the cost and disruption involved is worth the conservation gains. In any event, the matter could be controlled by a condition, and it would be wholly disproportionate to refuse LBC1 on this score. The uncertainties referred to by EH no longer exist, even though a risk analysis has yet to be carried out.

16.Regarding the third matter, demolition of the Station Street stairway and footbridge, the only issue now taken by Dr Scott concerns the replacement of the station flank wall lost when the new landing was constructed a few years ago. Her view is that LBC1 cannot and should not be granted until the Promoters have discovered whether there are any photographs showing its previous form, which could then be replicated. The Promoters maintain that this relatively minor detail should be the subject of a condition, rather than a reason for refusal.

17.Mr Gilder’s conclusion regarding LBC1223 is that the harm caused to the listed building is both unavoidable and, crucially, very limited.

LBC2

18.The Wilford Toll Bridge, listed Grade II, is a familiar landmark, designed by Hughes and constructed in 1870. It is now a foot bridge and cycleway, though it was designed to carry commercial traffic. The present narrow bridge deck was installed in the 1980s.

19. To carry the Clifton Extension, the bridge must be widened from 5.65m to 12.2m and strengthened. The works are explained by Mr Gibson.224 The pilasters to the piers at either end would need to be cut back, and the faces reinstated in matching brickwork. The ashlar cappings and Clifton coat of arms would also be reinstated.225 The river caissons would need to be strengthened to carry the intermediate supports to the new deck. Moreover, some structural backing to the approach arches may be needed to support the weight of the tramway. However, there would be no change to the external appearance of the arches.

20.Undoubtedly the new overhead line equipment and lighting poles would alter the appearance of the bridge. However, there would be some enhancements, including removal of the existing modern brick planter, assisting the bridge's setting, and the removal of the roundabout at its northern end.

21.Four issues arise in English Heritage’s objection to the use of Wilford Toll Bridge. The first is whether LBC2 should be granted. Dr Scott considers a method statement relating to the cutting back of the piers and the refixing of the Clifton coat of arms should be submitted before the LBC is granted. However, this would be disproportionate, since there is no objection in principle to the proposed works, and no reason given why these matters should not be the subject of conditions. Contrary to EH’s claims, the reinstatement of these

223 NET.P6/A paras 10.19 to 10.22

224 NET.P2/A paras 2.7.1 to 2.7.17

225 NET.P6/A para 10.31


features formed part of the original proposals comprising the LBC2 application.

22.The second relates to the principle of the use of the Toll Bridge, opposed by some who consider that a new bridge over the river should be constructed between the Toll Bridge and Trent Bridge, along the line of the former Central Railway bridge, or propose that the line should go to Clifton by an entirely different route, for example via Queen’s Drive. The first option would involve very considerable extra expense and raise its own environmental issues. Furthermore it would prevent the tram from serving Wilford Village so directly. The second option has been tested and found to have a smaller patronage and a negative benefit to cost ratio, as well as its own environmental problems.226 Therefore, it is not an option to be followed.227

23.The third relates to the inconvenience that would be experienced by pedestrians and cyclists (including schoolchildren) whilst the new bridge deck is being installed. ‘Pedals’ share this concern, but recognise that it is unavoidable. The Promoters have undertaken to provide replacement school buses whilst the bridge is closed. Once construction is complete a shared footpath and cycleway would be provided, with a 4.5m width, only slightly smaller than the existing width of 5m.228

24.The fourth concerns the use of Main Road on the south bank as a construction site in connection with the works to the bridge (and other works on the edge of Wilford). The Promoters consider this to be the best available site for the purpose, and better than the use of the limited space alongside the Victoria Embankment. On Day 18, Mr Gibson confirmed that, in consultation with the Highway Authority, consideration would be given to using the new track along the former railway embankment as a construction haul road, rather than all construction traffic having to pass through Wilford Village.

25.Mr Gilder's overall conclusion is that any harm to be caused by the alterations has been reduced to a minimum, is small and is unavoidable.229

LBC3

26.The only works are the demolition of the brick curtilage wall to the Grade II Listed 1820 Beeston Police Station, along Chilwell Road and turning the corner into Middle Street. This is to allow the creation of a safe highway junction with sufficient traffic capacity to accommodate satisfactorily traffic flows including the tram.

27.Only a small part of the existing wall is original and it may well be possible to retain this section. The curved wall could be rebuilt at the rear of the new footway, re-using some of the old bricks. The loss of the trees, shown in the photograph accompanying the listed building application, would cause harm to

226 NET.B2/7

227 NET.B1/14A page 38

228 NET.R95 para 14

229 NET.P6/A para 10.38




the townscape. However, it should be possible to provide tree replacements.230 English Heritage raises no objection.231

LBC OBJECTIONS

28.Besides English Heritage’s objection, there are only 7 specific objections to the LBC applications. The following apply to all 3 applications:

• Mr Blacklock (signing himself as Vice-Chairman of the Beeston and Chilwell Business and Residents Association - BCBRA) objects to all three, though his letter232 refers expressly only to the use of Wilford Bridge by walkers, and the risk to it from vibration.

• Mrs Smoczkhewicz233 objects in principle to all 3 LBC applications, because ‘…there are very few listed buildings ...left in this part of country and it would be a shame to lose/alter any more’.

• Mr Court234 also objects to all 3 applications because of the applications’ ‘…poorly justified and unnecessary destructive impact on Listed Building[s].’

• Mr Collier235 also objects to all 3 applications. He describes the proposed bridge in LBC1 as a hideous suggestion which should not be allowed; and the widening of Wilford Bridge in LBC2 as something which will totally ruin the peace and quiet of the surrounding area. He also notes that with the demolition of the boundary wall at Beeston Police Station in LBC3, the tram would run too close to the police station building, highlighting the point that the road at this point is not wide enough to accommodate the tram.

29.The other three objections are confined to LBC3:

• The formal BCBRA objection236 is made on the grounds that the tram would run too close to the listed Police Station.

• Wendy Kane237 objects to LBC3, because, ‘…this work is... for the tramway for which I object and again specif[icall]y that I do not believe that money should be spent on something that has not received its final government approval....a totally inappropriate use of my council tax.’

230 NET.P6/A para 10.42

231 GOEM/8

232 GOEM/2

233 GOEM/5

234 GOEM/6

235 GOEM/7

236 GOEM/4

237 GOEM/9







• Mr Hinman238 objects to LBC3 because, ‘…a Listed Building covers not only the building — but the setting in which the building sits.’

CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT APPLICATIONS239

30.Most tram schemes pass through conservation areas and the need to demolish some unlisted buildings and structures usually arises, requiring conservation area consents (CACs). The relevant statutory consideration in such cases is s.72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended, which requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

31.Para 3.19(iii) of PPG15 also applies to CAC applications, but is complemented by para 4.19 which notes that if any proposed development conflicts with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission, though in exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development which is desirable on the ground of some other public interest. The passage from PPG15 relating to other transport infrastructure, advises striking a suitable balance, and applies equally to LBC and CAC applications. Clearly, the needs of a new traffic corridor can be a relevant public interest.

32. In Harrow LBC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 2 PLR 62,240 it was said in relation to the almost identically worded predecessor of s.72(1): ‘...the subsection...does not set out the test nor does it support the proposition that in relation to a consideration of development proposals they must themselves preserve or enhance, or serve to preserve or enhance, the character or appearance of a conservation area. It imposes a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preservation or enhancement. There may be cases where some other important factors in public interest are at work which render the development acceptable in a conservation area notwithstanding the conservation considerations. Such factors could be weighed by a decision-maker provided he pays attention and special attention to the conservation objectives.’

33.There are five CAC applications, CAC 2 (1A Arkwright Street) having been withdrawn and CAC7 (Station Street Link Bridge) integrated with LBC1:

• CAC1 - Queens Road warehouse

• CAC3 - Warehouse building to the east of Crocus Place

• CAC4 – West wing of Station House, 1A Crocus Street

238 GOEM/10

239 NET.A12

240 NET.D15




• CAC5 – Boundary wall to Chilwell Road Methodist Church

• CAC6 – Boundary wall to 2 Devonshire Avenue, Beeston

CAC1

34. The warehouse, fence, wall and gate on the south side of Queens Road must be demolished to enable the construction of the new viaduct, the subject in part of LBC1 application. Since the buildings currently detract from the character of the Station Conservation Area, their demolition has the potential for enhancement by a replacement building for which planning permission already exists.241 This will have to be amended to accommodate present proposals for the location of the tramway, but there is no reason to suppose that the Council would reject an application for an amended scheme.242

35.English Heritage agrees that most items in the group could be removed without harming the Conservation Area, but are concerned that removal of the modern warehouse might have a detrimental effect on the character of the Area.243 It is difficult to understand Dr Scott’s concern for the retention of the existing building, since its frontage to Queens Road is positively ugly.244

CAC3

36.This is a neglected workshop with a modern roller shutter door which may currently be used for storage.245 Although not directly in the path of the proposed viaduct, it must be demolished to make way for a new access route to Crocus Place, since the present route would be blocked by the new viaduct.246

37.English Heritage would like the alignment of the viaduct to be moved so that demolition of the building could be avoided. However, Dr Scott was unable to argue against the evidence of Mr Gibson which showed that this was not possible and that at least partial demolition would be essential. It is a small building, and she did not seek to retain the remainder of the building.

CAC4

38.Station House is a modest, but attractive commercial building fronting Crocus Street, which makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area.247 The

241 NET.P6/B Appendix IMG5

242 NET.R80 para 3.8.2

243 GOEM/8

244 In para 31 of its Closing, GOEM/8/PE/6, EH still maintains its position that there should be no

demolition in the absence of ‘any clear proposal for a replacement building’, although it is recognised that there is no long-term benefit in retaining the building.

245 NET.P6/A para 10.47

246 NET.P2/A paras 2.7.22 to 23 and NET.B10/1 TD27

247 NET.P6/A para 10.51




west wing must be demolished for the reasons set out in CAC3.248 In Mr Gilder's opinion, the demolition would cause unavoidable harm to the Conservation Area.249 EH objects and suggests that a minor divergence of the viaduct might allow demolition to be avoided.

39.It might be possible to move the viaduct westwards by 1 or 2 metres, but this would not satisfy the need for an access road to service the site to the rear, and there is insufficient height to gain access beneath the new viaduct. Dr Scott conceded that she could identify no alternative access.

40.Ideally Dr Scott would wish to retain part of the west wing of Station House, though she did not present a reasoned case against demolition of the whole. Demolition of the entire wing is the logical course, the building itself being unlisted, but capable of contributing to the character of the Conservation Area.250 Moreover, Drawing TD26 shows the possible alignment of a further tram extension to West Bridgford. It would not seem sensible to preclude this option by pulling the alignment of the viaduct to the west in an attempt to save part of the wing.

CAC5

41.Part of the front boundary wall and railings to the Methodist Church on the south side of Chilwell Road need to be demolished to construct a new vehicular access as part of the new highway layout.251 It may only be necessary to cut back short sections of the wall.252 In any event, the necessary changes would be minimal and would leave the character and appearance of the Conservation Area unharmed.

42.EH, whilst concerned at the lack of detail on alternatives and on the proposed reconstruction, accepts that the application is not likely to have a very major impact on the character of the Conservation Area as a whole.253 EH’s objection may be met by the proposed new condition254 requiring that the demolition of the existing wall and railings should be limited to the minimum necessary to construct two vehicular accesses, and the replacement wall should be designed to match as closely as practicable that being taken down.

CAC6

43.CAC6 involves the demolition and replacement of the boundary wall at 2, Devonshire Avenue, Beeston to provide for a new signal-controlled junction between Devonshire Avenue, Chilwell Road and Middle Street. The wall would

248 NET.P2/A para 2.7.25

249 NET.P6/A para 10.52

250 In para. 32 of the EH Closing, GOEM/8/PE/6, the view is still expressed that it would be desirable

to retain as much as possible.

251 NET.P2/A para2.7.25 and NET.B10/1 TD11

252 NET.P6/A para 10.54

253 GOEM/8

254 NET.P6/B Appendix 25

be set back a maximum of 1.8 metres and reinstated at the same height and using similar materials.255

44.English Heritage raises identical concerns to those in CAC5, but again accepts that there would not be a major impact on the character of the Conservation Area. A condition is now proposed requiring the minimum demolition of that part of the wall facing Chilwell Road as is necessary to achieve a continuous curve.256

CAC OBJECTIONS

45.Apart from English Heritage, there are 3 objectors, who take issue with all of the CAC applications:

• Mrs Smoczkhewicz,257 because ‘…there are very few...conservation areas left in this part of the country and it would be a shame to lose/alter any more.’

• Mr Court,258 because of ‘…poorly justified and unnecessary destructive impact on...conservation areas.’

• Mr Collier,259 because in the case of CAC1, 3, 4 and 7, they ‘…undermine the whole CA ethos…’, and in the case of CAC5 and 6 because the boundary walls are ‘…part of the scenery of the area.’

46.The following object to both CAC5 and 6:

• Mr Blacklock,260 who values the retention of both walls.

• BCBRA,261 because the tram, ‘…ruins the visual amenity of both these (conservation) areas.’

47.The following owners object only so far as concerns their own property:

• CAC5: Chilwell Road Methodist Church,262 whose concern is to ensure that there are full vehicular rights of way and that the design of the new double gates is made clear. Heads of terms with the Church have now been agreed covering access and design issues and the revised draft conditions have been accepted.

255 NET.P2/A para 2.7.26; NET.R/80 para 3.8.9

256 NET.P6/B Appendix 25

257 GOEM/5

258 GOEM/6

259 GOEM/7

260 GOEM/2

261 GOEM/4

262 GOEM/3

r






• CAC6: Ellis Fermor & Negus,263 who, at a recent meeting, accepted that the revised conditions adequately address their concerns.

OTHER MATTERS

48.English Heritage objects to the possible demolition of the Arkwright Street frontage, lying outside the Conservation Area, and of the Queen’s Road warehouse (CAC1). This is because of its effect on the setting of the Grade II* Railway Station, the general townscape, the character of the Conservation Area in the case of the warehouse, and views into and out of the adjacent Conservation Area in the case of Arkwright Street. It became evident on Day 21 that Dr Scott had not previously understood the rationale of the station construction strategy contained in NET.B9. This has always depended upon the availability of sufficient working area at the time of construction, and recognises Network Rail’s rights under Art.72 of and Sch.14 to the TWO.

49.It follows that more land is now shown as needed than would be the case. It may be possible to preserve the Arkwright Street frontage, perhaps to the benefit of the adjoining Conservation Area and the Station’s setting, and the Queens Road site might not be used as part of the working area if, for example, it has already been redeveloped. However, it is not sensible to exclude these sites from compulsory purchase, and hence from potential demolition, at this stage.264

50.Dr Scott agreed that EH supports the principle of the Phase Two NET proposal, and has done so since being first consulted in 2002. At that time EH commented solely on the need to safeguard Highfields Park and Lenton Priory. Almost all the additional conditions put forward by EH have now been withdrawn as misconceived. The Promoters readily accept that the proposals should be scrutinised by EH, but wonder whether a more constructive approach might have been taken. EH’s challenge to the Environmental Statement is addressed below, in consideration of the Statement of Matters.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S STATEMENT OF MATTERS CONCERNING LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENTS265

Relevant documents are:

• Ian Gilder’s Proof and Appendices (P.6/A and P.6/B) especially Sections 3 and 10.

• Callum Gibson’s Proof and Appendices (P.2/A and P.23/B). • Dr Scott’s Proof on behalf of English Heritage. • The Promoters’ Rebuttal to Dr. Scott (NET.R80). • The Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent Applications (as

amended) set out in NET.A12 to NET.A12/5.

263 GOEM/1

264 Paras 36 & 37 of the EH Closing show that it is still concerned about the absence of proposals for

replacement buildings and that EH would like further controls to ensure that there is no demolition unless there is no practical alternative. The Promoters consider this unnecessary.

265 NET.A28

• The additional documents listed in para 3.1.2. of NET.R80 which were submitted during the Inquiry.

• The Promoters’ Rebuttal to Miss Perry which is NET.R83 and R.83/1. • The Promoters’ Rebuttal to Wilkinson Hardware Stores (NET.R46) and

R46/1. • The draft Planning Conditions, as discussed at the Inquiry and revised

by the Promoters (NET.P6/Q), • The draft Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent conditions, as

discussed at the Inquiry and subsequently amended by the Promoters (NET.P6/R).

Matter (i): The extent to which the proposals are consistent with LBC and CAC provisions of PPG15

51.Both in Dr. Scott’s evidence and through cross-examination of Ian Gilder, English Heritage sought to establish that the provisions of PPG15, in para 3.5 and 4.14, in particular, have not been met.

52.Dr Scott was not prepared to acknowledge as appropriate the relaxation to the requirements for detailed drawings and other material provided in Regulation 3(2) of the TWA rules. The provisions exist to allow for the particular circumstances of TWA applications and their concurrent LBC and CAC applications. EH’s closing shows that it still considers the written description, plans and drawings provided by the Promoters do not provide sufficient information to meet the requirements of the Regulations. However, it is unclear why the EH Closing claims that the Promoters are relying solely on written descriptions when each LBC and CAC is accompanied by an extract from the TWA plans and drawings.

53.The Promoters consider that all possible information has been submitted for all of the applications. In relation to the Grade II* Nottingham Station in particular, a detailed design exists for the tramway bridge which has been carefully refined to minimise adverse impacts and the need for alterations to the Station.

54.The Promoters have taken full account of all of the relevant requirements of PPG15 and have paid full attention to the practice guidance of English Heritage and others. The Promoters contend that the application as amended now contains ‘such other plans…. and other materials as are necessary to describe the works which are the subject of the application’ and therefore comply with the modification of s.10(2)(b) of the LBA 1990266 brought about by para 1 of Schedule 1 to the TWA (LB etc Procedure) Regulations 1992.267 The Promoters further consider that the conditions, in all practical senses, meet the requirements for conditions in s.17 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and would deliver the necessary controls.

Matter (ii): Whether all of the CA and LB consents would be necessary or could impacts be mitigated by varying design.

266 NET.D7

267 NET.D8

55.English Heritage sought reassurance before the Inquiry that the applications, as submitted, were necessary and that various aspects could not be amended to reduce impacts by varying the designs.

56.The Promoters have addressed these concerns and have:

• Made amendments to the Nottingham Station application LBC1 to retain minor features and, in particular, to reduce the need for the façade removal on Platform 4/5 to the area between the outer door jambs and below the tops of the doors. (See revised plan and revised LBC conditions).268

• Added further draft conditions to the LB and CA consents, in some cases, for the avoidance of doubt.

• Withdrawn CAC2, the demolition of 1A Arkwright Street, from the Order. • Provided further evidence of the necessary construction method for the

Platform 4/5 building269 and of the reasons why an alternative cable stay bridge could not be pursued.270

• Proposed the incorporation of CAC7 into LBC1, meeting English Heritage’s concern that the demolition of this modern bridge should be subject to LB consent.

• Provided clear justification in evidence for the need to demolish the Crocus Street warehouse (CAC3) and the western wing of Station House (CAC4) for the tramway viaduct itself and to provide for a vehicular access from Crocus Street. Alternatives for the access were explored but the Promoters’ evidence on this point was not challenged by English Heritage.

• Made amendments to CAC5271 which reduce works to this wall to minor alterations, which may well not require CAC. Also to LBC3, to retain the short historic section of wall, capable of being achieved by condition.

57.English Heritage’s only outstanding concern, established in cross-examination, is the removal of the end section of the dispersal bridge to accommodate the possible need for a pedestrian link bridge. The Promoters’ note272 sets out the case for this work and the costs and difficulties of the English Heritage alternative. The Promoters’ position in relation to the demolition of numbers 3-27 Arkwright Street is clearly set out in evidence,273 and the Station Construction Report,274 as well as the Promoter’s Rebuttal Proof to EH’s objection.275

268 NET.P6/R

269 NET.A12/5

270 NET.P2/J

271 NET.A12/3

272 NET.A12/8

273 NET.P6/A

274 NET.B9

275 NET.R80

58.Finally, attention is drawn to two matters. Firstly, despite the wording of this item in the Statement of Matters, the correct test in relation to applications for listed building consent is set out in para 3.4 of PPG15. It is whether the proposal is desirable or necessary. This was accepted by Dr Scott on Day 21. Secondly, a very recent Court of Appeal decision, Sainsbury Supermarkets Limited276 concerns development in a conservation area. However, paras 37-39 are equally applicable to CAC and LBC applications. Keene LJ said that, ‘…the weight to be attached in any given case to the effect of a proposal in a conservation area must depend on the gravity of the effect.’

Matter (iii): Whether harm would be caused to the conservation areas and listed buildings and how significant would that harm be, having regard to the tests in Section 66(1) and 72(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act.

59.In the case of LBC1 and 2, the harm would be small, unavoidable, and the minimum possible. The positive contribution that the west wing of Station House makes to the conservation area is acknowledged. CAC4 would therefore cause harm which is unavoidable although the extent of that harm would be limited and may be mitigated by the quality and nature of the replacement buildings. In other cases, LBC3, CAC3, CAC5 and CAC6, the alterations or demolitions would cause no harm. In CAC1, the replacement of a building which detracts from the Conservation Area would, in due course enhance its character and appearance .

60.Dr Scott’s evidence did not seriously challenge those judgements. The Promoters, in discussion with English Heritage, have amended the draft conditions to be attached to these consents.277 EH presented several outstanding concerns to the conditions session, but recognised that it would not be appropriate to condition CACs 1, 3 and 4 to require that the Promoters secure planning permission for redevelopment before implementing the demolitions.

61.EH continues to take the view that the conditions should be discharged by the Secretary of State rather than by the Local Planning Authority (who will, in any case, be responsible for discharging the planning conditions attached to the planning direction). To the Promoters knowledge, this would be unprecedented, despite Dr Scott’s unsubstantiated claim on Day 21. In all other respects, the LB and CA conditions now incorporate sensible responses to English Heritage’s concerns.

Matter (iv): Whether there is a ‘compelling case in the public interest, which justifies any unavoidable harm’ to the conservation areas and listed buildings.

276 First Secretary of State and West End Green (Properties) Limited v Sainsbury Supermarkets

Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 1208 [NET.D19]

277 NET.P6/R

62.The Promoters, in Mr Gilder’s evidence278 and the Rebuttals,279 have addressed the potential impact on the listed buildings, their settings, the conservation areas (including views in and out of these areas) and on the setting of Highfields Park, which is on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. The question turns on views of the merits of the scheme as a whole in relation to this impact.

63.English Heritage raised concerns about 3 to 27 Arkwright Street, which are non-listed buildings outside a conservation area, but presented no real evidence of harm to the setting of the Station or the Conservation Area. In any event, depending on whether the working area is needed, these buildings may not be acquired and demolished. Miss Perry raised interesting historical issues in relation to the Queens Walk, but this is not a protected site, and it was a highway open to all traffic for at least half of the twentieth century.280 Even if it were, as she has requested, added to the Register, the Promoters’ view is that the tramway along Queens Walk would be entirely in accordance with the development plan. Any alterations to the townscape would be short term and would not harm its appearance or its part in Nottingham’s cultural heritage.

Matter (v): The adequacy of the Environmental Statement as it applies to the applications for LB and CA Consent.

64.The adequacy of the Environmental Statement has been challenged by English Heritage. EH asked the Secretary of State to make a Rule 17 direction requiring that the Promoters supply ‘additional information in order to constitute an environmental statement’. The Secretary of State declined to do so and remitted the issue to the Inquiry.

65.Dr Scott’s criticisms of the ES were wide ranging but, in summary, were that it failed to contain sufficient detail to meet the requirements of Rule 11 and Schedule 1 to the TWA Rules 2006.281 The ES is a substantial document, compiled by a variety of technical experts. This is so because it has always been appreciated that such a Schedule 2 project would be likely to have significant environmental impacts

66.English Heritage contends that the ES failed to provide data sufficient to assess the significance of the existing conservation areas and historic buildings affected. Furthermore, that it failed to provide sufficient detail in relation to the works, and is also deficient for failing to refer to the other bridge types considered and rejected at the Station as if these were ‘main alternatives’ to the project when viewed as a whole. It also contends that the ES inadequately describes the details of the project.

278 NET.P6/A

279 NET.R80, NET.R46, NET.R46/1, NET.R83

280 NET.R83/1

281 NET.D4

67.Dr Scott (Day 21) conceded that these criticisms were made without the benefit of the guidance in the Atkinson case,282 the only case which addresses the situation in relation to TWO applications. Furthermore, although Dr Scott acknowledged the difficulties the Promoters face in supplying detailed design proposals, because the works would be the subject of a Design Build Operate and Maintain (DBOM) concession under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI), she regarded that as irrelevant to the sufficiency of legal compliance.

68.As demonstrated in cross examination, Dr Scott’s views were founded on a very personal interpretation of EIA practice and she seemed unaware of commonly used definitions of both ‘data’ and ‘mitigation’. She also accepted that she was not aware of other TWA orders with concurrent LB and CAC applications (for example Merseytram) and was content to apply her local experience of dealing with ‘elective’ LB and CA consent applications.

69.The Promoters maintain that the lengthy ES, including its various Appendices, is legally compliant. It provides a considerable amount of base-line material, and adequately describes both the conservation areas affected and the nature of the works to be undertaken. In any event, the ES can be supplemented by the contents of the LBC and CAC applications and supporting materials, which were lodged and publicised on the same date as the ES, and by the further explanatory materials presented in evidence before and during the Inquiry. This is in accordance with the realistic and flexible approach taken in Atkinson. The project has been adequately described and analysed, and the necessary consents can be granted without any breach of EIA law.

70.EH’s suggestion that ‘data’ should include subjective assessment of the worth of the baseline position is rejected. This would not comply with the approach of, say, the Crossrail ES.283 There is no evidence that any member of the public has been disadvantaged in any way. The suggestion that, even now, EH does not have sufficient material to express a view on the aspects of the applications of concern to them is rejected.

71.The Promoters’ position is set out fully284 and was not significantly challenged in EH’s cross examination of Mr Gilder. In summary, the ES fully complied with the Rules at the time it was submitted.

THE CASES FOR THE OBJECTORS

GOEM/8: English Heritage


72. The Objections raised by English Heritage (EH) against the applications fall broadly under four heads:

a) That the Environmental Statement (ES) is inadequate to meet the requirements of the Rules and therefore of the Directive.

282 NET.D16 and NET.D16/1

283 NET.R80/2

284 NET.R80

b) That information supporting the listed building consent (LBC) and conservation area consent (CAC) applications is inadequate in a number of respects.

c) That no adequate justification has been demonstrated to counter the presumptions in favour of the retention of the listed buildings without alteration or, in the case of buildings that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas (the ‘beneficial’ buildings), the presumption against their demolition.

d) Site specific issues relating to detailed aspects of the proposals.

Inadequacy of the Environmental Statement

73. EH considers the ES to be inadequate, particularly as it:

a) Fails to provide a proper description of the works directly affecting the historic environment.

b) Fails to give an adequate account of the impact of the new work on the historic environment.

c) In consequence, fails to assess the main effects of the proposal on the listed buildings and their settings and on the beneficial buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation areas in which they stand.

d) Fails adequately to detail the alternative measures considered.

e) Fails to identify with any particularity the mitigation proposed in order to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of the proposals.

Procedural Requirements

74.The requirements are set out in Rule 11 and Schedule 1 of the 2006 Rules.285 The Rules require:

• A description of the proposed works.286

• The inclusion of the data required to identify and assess the main effects of the works and a description of the aspects of the environment (including architectural heritage and landscape) likely to be significantly affected.287

• An outline of the main alternatives considered.288

• A description of the mitigation measures to be taken.289

75. Proper compliance is important because only through the production and provision of this information can another party be sufficiently informed of

285 i.e. Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 286

See Rule 11(1) (a) and Schedule 1 (a)

287 Rule 11(1) (c) and Schedule 1, para 3

288 Rule 11 (1) (d) and Schedule 1, para 2

289 Rule 11 (1) (b) and Schedule 1, para 5

the potential consequences and choices that arise from the proposals. It is fundamental to the process that those towards whom the ES is aimed should not be left in a position where they have to rely on the judgments or opinions expressed by others in the Statement. Whilst the Rules do not require a description of "every environmental effect, however minor"290 or the inclusion of "every conceivable scrap of environmental information",291 they are designed to ensure that decision-makers, consultees and members of the general public have put before them in a comprehensive fashion all the essential information about the project necessary for them to reach their own informed view of the potential impacts, proposed mitigation measures and choices that arise.

76. The ES should be, as Lord Hoffmann put it, "a single and accessible compilation, produced by the applicant at the very start of the application process, of the relevant environmental information and the summary in non-technical language"292 In the judgment of Sullivan J the information contained in it should be "both comprehensive and systematic, so that a decision to grant planning permission is taken 'in full knowledge' of the project's likely significant effects on the environment."293

77. In this context it is a specific concern of EH that the ES contains no detailed assessment of the architectural or historic interest of the listed buildings affected or of their settings. Moreover, there is little or no appraisal of the character and appearance of the conservation areas in which the beneficial buildings are situated. Without this basic information it is impossible for those consulting the statement to be able to evaluate for themselves the impact of these major works upon the heritage interest, both in terms of the specific buildings affected and in terms of any overall deterioration in the quality of the townscape.

Whether the Missing Information can be regarded as ‘Data’

78.From cross-examination of Dr Scott, the Applicants appear to defend this omission on the basis that the information is not ‘data’ within the meaning of the Rules. However, ‘data’ cannot be confined solely to information derived from measurements or counts. The reasons that a bui lding is deemed to have historic or architectural interest are just as much factual matters as are traffic counts or planning policies. The same is true of the essential characteristics that justify conservation area status.

290 See R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Milne, Sullivan J at para 113

291 See R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Tew, Sullivan J

292 See Berkeley v Secretary of State [2000] 3 WLR 420 at p. 432

293 See ex parte Tew above and reference to recital to EC Directive 97/11

79. The data required is that necessary to identify and assess the main or significant effects of the proposed works.294 There is no dispute that such effects could arise from the proposed development.295 If the ES is to provide the context for consideration of these potentially significant effects on listed buildings and conservation areas, it must include an adequate description or assessment of their importance and their interest. The ES fails in this respect.

The Information Accompanying the LBC and CAC Applications

80. The basic omission is not remedied by the further information accompanying the l isted building and conservation area consent applications. These applications do not form part of the ES and the information that supports them is not incorporated into the ES by reference. The supporting information can properly be regarded as a part of the ‘environmental information’ to which the Secretaries of State will wish to have regard in determining the applications and may be taken into account at that stage of the decision-making process.296 Nevertheless, the applications also provide scant information about the nature and the extent of the works proposed or their effect and are in their own terms inadequate for the purpose of proper evaluation.

Alternatives

81.The applicant is required to provide an outline of the main alternatives considered and the main reasons for choosing the measure proposed "taking into account the environmental effects".297 This information is to provide a review of the principal alternative measures that would serve the same objectives but which would have different environmental impacts. In this way, it is possible to assess the particular choices that have been made in the evolution of the scheme and the decisions that have resulted in the preferred scheme can be tested.

82. The failure to consider two particular alternatives in the ES is of concern. These are the possibility of a single span asymmetric bridge at the Station and the various construction site possibilities now before the Inquiry in the Mott MacDonald Report.298 The Applicants maintain that these are not ‘main’ alternatives within the meaning of the Rules.

83. Given the potential environmental impacts of the scheme on the listed Station and the Conservation Area, these alternatives

294 Rule 11(1)(c) and Schedule 1, para 3

295 See the list in para 4.6 of Dr Scott's proof GOEM/8/PE. At least three of these were accepted as main or

significant effects by Mr Gilder in cross examination.

296 See Atkinson v Secretary of State for Transport and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority [2006] EWHC

995

297 Rule 11(1)(d)

298 NET.B9

should have been detailed and examined in the ES. A full justification should have been given for the decisions that give rise to the proposals. The absence of this information in the Statement reduces its value.

Mitigation

84. The 2006 Rules require that the ES includes a description of the measures proposed to be taken to avoid, reduce and remedy any significant adverse effects. However, no proper explanation has been given in the Statement of many of the measures that could be incorporated into the design to achieve some mitigation (e.g. the quality of replacement buildings or the landscaping of open areas). In these instances the objective is merely aspirational rather than the subject of settled and detailed proposals. As a result, it is impossible to evaluate the benefit of any mitigation, or whether it would be provided at all.

The Atkinson Case

85.The judgment of George Bartlett QC in the case of Atkinson v Secretary of State for Transport and Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority establishes or endorses the following propositions:

a) The decision whether or not an environmental statement is sufficient is principally for the decision maker. However, the Court will intervene on Wednesbury grounds.299

b) In taking a decision on the applications, the Secretaries of State are entitled to take into account, and should take into account, all the environmental information available including the Environmental Statement.300

c) There are cases such as Tew where the environmental statement is so deficient that it cannot be regarded as meeting the requirements of the Directive or the Rules.301

86. As Dr Scott explained, EH supports the NET project in principle. Nevertheless, the deficiencies of the ES cannot be ignored. The Secretaries of State have specifically asked this Inquiry to consider whether or not the Statement is adequate. Its provision and the adequacy of the information that it contains is a procedural requirement to which they must have regard.

87. EH concludes that the Environmental Statement is inadequate. Whether or not the further information provided during the Inquiry is suff ic ient to remedy those deficiencies, allowing a decision to be made is a separate matter. The level, of detail necessary to

299 See para 31 of the judgment

300 Ibid. para 23

301 Ibid. para 20

enable a decision to be taken is also addressed by EH in the specific context of the LBC applications.

The Listed Building Applications

88. The information provided with the listed building consent applications is inadequate. There is no proper description of the extent of the proposed works, no account of the significance of the historic buildings affected by the proposals, no analysis of the effect of the works on the buildings and their significance and no sufficient justification to show that the works or their extent is necessary.

89. As PPG15 makes clear, there is a general presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings and against their alteration.302 For this reason, every applicant has to show why any works that would affect the character of a listed building are desirable or necessary. To this end, government policy requires applicants for listed building consent to provide the decision maker with "full information, to enable them to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting."303

90. This guidance is developed in Annex B of PPG15 which details the information that should normally be provided in every case. It stresses the need for the decision maker to have such information as is necessary to provide a full understanding of the impact of the proposal on the character of the building in question.304

91. The applications for listed building consent are poorly detailed, evaluated and justified. For the Station, the application proposes a series of alterations that, taken individually, may be of limited extent, but which are cumulatively capable of having a significant effect on the architectural interest of this important building. In several cases there appear to be either alternatives which would avoid the need for alteration or more limited measures that would reduce the degree of intervention required.305

92. Detailed proposals of how the work would be undertaken, the methods of demolition, construction (and in some cases re-construction), and a specification of the materials to be used is fundamental to the level of impact that the works would have on the interest of the buildings. None of this has been adequately set out,

302 PPG 15, para 3.3

303 Ibid. para 3.4

304 Ibid Annex B, para B.3

305 See proof of Dr Scott, GOEM/8/PE paras 8.12 to 8.14 (Station), paras 9.2 and 9.3 (Wilford Toll

Bridge) and paras 10.2 and 10.3 (Boundary wall of The Grange).

justified or explained. Instead, the Applicants rely on (i) the amendment to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and (ii) the use of conditions to be attached to the consents.

Amendment to section 10(2)(b)

93. Section 10 of the 1990 Act sets out mandatory requirements with which an application for listed building consent must conform. Subsection (2) requires the inclusion of "such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works which are the subject of the application". By virtue of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1992 Regulations,306 these requirements are altered so that they encompass several alternative possibilities. These are, detailed drawings or extracts from drawings submitted with a TWA application or, "a clear written description of the works proposed to be carried out at or to the building, supported by such other materials as the applicant is reasonably able to provide".

94. There are, therefore, three alternative formats in which the necessary information may be provided. In the present case it seems the Applicants rely upon the last, i.e. a written description of the works. However, there are three important qualifications to the use of written material necessary to meet the requirements of the 1990 Act.

95. Firstly, all of the three alternative formats are qualified by the fundamental requirement that they must be such "as are necessary to describe the works which are the subject of the application".307 Secondly, if the third alternative is chosen, there must be clarity in what is proposed. Thirdly, the written description must be supported by "such other materials as the applicant is reasonably able to provide".308

96. Under a TWA scheme, the applicant is relieved of the mandatory requirement to provide drawings. However, a description of the works proposed must be supplied which is sufficiently clear to allow the decision maker to understand and evaluate their impact. Moreover, the application should be supported by such other material as the applicant could reasonably be expected to supply.

97.These requirements have not been met. There is a need to maintain some leeway with a scheme that cannot be fully worked up at this stage. However, this does not excuse the absence of almost any information on

306 NET.D8: The Transport and Works Applications (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and

Ancient Monuments Procedure) Regulations 1992

307 See section 10(2)(b) as amended

308 Section 10(2)(b)(iii)

how such things as the opening in the Platforms 4 and 5 building would be created, what its extent would be, how the materials to be removed would be reclaimed and stored, or how reinstatement would be carried out.

98. The same is true of the other works to the Station and to the other listed buildings. With more effort, the information could have been provided in detail. As things stand, subject to the further information provided during the Inquiry, there is insufficient information to enable a fully informed decision to be taken on the applications. The applications provide neither the clear written description required nor the further information that the Applicants were reasonably able to provide. In these circumstances they fail to fulfil the mandatory requirements of the statute, as amended, and should be rejected.

The Use of Conditions

99. Section 17(2) of the 1990 Act permits the imposition of conditions requiring specified details of the works to be approved subsequently, either by the local planning authority or by the Secretary of State. In this case, the Applicants for the LBCs and CACs include the local planning authority who normally approve any details reserved by these conditions. In these circumstances, approval of details should remain within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.

100. EH have contributed to the formulation of a series of possible conditions. This contribution has been made without prejudice. EH maintains an objection in principle to the use of these conditions as an attempt to circumvent the fundamental shortcomings of the way in which the applications have been detailed and justified.

101. As PPG15 explains, the decision maker must always be satisfied that adequate information has been supplied to assess the effect of the proposed works on a listed building before granting consent. The extent of the work, the methodology, and the materials involved are all acknowledged as important at this stage.309 Whether certain details can be left to subsequent approval is subject to the overarching requirement of sufficiently detailed information being provided to assess fully the impact of the proposals on the building and to justify any adverse impact on the interest of the building.

102. In his evidence, Mr Gilder drew a distinction between "inessential" details relating to individual buildings and the construction of the tramway scheme as a whole.310 However, once consent is granted, the principle of the works is established and cannot be withdrawn in subsequent approval of details.

309 PPG15, Annex B, para B.10

310 NET.R80, Rebuttal to EH, para 25.5.2

Therefore, the ability to deal with some matters subsequently cannot compromise in any way the basic need for a clear and accurate description of the nature of the works and their consequences, before any consent is granted.

The Presumption in Favour of Preservation

103. There is a presumption in favour of the preservation not only of listed buildings, but also unlisted buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area.311 In the present case, it is common ground that this presumption should apply to the buildings subject to CAC4, CAC5 and CAC6. Although Mr Gilder appears to disagree, both EH and the authors of the information submitted in support of CAC3 believe it should also apply to the Crocus Place workshop.

104. This presumption is not diminished or compromised by the fact that a TWA scheme is proposed, or by the fact that the developer and operator of the scheme is likely to be a private consortium. It remains necessary for the Applicants to justify the adverse impact of their proposals through the benefits that are to be gained by proceeding with the scheme.

105. EH have, quite properly, not attempted to carry out an overall assessment of the balance between adverse impact and benefit. However, as Dr Scott points out, the overall assessment must depend on the provision of such information as is necessary to understand the consequences of the scheme. For both listed buildings and the benef ic ia l bui ld ings af fected by the scheme in the conservation areas, much of the necessary information is simply not available.

106. The omissions are unfortunate and go to the very heart of any proper understanding of where the balance of public interest lies. If, as EH contends, the LBC and CAC applications have to be regarded as deficient, then it must follow that the presumption in favour of the retention of the buildings in their current form has not been discharged and whatever the perceived public benefits, the applications should be refused.

Site Specific Matters

LBC1

107. The Station building is of outstanding architectural and historic interest. It is largely unaltered and represents an unusually complete complex of station buildings. The platform buildings affected by the proposed work are of very high quality. In these

311 PPG15, paras 3.3 and 4.27

circumstances, EH believes that every possible effort should be made to minimise the impact of the works. Some amelioration of the impact has recently been proposed by the Applicants, but considerable uncertainty over the extent of the work and its justification remains.

108. During the course of EH's appearance at the Inquiry, arising from the Assistant Inspector’s questioning, it became clear that extent of demolition required to the facade of the Platform 4 and 5 building may be less than originally envisaged. The details of this demolition are extremely important because any removal of the existing structure above the present door openings would be problematic and the reuse of the original materials may prove impossible. It is, therefore, essential that a detailed proposal is brought forward covering all aspects of this work.

109. It is still unclear whether construction access to the interior of this building would be better made through an opening in the roof. A short paper has been submitted asserting that the entire roof would need to be removed.312 EH had not seen this document before appearance at the Inquiry and, therefore, could not react. The nature of the document and its late submission underline the force of EH's contention on the inadequacy of the material in the ES and the LBCs.

110. Uncertainties also surround the Applicants’ justification for the alteration of the dispersal bridge. EH suggests that the existing opening could be used instead via a new landing platform, minimising the loss of historic fabric, in line with the presumption in favour of retaining the dispersal bridge unaltered. Mr Gilder asserts that "it has not been demonstrated that this could provide satisfactory and safe pedestrian movement".313 The Applicants have subsequently issued a note exploring this option.314 EH had no chance to study this document, or ask questions on it, at the Inquiry.

LBC2

111. EH has no objection in principle to the idea of cutting back the brick piers of the Wilford Toll Bridge but has suggested two modifications to the proposal. These involve the retention and reuse of existing materials and the reinstatement of the Clifton coat of arms. It is understood that the Applicants are willing to adopt these measures. EH's remaining concern relates to the absence of any detailed method statement.

312 NET.A12/4

313 NET.P6/A para 10.20

314 NET.A12/8

LBC3

112. EH’s concerns are largely covered by the objections in principle set out above. The demolition and reconstruction of the wall would have a detrimental impact on the listed building, but this is considered acceptable315 provided the work is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

CAC1

113. EH does not claim that any particular benefit arises from the retention of the Queen's Road warehouse in the long-term but its removal without any clear proposal for a replacement building is contrary to the policy set out in PPG 15.316

CAC3 and CAC4

114. Both the Crocus Place warehouse and the west wing of Station House make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Mr Gilder concedes that the west wing makes a "significant" positive contribution. The proposed demolition of both of these buildings is very regrettable and can only be justified if it is clear beyond doubt that their removal is necessary for the tramway’s construction.

115. EH is not in a position to challenge the engineering justification put forward but questions the extent to which alternative alignments and alternative possibilities for the provision of access to the remaining land have been examined. If removal of part of Station House is necessary, as much as possible should be retained. Dr Scott believes that a truncated wing would still have architectural value and would contribute positively to the Conservation Area.

CAC5

116. The Applicants have recently modified their proposals in relation to the Church boundary wall. This modified approach largely deals with EH's concern, subject to the general matters of principle previously outlined.

CAC6

117. Again, the main concerns of EH relate to matters of general principle and the failure to consider or explain alternative junction layouts. Subject to these matters, although the wall makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, it could be satisfactorily relocated provided a detailed method statement were followed.

Demolition of 3-27 Arkwright Street

315 GOEM/8/PE, proof of Dr Scott para 10.2

316 PPG15 para 4.27

118. Although these buildings lie outside the Station Conservation Area, they are an integral part of the key views of the Station's main elevation in the approach from the south.317 In this respect they contribute positively to the setting of the Grade II* building, although they are not of any particular architectural merit in themselves. The demolition would therefore have an adverse impact on the settings of the listed building and the Conservation Area.

119. The decision maker has a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building.318 Moreover, PPG15 stresses the point that the setting of a listed building is often an essential part of its character.319 As no replacement buildings have yet been proposed, it is impossible to say what the long-term effect of their demolition may be. The only justification advanced for their removal is to create space for one of the possible configurations of a construction area required in the proximity of the Station.

120. Given the impact on the settings of the Station and the Conservation Area, EH opposes this demolition unless it is fully justified. Other configurations of potentially available sites would meet the identified need.320 Much may depend upon the timing of any redevelopment of the Station car park and the attitude of Network Rail to a temporary loss of this land during the NET construction period. Nevertheless, every effort should be made to preserve the Arkwright Street buildings and controls should be put in place under any permission granted to ensure that they are only demolished if there is no practical alternative.

Conclusion

121. English Heritage supports the NET scheme in principle. Nevertheless there is significant public interest in providing long term, effective protection to the listed buildings, conservation areas and townscape through which the scheme would run. EH contends that the ES is deficient. It is unclear whether this can be remedied by the provision of further information either at this Inquiry or through any subsequent direction.

122. The requirements of statute and Government policy in relation to the information to be provided with any listed building consent application is clear. The basic premise is that the decision maker must have before him all the information necessary to achieve a full understanding of the impact of a proposal on the character of the building. This requirement is not in any way diminished by the

317 GOEM/8/PE, proof of Dr Scott para 19.1

318 1990 Act section 16(2)

319 PPG15 paras 2.16 and 2.17

320 NET.B9


fact that this is a TWA or PFI scheme. The amended legislation still requires the submission of such material as is necessary to give a clear description of the works proposed and this must be supported by such material as the applicant is reasonably able to provide.

123. In the present case the level of detail required is seriously lacking. Although some last-minute attempts have been made to put forward material that the Applicants could have reasonably provided with the applications, there is still insufficient information on extent, impact, method and mitigation to enable the applications for LBC to be granted. Allied to this is the absence of sufficient justification to displace the presumption in favour of the retention of the listed buildings and the beneficial buildings in their current condition.

Written Representations

GOEM/1: Ellis-Fermor & Negus re: CAC6 - Boundary Wall, 2 Devonshire Avenue, Beeston


124. The Objectors do not oppose construction of the tram or the compulsory purchase of part of their land, provided proper and adequate compensation is paid. However, they do object to the demolition of the boundary wall which is a substantial and mature structure of outstanding craftsmanship occupying a prominent visual position in the Conservation Area. Given the sharpness of some of the curves which the existing tram route negotiates, it is difficult to understand why an alignment cannot be found which would avoid demolition of this important wall.

125. If there is no safe alternative to the demolition of the wall, then it should be carried out by hand and the materials, including landscaping elements within the garden, should be collected and stored. The wall should be rebuilt and the landscaping reinstated using the original materials as far as possible, with plants and trees replaced, and without loss of parking spaces. The work should be carried out to the satisfaction of the Objectors’ architect whose fees, along with all other legal and professional costs, would be paid by the developer.

GOEM/2: Mr Sam Blacklock re: General Effect on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas


126. The tram system would not fit in with the character of the area, the settings of all three listed buildings would be harmed. They might well also suffer damage from vibration, particularly Wilford Bridge over which the tram would run, and which is frequently used by walkers as a recreational facility.

127. The loss of the wall in front of Chilwell Road Methodist Church (CAC5) would alter the typical 19th century street scene to the detriment of a local landmark. Moreover, the boundary wall to 2 Devonshire Avenue appears as a main

gateway to Beeston town centre. Views of the Church of St John the Baptist and its gardens would, likewise, be harmed

GOEM/3: Chilwell Road Methodist Church re: CAC5 – Boundary Wall, Chilwell Road Methodist Church, Beeston


128. The extent of demolition and rebuilding is not clear, nor is the specification of the double gates. The Church and those using the premises must have full vehicular access at all times and for all purposes. Any reduction in the number of disabled parking spaces during construction would be unacceptable. The Church Council is obliged in law to have prior and final approval of the surveyor or architect appointed. Full compensation and professional fees should be paid.

GOEM/4: Beeston and Chilwell Business and Residents Association (BCBRA) re: LBC3 – Alterations to The Grange; CAC5 – Boundary Wall, Chilwell Road Methodist Church; and CAC6 – Boundary Wall, 2 Devonshire Avenue


129. The tramway would be routed too close to The Grange, a listed building. The visual amenity of both Conservation Areas would be ruined by the tramway, as would the setting of the Church of St John the Baptist, Beeston.

GOEM/5: Mrs S Smoczkhewicz re: Changes inherent in the LBC and CAC Applications


130. There are very few listed buildings and conservation areas left in this part of the country and it would be such a shame to lose or alter any more.

GOEM/6: Mr Gordon Court re: Impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas


131. The NET proposals would have a poorly justified and unnecessarily destructive impact on listed buildings and conservation areas.

GOEM/7: Mr Nigel Collier re: Changes to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas


132. Building a bridge across the Station Platforms (LBC1) is a hideous proposal and demolition of the Station Street Link Bridge undermines the status of the Conservation Area. The widening of Wilford Toll Bridge (LBC2) to carry the

tramway would result in the peace and quiet of the surrounding area being ruined.

133. The need to demolish the boundary wall at The Grange (LBC3) shows that the road is not wide enough to accommodate the tram. The tram would also run close to the original police station building on the other side of the road which is pre-20th century and should be conserved. Furthermore, the vibration of the tram could harm the listed building.

134. Demolition of the building on the south side of Queens Road (CAC1) would undermine the whole status of the Conservation Area. There is little point in declaring a conservation area and then knocking down buildings within it. The same applies to the former warehouse building in Crocus Place (CAC3) and the west wing of Station House (CAC4). As part of the street scene, demolition of the boundary walls at the Chilwell Road Methodist Church (CAC5) and 2 Devonshire Avenue (CAC6) would be harmful.

GOEM/9: Ms Wendy Kane re: CAC5 and LBC3


135. Consent should not be given for proposals which depend on a project such as the NET tramway, which has yet to be agreed. It would be a waste of tax payers’ money to undertake works which may be unnecessary, would have no benefit to the local community and may cause unnecessary inconvenience and disruption.

GOEM/10: Mr Paul R Hinman re: Impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas


136. The objection relates to all the listed building consent and conservation area consent applications submitted. All the applications require harmful alterations to listed buildings and the conservation areas or their settings which would seriously undermine their character. This is for the sake of tramway extensions which are both unnecessary and ridiculously expensive.

OBJ/831/SC: Wilford Community Group re: Effect on the Wilford Toll Bridge (LBC2)


137. An alternative route, requiring the construction of a new bridge, would avoid harmful impact on the historic Toll Bridge. It would also allow the proposed Wilford Village tram stop to be moved closer to the Nottingham Emmanuel School. NET contends that the tram route across Wilford Toll Bridge would preserve and enhance the historic role of the bridge as a key crossing point of the Trent. However, the bridge is already a significant crossing point, well used by pedestrians, cyclists and runners. Doing nothing would preserve the historic role of the bridge.

138. Provision of a new bridge springing from the Victoria Embankment would cause much less harm than other developments proposed for the Embankment. Moreover, there are no dwellings near the site most likely to be

occupied by a new bridge, whereas the route currently proposed would have a much greater adverse impact on the landscape of Wilford and the living conditions of its residents and children.

Conditions

139. Various versions of suggested conditions relating to LB and CA consent applications, developed throughout the Inquiry, have been put forward by the Promoters. The changes arise from discussion and exchanges with the parties, including English Heritage.321 The final version322 follows the conditions session which took place on 11 December 2007 and forms the basis for those attached to each application recommended for approval in my Conclusions. The suggested conditions have been amended and reworded where appropriate.

321 GOEM/8/PE/5

322 NET.P6/R



CONCLUSIONS – References to previous paragraphs are in brackets []

LBC Applications

LBC1 – Alterations to Nottingham Station [10-17, 107-110, 132]

140. Nottingham Railway Station is a handsome Edwardian Grade II* listed building in brick and terracotta with faience dressings. Its significance lies in the rarity and quality of its neo-baroque design, and its survival as an almost intact example of an early 20th century major railway station, complete with porte cochere, booking hall, and platform buildings.

141. Its monumental booking hall provides a large, grand, centralised waiting concourse on the American model, and it has extensive platform buildings with waiting rooms, toilets and other facilities, typical of British stations. There is also scope beyond the present NET proposals for the reinstatement of original features, such as the glazed platform canopies and the clearing away of later accretions which have diminished the clarity of its architectural composition and spatial organisation.

142. The NET proposals impinge primarily through the continuation of the existing tramway, which would span the platforms and tracks at high level. The route would broadly follow that of the former Great Central Railway (GCR) line, whose lattice girder viaduct was built at the end of the 19th century. The buildings on Platform 4/5 were subsequently constructed around the central supporting bridge pier and the Station opened in 1904. The bridge, long disused, was demolished in the 1980s.

143. In principle, the route and the form of bridge proposed - a lattice truss with similarities to the GCR structure, reusing its central pier foundation - are promising. The works ought to cause little disruption to the listed building and its setting.

The New Bridge

144. Three main bridge forms are explored in the evidence, box girder, cable stayed and lattice truss [11-13, 82]. Because of the depth of its deck, the box girder form would lead to permanent removal of a considerable area of platform canopy structure and roof parapet brickwork. It would also exert a heavy, dominating visual presence, unsympathetic to the lighter metalwork of the canopy supports.

145. The asymmetrical cable stayed bridge form would span over the Platform 4/5 building, without the need to penetrate the roof to reuse the pier foundations. However, both this and the symmetrical form would require permanent modifications to the platform canopies and roof parapets, be visually assertive in a way which might be at odds with the existing aesthetic, and would be more expensive than the other options.

146. The truss form, with the thinnest deck, would cause less disruption to the roof structures than the other forms, allowing the canopy profile to be maintained and requiring the least parapet reduction. The use of circular hollow sections for the members would give subtle gradations of shadow which, with thought given to choice of colour and artificial lighting, could result in the least assertive visual presence of the options considered.

147. The works would involve the following measures, which have been developed in further detail and refined following the comments made by various parties

before and during the Inquiry. As a direct result of the construction of the bridge, firstly, the cutting back of the roof structure to the Platform 4/5 building (the proposed bridge would be slightly wider than the GCR bridge) by some 2.5 metres and the rebuilding of the gable. A similar reduction would be made to the glazed structure to the Platform 1/3 building, used as a roof lantern at one time and now containing water tanks. In both cases, the space below would not be affected and the roof structure, not easily visible in any event, would appear much the same.

148. Secondly, the temporary removal of the central brickwork pier to one bay of the Platform 4/5 building, after the propping of the arched brickwork above, to allow the space from the outer jambs of the door openings either side to be used for construction access. The resolution of a strategy at the Inquiry, minimising the disturbance of existing finely crafted work, means that reconstruction would be relatively straightforward and that a high standard of work could be achieved.

149. English Heritage suggested that construction access might be made through the roof of the building, obviating the need to disturb the brickwork [109]. However, this must be balanced against the complete removal of the roof and most of the internal walls which would probably be necessary, to create sufficient working space, and the substantial additional disruption to railway operations to allow routine cranage across the tracks [14].

150. Thirdly, rearrangement of the internal walls in the toilet areas of the Platform 4/5 building, to accommodate the bridge piers, with adequate surrounding access space, built off the existing foundations. No features of significance would be disturbed.

151. Fourthly, temporary removal and reinstatement of a chimney stack to the Platform 4/5 building to help construction access, and local removal of parapet brickwork to this and the Platform 1/3 building. Some of this brickwork is original and of a high standard; some from the 1980s, following removal of the GCR bridge, is rather ragged. The brickwork would be made good, with copings reinstated where possible. Little if any of the parapet brickwork is visible from normal public viewpoints. None of this work, if carefully executed would make a material difference to the qualities of the buildings.

152. Finally, whilst retaining the canopy roof profile, the canopy panels would be modified beneath the bridge on both buildings, to allow removal from below for maintenance access to the bridge. Visually, there would be little or no change.

153. Subject to conditions approving details, reinstatement materials, and a full method statement, to protect the listed building, I am satisfied that the viaduct and the works directly arising from its construction would be acceptable.

The Pedestrian Link Bridge [15-110]

154. The Nottingham Station Stop would be located at the southern end of the viaduct, immediately before the track begins to descend over Queens Road towards ground level in the vicinity of Crocus Street. With the implementation of the separate Masterplan, the proposed southern link building would connect the Station Stop to the Station. This would be via the existing main dispersal bridge backing onto the booking hall, in place of the existing recently built staircase from the dispersal bridge down to Platform 6.

155. A separate pedestrian link bridge is proposed as part of LBC1 should the Masterplan not be implemented. The link bridge would connect a lift and stair access tower adjacent to the viaduct Station Stop to the end of the dispersal bridge, taking out a section of original fabric, comprising part of the glazed screen and brickwork below. The stair to Platform 6 would remain intact.

156. The promoters have studied the feasibility of connecting the link bridge to the landing of the existing stair, avoiding penetration of the dispersal bridge.323 However, this would involve moving the existing stair several metres to the east to create space for an extended landing, with considerable expense and disruption to station users. Moreover, the flow of those using the stairs and those using the link bridge would be required to merge on the landing before passing onto the more open space of the dispersal bridge. The benefit would not justify the expense and operational difficulties, in my opinion.

157. Subject to approval of the architectural details of the pedestrian link, lift and stairs, I am satisfied that this aspect of the proposals would be acceptable.

Demolition of the Station Street Link [16]

158. A recently built pedestrian bridge spans Station Street from the NET Line 1 terminus, with stairs linking into the eastern dispersal bridge over the Station platforms. This would be demolished under the proposals and the glazed timber screen to the dispersal bridge made good. The works were originally proposed under CAC7 but are now included in LBC1 since the bridge is physically attached to the listed building [11]. I see no difficulty in this aspect of the proposals, subject to approval of architectural details.

159. It may be possible to locate documentary evidence of the fabric which was removed to accommodate the link. If not, original details elsewhere would give a strong indication of appropriate reinstatement details. Reinstatement work would also be required to the northern boundary wall against Station Street with the removal of the link.

Miscellaneous Works

160. Miscellaneous works include the demolition of two sections of the northern boundary wall against Station Street, each some 3 metres wide, and the insertion of two 1500mm diameter viaduct support piers. The piers would be supported on existing caisson foundations, which were used for the GCR bridge and can be seen at the base of the wall, with later infill brickwork above. Original fabric would not be disturbed and the wall would be made good up to the new piers. Subject to satisfactory reinstatement, this element of the works is acceptable.

161. Also acceptable is the proposed removal of a recent, undistinguished, prefabricated building on Platform 6, subject to appropriate making good of surfaces and the like. This is known as the Red Star Parcel Building.

Conclusions

323 NET.A12/8


162. Subject to conditions, I find the proposed works acceptable. The listed building and its features of interest would be preserved, as would the character and appearance of the Station Conservation Area. I make comments below regarding the effect of works associated with the NET proposals on the setting of the building.

163. With regard to conditions, I consider the time limit of five years is necessary to allow sufficient time to accommodate the programme. The second condition links the LBC works to the letting of a contract for the NET works, to avoid unnecessary alterations to the listed building. The third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh conditions define the nature of the works and require approval of details and of a full method statement, to protect the character and appearance of the listed building. The remaining conditions require appropriate reinstatement, including reuse of materials or acceptable replacement materials, and are necessary for the same reasons.

164. I shall recommend that listed building consent should be granted for alterations to Nottingham Station in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it, as modified to include the works contained within the conservation area consent application dated 26 April 2007 to demolish the pedestrian footbridge linking Nottingham Station to NET Line One terminus subject to the following conditions:

1) Time Limit: The works hereby authorised shall begin not later than 5 years from the date of this consent.

2) Connection to Principal Development: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until a contract has been let under article 53 of the Nottingham Express Transit System Order for Work No. 10, Work No. 10A and (unless any alternative pedestrian link has already been approved as part of a planning permission other than the direction of deemed planning permission for the development for which provision is made in that Order) Work No. 10B authorised by that Order.

3) Nature of Works Permitted: The works hereby authorised shall be undertaken in accordance with those shown on Planning Direction Drawings nos. 36 and 37 and illustrative drawings 223700/1070 Revision P9 (Heritage Issues Drawing) and with details approved in accordance with Condition 4 of this Consent.

4) Approval of Details: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Drawings shall normally be to a scale of 1:50 for layouts and elevations, and 1:20 or 1:5 for details:

a. Record plans of the listed building.

b. Survey drawings and photographs of all external and internal parts of the listed buildings to be affected by the works.

c. Detailed design drawings of the tram viaduct and piers.

d. Details of the parapets, lighting and other features of the bridge.

e. Details of the replacement roof panels to the canopies, including the method of fixing.

f. Details of the tram stop, including and canopies, lift and stairs.

g. Details of the pedestrian link bridge to the dispersal bridge at the rear of the main station building, unless any alternative pedestrian link has already been approved as part of a planning permission other than the direction of deemed planning permission for the development for which provision is made in the Nottingham Express Transit System Order.

h. Details of the materials and finished colours of all elements of the works.

i. Detailed drawings showing the sections of the northern boundary wall against Station Street to be removed, the appearance of the proposed bridge piers and foundations and the reinstatement of the wall.

j. Detailed drawings showing alterations to the platform buildings on Platform 1/3, including the reduced parapet walls, with reinstated copings, the reconstruction of as much of the glazed timber rooflight as can practicably be retained, and any other consequential internal or external works.

k. Detailed drawings showing the alterations to the platform buildings on Platform 4/5, including the exact parts of the southern façade wall and doors to be taken down temporarily, internal walls and ceilings to be removed, the gable wall and roof to be removed, together with details of the proposed replacement gable wall, internal partitions, ceilings, chimney stack and any other consequential internal or external works. The temporary taking down of the façade shall not extend beyond the outer door jambs or higher than the top of the doors, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

l. Details of the reinstatement of the site of the former Red Star parcel building and any other necessary works to platforms, gates, railings and seats.

5) Design Approval: The existing NET Link Bridge shall not be removed until a detailed design for the replacement of the timber and glazed wall to the northern end of the footbridge has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The design shall match the original panels, or if drawings are not available, the design shall match the replacement timber and glazed panels which have been installed under listed building consent 06/01305/LLIS1.

6) Reinstatement of Wall: The existing NET Link Bridge shall not be removed until details of any reinstatement works to the station boundary wall, necessary as a result of the removal of the bridge piers and protective wall, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

7) Method Statement: Before the works hereby authorised begin, a full method statement for all the works and arrangements to protect internal or external historic fabric during construction, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include:

a. The methods of recording the buildings and of demolition of parts of the buildings and, in the case of the works to the Platform 4/5 building, the means of supporting the wall above the enlarged opening

and of protecting the opening and its surrounding fabric during construction.

b. The qualifications and experience of work with historic buildings, including gauged brickwork, of the craftsmen to be engaged to undertake the work and of the architect engaged to monitor it.

c. The location and means of storage of all removed parts of the listed building during construction pending their reinstatement.

d. Analysis of the existing mortars and details of the proposed mortar mixes.

e. The techniques to be used to reinstate the interior of the Platform 4/5 building, including the interior walls and any other architectural features.

8) Reuse of Materials and Reinstatement of Features: All brickwork, terracotta, faience and other decorative features and any internal or external features of architectural or historic interest, including original fireplaces, tilework, cornices, etc., which must be removed to carry out the works, shall be taken down with care, cleaned and stored for replacement or reuse.

9) Replacement Materials: In the event of breakage or damage to any features, the features shall be either repaired or replaced in accordance with the following:

a. Best endeavours shall be used to procure the repair of the broken or damaged feature to the highest available standard, using the best available materials and techniques to match the original.

b. If satisfactory repair cannot be achieved, best endeavours shall be used to source a replacement feature of similar age, style and appearance to the broken or damaged feature.

c. If neither satisfactory repair nor replacement can be achieved then a replacement feature shall be crafted using the materials and techniques in use at the time of the original feature’s manufacture by a suitably qualified and experienced craftsman, who has been first approved in writing by the local planning authority.

10) Reinstatement of Platform Surfaces: Before the tramway is brought into public use, any necessary reinstatement of platform surfaces, gates, railings and seats, including the site of the former Red Star prefabricated building shall be completed.

11) Implementation of the Works: With respect to any condition that requires the approval of the local planning authority, the works or matters thereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

LBC2 – Alterations to Wilford Toll Bridge [18-25, 111, 132, 137-138]

165. The Grade II listing describes the elaborate decorated brick Toll House, now a shop, which was built in 1870 as part of the northern approaches to the main spans. It would not be affected by the NET proposals. However, the listing extends to the whole of the bridge, since the Toll house and bridge are one continuous structure.

166. Significant are the monumental arched brick viaduct approaches, dressed in stone, and the substantial brick piers with elaborate stone cappings at the springing points of the spans, which make a strong visual impression. The original cast iron spans were replaced in 1980 with a narrow light steel deck used by pedestrians and cyclists, supported at two intermediate points in the river with portal frames bearing on the existing caissons.

167. Removal of this deck, and the installation of a wider deck to accommodate the tram, would affect the form of the original fabric only through the need to cut back the inner pilasters to the decorative piers by some 500 to 550mm. Other works, including strengthening the caisson foundations in the river, and the possible strengthening of the backing to the viaduct arches, would not be apparent.

168. Cutting back the pilasters, sensitively approached and carefully carried out, would be acceptable, and would provide the opportunity to make good recent unsympathetic alterations to facing brickwork. Reinstatement to approved details, including adaptation of the complex stone capping, resetting of the Clifton coat of arms, and the use of salvaged materials as far as possible, would be necessary. Of itself, such work would not be enough to require serious consideration of the construction of another bridge, or substantial rerouting of the proposed line [137, 138].

169. Careful attention should also be given to the appearance of the deck itself, its river supports, guard rails, overhead catenary supports, lighting fixtures, and scheme of lighting. The aim should be to reduce clutter and provide as clean, simple and elegant appearance as possible, with elements visually integrated, allowing the decorative brickwork forms of the piers, viaduct arches and Toll House to take precedence, without visual distraction.

170. To this end, the integration of lighting into, rather than surmounting, catenary support poles, should be considered, and the integration of the poles into the edge guarding system. With appropriate attention given to such elements, the settings of the Toll House and nearby Grade II listed buildings, comprising the gateways and screens to the Victoria Embankment, the K6 telephone kiosk, and the statue of Sir Jukes Clifton, would be preserved.

171. I am satisfied that these matters can be dealt with through appropriate approval of details and method statement, required by conditions following grant of consent. Other conditions are necessary linking the works to the letting of the main NET contract, to prevent unnecessary alteration of the listed building; requiring a structural survey by a specialist in historic work, to protect the listed structure; and requiring the vetting of materials and workmanship for the same reason. Subject to these matters, the alterations proposed would preserve the listed building and its features of interest.

172. I shall recommend that listed building consent should be granted for alterations to Wilford Toll Bridge, Nottingham in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 as amended and the plans, subsequently modified, submitted with it subject to the following conditions:


2) Connection to Principal Development: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until a contract has been let under article 53 of the

Nottingham Express Transit System Order for Work No. 12 authorised by that Order.

3) Approval of Details: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a. Record plans of the listed building, both Toll House and Bridge.

b. Survey drawings and photographs of the parts of the listed building which are to be affected by the works, including the existing bridge approach arches, parapets and brick piers.

c. Detailed design drawings at appropriate scale, showing the replacement bridge deck and support piers in plan and elevation, including the proposed materials and colours.

d. Details of the proposed surface treatment for the tramway, footway and cycleway.

e. Details of the overhead line equipment, lighting, railings and other safety measures and any other street furniture proposed.

f. Detailed drawings at a scale of not less than 1:50 showing the proposed alterations to the approach arches to support or attach the replacement bridge deck and railings, the proposed alterations to the brick piers and any other alterations to the listed structure.

The design of the bridge deck and alterations to the listed building shall conform to Drawing No. 223700/240 Revision P3 unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any alterations to the external appearance of the listed building shall be no greater than that shown in this drawing and described in The Wilford Bridge Feasibility Study, Report 223700/ER33 Revision B, April 2007.

4) Structural Survey: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until a report, prepared by an engineer specialising in historic bridges, detailing the results of investigations into the condition of the bridge and foundations and detailing any proposed strengthening of the approach arches or foundations, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

5) Method Statement: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until a method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall include:

a. Detailed records of parts of the listed building to be taken down.

b. The method for any cutting back of the brick piers, stone copings and any other external works necessary for the attachment of the bridge deck.

c. Details of the methods to be used to remove, restore and re-install the Clifton family coat of arms.

d. Details of the arrangements for repair or like for like replacement of any damaged features.

e. Analysis of the existing mortars and details of the proposed mortar mixes.

f. The methods for fixing any railings, lighting or other attachments to the listed building.

g. The location and means of storage during construction and pending their reinstatement of all removed parts of the listed building.

6) Materials and Workmanship: All external brick and stonework shall be undertaken, as far as practicable, using materials reclaimed from the demolition and shall match, in appearance and quality of workmanship, the existing works to be retained. Samples of all new external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All brick and stonework shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced historic buildings contractor, approved in writing by the local planning authority.


LBC3 – Alterations to The Grange (Beeston Police Station) [26-27, 112, 129, 133, 135]

173. The Grange, built in the first quarter of the 19th century and extended in the mid 19th century, is Grade II listed. The building would not be altered but the front boundary wall, attached to the building, would be substantially demolished to allow a safe highway junction to be created incorporating the tramway.

174. The wall consists of two sections. To the west of the vehicle entrance, the higher section, some 6 metres long, appears to be contemporary with the building. The much lower section to the east appears to be mid 20th century, is undistinguished in appearance and of no special architectural or historic interest. The older section would be retained, but the more recent section demolished and a new wall built, set back a distance of up to two metres within the grounds of the building. There is no reason to suppose that the part which would be rebuilt delineates the original curtilage of the building.

175. The loss of this section of the wall would not be harmful, subject to control through conditions of the nature and quality of its replacement, to protect the character and setting of the listed building. The slight alteration of the boundary line would not be significant. More significant would be the loss of a row of semi-mature trees behind the wall, which contribute much towards the quality of the townscape and the setting of the listed building. However, other trees could be planted in their place and, with control exercised through conditions, could adequately compensate for the loss.

176. Therefore, I find that this part of the proposals would be acceptable subject to conditions. The listed building and its features of interest would be preserved, as would the character and appearance of the Beeston West End Conservation Area. Besides those conditions mentioned, other conditions are necessary linking the works to the letting of the main NET contract to prevent unnecessary alteration of the listed building; and to define the extent of alterations to protect original fabric.

177. I shall recommend that listed building consent should be granted for alterations to the boundary wall to The Grange (Beeston Police Station) Chilwell Road, Beeston, Nottingham in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:


2) Connection to Principal Development: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until a contract has been let under article 53 of the Nottingham Express Transit System Order for Work No. 3 authorised by that Order.

3) Extent of Alterations: No part of the wall within 7 metres of the western end shall be altered, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that this is essential to secure adequate highway visibility from the vehicular entrance to The Grange.

4) Approval of Details: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a. The siting and elevations of the replacement wall.

b. The bricks and copings to be used and the mix and colour of any mortar.

c. The hard and soft landscaping to be provided within the curtilage of the listed building.

5) Materials: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until samples of the bricks, copings and pointing to be used for the replacement wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


CAC Applications

178. It is unclear whether CAC5 and CAC6 applications are necessary in the light of the Shimizu judgment, since the boundary walls would be only partially demolished. However, the Promoters have decided to proceed with the applications as a precautionary measure and my recommendations are made in this spirit.

CAC1 – Removal of Hoardings and Demolition of Building, Queens Road [34-35, 113, 134]

179. The Queen’s Point site, fronting Queens Road with advertisement hoardings, a slatted fence above a brick base, and gates, is mainly used for surface car parking. It also contains a neglected, undistinguished modern warehouse building, abutting 1 Arkwright Street, a corner building of considerable townscape importance in the Station Conservation Area.

180. Overall, the site does not make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. However, the warehouse building benefits the Conservation Area’s characteristic of street enclosure by continuing the frontage from the corner building along Queens Road. Its removal, without a satisfactory replacement, would diminish the townscape, and the exposed lower flank wall of the corner building would require treatment.

181. Planning permission for office development exists, but changes in the proposed alignment of the tram line mean that this would no longer be

practicable without modification. Refusal of consent for demolition is usual unless full information is available about what is proposed for the site after demolition.324 However, the site could form one of the construction working areas involved in the NET development. There are a number of possible alternative permutations in the assembly of working area from various sites, which depend on availability and other serious constraints. These are explored in a study paper prepared by the Promoters.325

182. A potential townscape loss much greater than that of the warehouse would arise from the demolition of numbers 3 to 27 Arkwright Street, which lie outside the Conservation Area, on the other side of the block, and run up to number 1A, next to the corner building. The frontage successfully frames views into the Conservation Area from the south and its loss would also harm the setting of the listed Station, seen from the south. This part of the Arkwright Street frontage comprises one of the sites which could make up the overall construction working area and, unlike the Queens Road warehouse, has no statutory protection.

183. Whilst only the land which is required for the construction of NET Phase Two may be acquired under the Order, if conservation area consent were refused for the Queens Point site, it is more likely that the Arkwright Street frontage would be required to make up the construction working area. Moreover, it is unlikely that the Queen’s Point site would remain vacant for long.

184. The demolition proposed would not preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, because of its harmful effect on the townscape whilst the site remained vacant. However, for the reasons stated, it would be acceptable subject to the conditions set out. These are required to prevent unnecessary demolition and to ensure satisfactory reinstatement works in the absence of firm redevelopment proposals.

185. I shall recommend that conservation area consent should be granted for the removal of hoardings and demolition of the building at 2 Queens Road, Nottingham, in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:



3) Reinstatement Works: Before the works hereby authorised begin, details of the replacement hard and soft landscaping or other necessary reinstatement works in the Conservation Area, including any external materials to be used and a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

4) Implementation of the Works: With respect to any condition that requires the approval of the local planning authority, the works or matters

324 PPG15 Para 4.27

325 NET.B9



thereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

CAC2 – Demolition of 1a Arkwright Street

186. This application has been withdrawn.

CAC3 – Demolition of Former Workshop, East of Crocus Place [36-37,114-115]

187. Both CAC3 and CAC4 are thought necessary by the Promoters because of the proposed alignment of the tramway between Queens Road and Crocus Street. The ramped section of the viaduct structure would extend eastwards to a line approximately coincident with that of the flank walls of both the former workshop and the west wing of Station House.

188. However, further space would be needed as working area for the construction of the ramped section; for maintenance access; and for an access road to service the buildings between Crocus Street and Tinker’s Leen, the waterway to the north. This would inevitably lead to some demolition. From the evidence put to the Inquiry, and responses to questioning, I am satisfied that no significant alteration in the proposed alignment of the viaduct is practicable.

189. The former workshop, now used for storage, is a simple building of no particular architectural distinction, in red brick with slate roof. It was built, probably in the early 20th century, as an outward extension of the courtyard complex of warehouse and factory buildings to the east of Crocus Place which is fronted by Station House on Crocus Street.

190. It makes a modest positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area through its historic interest as part of the overall industrial complex of Crocus Street and Crocus Place. A pre-application scheme for residential reuse of the courtyard complex, with a new eight storey building to the west, partly on the sites of the former workshop and the west wing of Station House, was submitted to the Inquiry.326 However, no redevelopment proposals have been granted permission. In these circumstances, the demolition would not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

191. At least partial demolition of the building would be essential for the NET development to go ahead. I see little case for preserving the remainder of the building, since a coherent form would be unlikely to result. The part of the building remaining would make little sense architecturally or historically and would not contribute to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

192. Demolition is, therefore, acceptable subject to the conditions set out. These are required to prevent unnecessary demolition and to ensure satisfactory reinstatement works in the absence of firm redevelopment proposals.

193. In these circumstances, I shall recommend that conservation area consent should be granted for the demolition of the former workshop east of Crocus

326 NET.C59


Place, Nottingham, in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:



3) Reinstatement Works: Before the works hereby authorised begin, details of the replacement hard and soft landscaping or other necessary reinstatement works in the Conservation Area, including any external materials to be used and a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


CAC4 – Demolition of the West Wing of Station House, Crocus Street [38-40, 114-115, 134]

194. Being mid to late 19th century, Station House predates the former workshop, the subject of CAC3. The main building, in brick and slate with a highly glazed rhythmic elevation of round arched wrought iron windows, on three levels, facing Crocus Street, would not be affected by the NET scheme. The west wing, continuing the Crocus Street elevation, follows the same theme but is lower and shallower in plan. The wing may be contemporary with the main building, or somewhat later. Both of these historic buildings make a handsome contribution to the bold civic and industrial character and appearance of the Station Conservation Area.

195. As with the former workshop building, at least partial demolition of the west wing would be essential to allow the NET development to proceed. However, in this case, efforts should be made to preserve as much of the building as possible, to minimise harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

196. Truncating the building and re-erecting its western gable wall would almost certainly be practicable. The form of the building and the pattern of the elevation would be coherent, allowing the existing scale of built development along Crocus Street to remain. Any future higher development would then be set back within Crocus Place, facing the major part of the viaduct in a visually appropriate manner. The west wing of Station House would continue to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

197. Despite the loss to the Conservation Area, the works proposed are acceptable subject to the conditions set out. Linking the consent to contractual commitment to the NET scheme, with the tramway set out to an approved alignment demonstrating the need for and extent of demolition, is required to prevent unnecessary demolition. Approval of satisfactory reinstatement works is necessary in the absence of firm redevelopment proposals.

198. I shall recommend that conservation area consent should be granted for the demolition of the west wing of Station House, Crocus Place, Nottingham, in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:


2) Connection to Principal Development: The works hereby authorised shall not begin until a contract has been let under article 53 of the Nottingham Express Transit System Order for Work No. 10 authorised by that Order and the layout of the tramway has been approved by the local planning authority on an alignment which confirms the need for and extent of the demolition. The extent of the demolition permitted by this consent shall be limited to that which is made necessary by the actual physical conflict of the tramway structure with the structure of Station House, or that necessary for access or servicing area.

3) Reinstatement Works: Before the works hereby authorised begin, details of alterations and reinstatement proposed to Station House, the proposed new access, gates and boundary walls to Crocus Street, hard and soft landscaping and other necessary reinstatement works in the Conservation Area, including any external materials to be used and a programme of implementation, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any alterations or reinstatement shall be undertaken, as far as practicable, using bricks and other materials reclaimed from the demolition.


CAC5 – Boundary Wall, Chilwell Road Methodist Church, Beeston [41-42, 116, 127, 128, 134,135]

199. The low stone wall, surmounted by piers, copings and decorative metal railings, is set in front of the locally listed Methodist Church, along the back line of the pavement to Chilwell Road. There are two openings that would be affected, a gap at the western end without gates, taking vehicle traffic, where the wall terminates in a pier; the other towards the eastern end, for pedestrians, with metalwork gates between flanking piers. The wall makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Beeston West End Conservation Area, typified by the Area’s mix of historic public, commercial and residential buildings within a well treed, mature and ordered urban context.

200. The application has been amended to allow the wall to remain in its present position,327 with the particular openings widened to increase visibility and allow safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access with the tramway in place. No trees would be lost, the line of enclosure at the back of the pavement separating public from private and semi-private space would remain, and an ugly pedestrian barrier near the kerb would be removed.

327 NET.A12/3, NET.P6/F, NET.R80


201. Subject to conditions, the works proposed are acceptable and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. These conditions link the consent to contractual commitment to the NET scheme, to prevent unnecessary demolition. They also limit the extent of demolition, for the same reason, and control the nature of rebuilt work, new and modified metalwork, and the choice of materials, to preserve the character and appearance of the wall.

202. I shall recommend that conservation area consent should be granted for works to the boundary wall at Chilwell Road Methodist Church, Beeston, Nottingham, in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it, subsequently modified, subject to the following conditions:



3) Extent of Demolition: No more of the front wall shall be demolished than is necessary to provide a vehicular access to replace the north eastern pedestrian gate, and to widen the existing south western vehicular access.

4) Details of Reinstatement Works: The new piers shall be designed to match the existing in form and detail. The existing railings shall be modified and reinstated. New gates, which shall be modelled on the existing gates and incorporate them if practicable, shall be provided for the new vehicular access and shall not be installed until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

5) Reuse of Materials: The existing wall, gate, piers and railings shall be taken down with care and all materials cleaned and stored for reuse in the replacement wall. As far as practicable, the works shall be constructed with these reclaimed materials. Before any reconstruction commences, samples of any additional facing materials and details of the mortar and techniques to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


CAC6 – Boundary Wall, 2 Devonshire Avenue, Beeston [43-44, 117, 124-125, 127,134]

203. The site lies in the St John’s Grove, Beeston Conservation Area. It is characterised by large, late Victorian or Edwardian houses. They are set back within spacious plots, often with mature landscaping, substantially enclosed by walls, fences or hedges.

204. The handsome, red brick boundary wall to 2 Devonshire Avenue is typical of the Area. It is some 1.8 to 2 metres high with recessed panels finished at head and foot in moulded brickwork, and triangular section moulded copings. It is set to a generous curve following the back line of the pavement at the

junction of Devonshire Avenue and Chilwell Road, with dense tree and shrub planting rising above it. The wall makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

205. The NET development requires the widening and improvement of the road junction to accommodate the tramway and a signalised pedestrian crossing. To allow this, the wall would be set back a maximum of some 1.8 metres. From the evidence presented, and the questions asked, there appears to be no practicable alternative.

206. The wall would be re-erected to the same height, form and detail, using reclaimed materials as far as possible, to the same radius and with demolition restricted to that necessary to achieve a continuous curve. Replacement planting would be installed. Subject to conditions requiring this and approval of a detailed method statement, to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and a condition linking consent to contractual commitment to the NET scheme to prevent unnecessary demolition, the works would be acceptable. They would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

207. I shall recommend that conservation area consent should be granted for the demolition and replacement of the boundary wall at 2 Devonshire Avenue, Beeston, Nottingham, in accordance with the terms of the application dated 26 April 2007 and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:



3) Replacement and Reinstatement Works: Before the works hereby authorised begin, details of the alignment, elevation and materials for the replacement wall, the position and species of any trees to be removed and any proposed planting, and any other reinstatement works in the Conservation Area, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The replacement wall shall be of the same height, bond and external appearance as the existing wall. It shall have a curved alignment of the same radius as the existing and involve minimum demolition of that part of the wall facing Chilwell Road as is necessary to achieve such a curved alignment.

4) Method Statement: Before the works hereby authorised begin, a detailed method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority addressing at least:

a. Details of the method of demolition of the wall.

b. Details of the location and means of storage, cleaning and preservation of the removed bricks.

c. Details of the method of reinstatement, including proposals for the repair or like for like replacement of any damaged bricks or coping stones and details of the mortar and techniques to be used.

d. Details of the qualifications and experience of the contractor to be engaged to undertake the works

5) Reuse of Materials: The existing wall and copings shall be taken down with care and all facing materials cleaned and stored for reuse in the replacement wall. As far as practicable, the replacement wall shall be constructed so that its external face consists of reclaimed bricks and copings. Before any brickwork begins, samples of any new bricks or copings to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.


CAC7 – Demolition of Station Street Link Bridge

208. This application has been incorporated into LBC1

Conformity with the Statement of Matters

Matter (i): Consistency with LBC and CAC Provisions of PPG15 [51-54, 88-98, 129]

- LBC Provisions

209. PPG15 advises in paragraph 3.5 that the following issues are relevant to the consideration of applications for listed building consent:

• The importance of the building, including its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity.

• The particular physical features which justify its inclusion in the list.

• The building’s setting.

• The extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community.

210. Inspector Barker’s lead report considers the benefits of the NET TWO scheme in depth. Whether the works proposed to the listed buildings are necessary to achieve these benefits, and aspects of the other relevant issues indicated by PPG15, have been addressed within the assessment of each application [140-208].

211. In addition, works occasioned by the NET proposals would affect the settings of the Grade II* listed Nottingham Station, the Grade II listed St John the Baptist Church, Beeston, and the Grade II listed Priory Church of St. Anthony together with its associated structures. Highfields Park, listed Grade II in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest, would also be affected. Whilst the loss of trees on its street frontage would harm the setting of The Grange, Grade II listed, in the short term, the setting would be restored by replacement planting. There would be no effect on the setting of other listed buildings or conservation areas to which attention has been drawn.

Nottingham Station

212. Handled sensitively, the passage of the tramway from Crocus Street over Queens Road and the Station need not harm the setting of the listed building. Much depends on the care taken in integrating the development into its surroundings, avoiding awkward left over spaces, and on the quality of detailing. The civic front of the building would not be affected and the development, in recalling the GCR viaduct, would recreate an aspect of the historic interest of the building and its surroundings.

213. The approach to Nottingham Station from the south presents an important view, across Queen’s Road, of its principal elevation seen as a continuation of the east frontage of Arkwright Street. The visual channelling of the street focuses attention on the Station and in particular on its central clock tower. Part of the visual impact has been lost by the clearance, except for the important corner building, of the west side of the street, and its redevelopment with modern undistinguished industrial and commercial buildings set back from the street.

214. The prominent corner building on the east side of Arkwright Street, number 1, a former bank of similar age to the Station, also performs an important townscape function, giving visual definition to the street junction and framing the view of the Station. Along with its neighbour, number 1A, it lies just within the Station Conservation Area and, therefore, has protection against demolition. However, numbers 3 to 27 lie outside the Conservation Area and have no such protection.

215. Nevertheless, they are important to the Station’s setting. Although unexceptional architecturally, they provide a continuous frontage built up to the back of the pavement which generates very successful townscape. It leads one physically and visually to the Station as the highlight of the area. Their loss without a suitable replacement would harm, rather than preserve, the setting of the Station and should be resisted. Every effort should be made to accommodate necessary construction working area on the other possible sites, allowing these buildings to remain.

St John the Baptist Church, Beeston

216. The Promoters’ original proposal involved the demolition of all of the buildings (numbers 23 to 47) west of the limb of The Square forming the pedestrian mall which acts as a spine to Beeston’s post war central shopping development. This would substantially benefit the setting of St John the Baptist Church, opening up views towards it from Chilwell Road, The Square and Styring Street.

217. It would also have swept away the unsightly juxtaposition of the service yards of these buildings with the Churchyard, albeit a tree screen intervenes. Instead, the active frontages of the buildings to the east of The Square would have faced the Church across open public space.

218. The revised proposal also benefits the setting of the Church, but to a much lesser degree. It involves the retention of numbers 33 to 39, allowing the tram to take a route between reduced service yards, shielded with a wall and planting, and the Churchyard. Whilst views from the Churchyard would remain much the same, dominated by the existing extensive tree screen, those of the Church from Chilwell Road and Styring Street would be enhanced. Overall, the proposals, in both their original and revised forms, would enhance the setting of the listed building.

Priory Church of St Anthony

219. The setting of the Church would be affected by the substantial widening of Abbey Street to accommodate road traffic, the tramway, and junctions. This would give rise to some narrowing of the eastern pavement in front of the wall outside the Church grounds and loss of some trees from this area, although sufficient would remain to provide screening. It would also result in the demolition of all the buildings facing the Church grounds on the western side of Abbey Street, between the car park and the junction with Gregory Street, as well as most of the short terrace on Gregory Street at the road junction.

220. In place of the lost buildings, a wall with dense planting is proposed to enclose the street and screen the disparate collection of industrial buildings beyond. It is also noted on the ES drawings that, should the factory site opposite the Priory be redeveloped, opportunities should be explored to eventually reinstate an active building frontage along Abbey Street.

221. The setting of the Church and associated structures would be harmed by the townscape impact of the loss of the western frontage, despite the planting proposed there and the remaining foliage screening to the Church grounds. The Church would lose its street setting and instead there would be a busy road without urban containment. Although the buildings to be demolished have no statutory protection and their sites are required to allow the tramway to be built, attention should be paid to re-establishing an urban frontage as soon as possible. Also means of enhancing the treatment proposed following demolition should be explored.

Highfields Park

222. Highfields Park, part of the University campus, is Grade II listed. The tramway would skirt the park, generally separated from it by University Boulevard dual carriageway. Although there would be some loss of mature foliage to the Boulevard, new planting would be introduced. The monumental main entrance to the Park is Grade II listed, but the landscape treatment proposed would preserve its setting. Overall, the setting of Highfields Park would be preserved.

- CAC Provisions

223. In paragraph 4.14, PPG15 advises that the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area should be a material consideration in the handling of development proposals outside a conservation area affecting its setting or views into or out of the area.

Station Conservation Area

224. The comments made regarding the effect of the works on the setting of the listed Station apply equally to the Conservation Area [212-215]. The Station is the primary visual focus of the Conservation Area and the loss of numbers 3 to 27 Arkwright Street, without suitable replacement, would harm rather than preserve the setting of, and views into, the Conservation Area. Harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would, therefore, arise.

Beeston West End Conservation Area

225. Proposals for the demolition of buildings in The Square, Beeston, affect views into and out of the Beeston West End Conservation Area in an analogous way to the effect of the proposals on the setting of St John the Baptist Church, described above [216-218]. In the original proposal, involving demolition of all of the buildings to the west of The Square, views into the Area from

Chilwell Road, The Square and Styring Street would be greatly enhanced. This would be so to a lesser degree in the revised proposals, with the retention of numbers 33 to 39.

226. Views out of the Conservation Area would also be greatly improved under the original proposals, with views of the active frontages of the buildings to the east of The Square revealed across open public space. In the revised proposal, views from Church Street would be marginally improved with the substitution of views of part of the frontage of the eastern buildings for views of the service rears. However, views out of the Conservation Area, eastwards along Chilwell Road, towards The Square, would be harmed with newly revealed views of the service yards at the rear of the retained units, despite screening proposed.

227. The original proposal would enhance views into and out of the Conservation Area and its setting. Overall, the revised proposal would have a neutral effect, broadly balancing the effect on views and preserving the setting of the Conservation Area. Whilst the original proposal would meet the key principle set out in PPS1 paragraph 13(iv) of taking the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area, the revised proposal would not do so.

228. In addition, the demolition of numbers 63 to 93 Chilwell Road, the frontage buildings of two blocks either side of the southern limb of Ellis Grove, would affect the setting of the Conservation Area. The demolition is required to allow the formation of the Chilwell Road stop. It would reveal the flank and garden wall, with fence above, to a dwelling at present hidden, and the disfigured wall of an industrial building.

229. The sites, which would go some way back from the tram stop, would appear as a scar in the streetscape, seen from the Conservation Area. The northern site is annotated as Potential Retail Development,328 and the southern site as Development/Landscape Area. Whatever the ultimate use of the sites, it is important that serious restitution work is carried out to the sites, to make them visually acceptable generally, and particularly within the setting of the Conservation Area.

230. Surface landscaping would be inadequate. It would neither screen the exposed buildings nor occupy the redundant space in a manner which benefits the streetscape. Imaginative structural screening may be more effective, perhaps incorporating a green wall or public art, to preserve the setting of the Conservation Area.

Matter (ii): Necessity of the Consents and whether Impacts could be Mitigated [55-58]

LBC1- Alterations to Nottingham Station

231. Application LBC1 is necessary in principle, since the NET line would connect to the existing Line 1 at Station Street and proceed at high level across the Station. The route intended involves minimum disturbance, following that of the dismantled GCR line and using existing bridge foundations. The form of bridge chosen would result in less disruption than the other options considered. Moreover, the potential impact has been mitigated by refinement

328 ES drawing 223700/TD11

of details and approaches to working method following consultation and debate before and at the Inquiry. Further control would exist through conditions.

232. Alternative arrangements have been considered for the pedestrian link bridge, should it be needed, from the viaduct tram stop to the existing dispersal bridge. The operational difficulties and additional expense involved in the alternative arrangements would not be justified. All other works are necessary and acceptable, subject to appropriate reinstatement and approval of details and working methods, which would be controlled by condition.

LBC2 – Alterations to Wilford Toll Bridge

233. Wilford Toll Bridge could comfortably carry the tramway with minimum disturbance to its fabric and without disrupting its existing use as a pedestrian and cycle bridge. The effect on the listed bridge would not be so significant as to justify construction of a separate dedicated bridge or substantial rerouting of the line [137, 138]. Potential impact has been mitigated by agreement in principle on conditions requiring approval of details and working methods.

LBC3 – Alterations to The Grange

234. Demolition of a section of the boundary wall would be necessary to allow a safe highway junction to be created. The part of the wall to be demolished is of no historic or architectural interest and does not appear to delineate a significant boundary. The loss of the semi-mature trees behind the wall would harm the setting of the listed building. In mitigation, conditions would control the nature of the replacement wall and of the landscaping, including replacement trees.

CAC1 – Removal of Hoardings and Demolition of Building, Queens Road

235. The warehouse building is neglected and of no architectural merit, but it continues the street frontage of the corner building, benefiting the townscape. Removal of the hoardings, fence, brick base and gates fronting the area of surface car parking east of the building is necessary to allow clear passage for the viaduct. Demolition of the building itself would release construction working space and reduce the likelihood of numbers 3 to 27 Arkwright Street being required for this purpose, which would represent a very much greater townscape loss.

236. Whilst planning permission for redevelopment of the site has been granted, it would no longer be practicable in its present form because of changes in the alignment of the tram line. Refusal of conservation area consent for demolition is usual without full information about redevelopment proposals. However, in this case, consent is justified because of the more harmful consequences were the application refused. Mitigation of the harmful effects of the demolition would arise from the requirement by condition for approval of details of reinstatement works to the site before demolition takes place and the quality of the eventual redevelopment.

CAC3 – Demolition of the Former Workshop, East of Crocus Place

237. Demolition of a substantial part of this building would be necessary to accommodate the ramping down of the tramway viaduct south of the Station, construction and maintenance access, and the provision of a service road into Crocus Place. The building makes a modest positive contribution to the

character of the Conservation Area through its historic interest as part of the industrial complex.

238. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area would, therefore, not be preserved by the demolition and there are no firm proposals for redevelopment, although a pre-application scheme exists. However, without at least partial demolition, the NET proposals could not proceed. Preserving part of the building would make little sense architecturally or historically, and would not contribute to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

239. In these circumstances, conservation area consent in the form applied for would be necessary. Mitigation would arise from the requirement for the approval of details of reinstatement before demolition takes place.

CAC4 – Demolition of the West Wing of Station House, Crocus Street

240. The case for demolition is very similar to that for demolition of the former workshop in CAC3. However, the west wing of Station House makes a very positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Although partial demolition would be essential to allow the NET scheme to proceed, preservation of as much of the building as possible would be practicable and would benefit the Conservation Area.

241. Therefore, consent in the precise form applied for would not be necessary for the tramway proposals to be implemented. Consequently, conditions are suggested which could be attached to the recommended grant of consent, limiting the extent of demolition to that made necessary by actual physical conflict with the structure of the tramway, and by necessary access or servicing. Approval of reinstatement works would also be required before demolition takes place.

CAC5 – Boundary Wall, Chilwell Road Methodist Church

242. The works proposed would increase visibility and allow safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access with the tramway in place. They are not strictly necessary for the NET proposals to proceed, and an element of the works is intended primarily for the convenience of the Church.

243. However, with mitigation measures in place, including restriction of the extent of demolition, reuse of materials, and approval of details of reinstatement, the works would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Moreover, since total or substantial destruction of the wall would not take place, it is not clear that conservation area consent is required.

CAC6 – Boundary Wall, 2 Devonshire Avenue

244. The realignment of this handsome brick wall, which makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, is necessary to accommodate the layout of the tramway including a signalised crossing. There appears to be no practicable alternative.

245. Mitigation measures, controlled by condition, would restrict demolition to that necessary to allow re-erection of the wall to the same radius in a continuous curve and achieve the same height, form and detail, using reclaimed materials as far as possible. Details of replacement planting and working methods would also be controlled. In these circumstances, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved.

Matter (iii) - Harm Caused and its Significance [59-61]

246. Harm would be caused to Nottingham Station by the proposed works (LBC1) only to a very minor degree. There would be some alteration to the platform buildings, including roof and parapet profiles, and internal walls. Also, a small section of the elevation would be disturbed and reinstated. In addition, a small part of the original fabric would be lost from the western dispersal bridge at the connection to the pedestrian link bridge. Any harm would be of little overall significance to the character and appearance of the listed building.

247. Wilford Toll Bridge (LBC2) would also be affected only to a minor degree with the reduction of the pilasters to the main brick piers and the remodelling of the stone cappings. If carried out sensitively, little harm would result and there might be opportunity to make good recent refacing work. Overall, any harm would be of little significance.

248. Regarding works to the boundary wall of The Grange (LBC3), the only harm would be to the setting of the listed building with the loss of the existing trees. However, this is of little significance, since new trees could be planted, reaching an equivalent degree of maturity in time.

249. Demolition of the Queens Road warehouse building (CAC1) would harm the townscape to some extent, until redevelopment of the site takes place. However, the main significance lies in the opportunity created by the demolition of avoiding greater harm through loss of the majority of the Arkwright Street frontage.

250. Loss of the former workshop east of Crocus Place (CAC3) would be moderately harmful, and loss of the west wing of Station House (CAC4) much more so, given its historic, architectural and townscape significance within the Conservation Area. Mitigation measures have been fully considered and there are no practicable alternatives if the NET scheme is to proceed.

251. Any harm brought about by works to the boundary wall of Chilwell Methodist Church (CAC5) would be of very minor significance and would be balanced by the removal of the ugly pedestrian barrier which obscures views of the wall. Taking account of mitigation measures, little if any harm would arise from works to the boundary wall at 2 Devonshire Avenue (CAC6).

252. Significant harm would also be brought about to the settings of Nottingham Station and the Station Conservation Area, including harm to views into the Conservation Area towards the Station if numbers 3-27 Arkwright Street were demolished [213-215, 224]. Whilst these buildings have no statutory protection, every effort should be made to retain them in the absence of firm, acceptable redevelopment proposals.

253. Significant harm would also be caused to the setting of the Priory Church of St Anthony, and to the townscape generally, by the loss of the western buildings with the widening of Abbey Street [219-221]. This is unavoidable if NET TWO is to proceed, and the buildings are not statutorily protected. Reinstatement treatment should be enhanced in mitigation and attention paid to establishing a new active urban frontage as soon as possible.

254. In addition, demolition of numbers 63 to 93 Chilwell Road would significantly harm the streetscape and the setting of the Beeston West End Conservation Area [228-230]. Again, this is unavoidable, and the buildings are not

protected, but mitigation in the form of serious and imaginative restitution works should be carried out.

Matter (iv) - Justification of Harm through a Compelling Case in the Public Interest [62-63]

255. Significant unavoidable harm would be caused by partial demolition of the west wing of Station House and, to a lesser extent, demolition of the workshop east of Crocus Place. Harm of much less significance may arise elsewhere from listed building and conservation area consents and, in all cases, mitigation measures have been fully considered and incorporated where helpful.

256. Works which are not the subject of consent applications would also be harmful. Harm arising from demolition to the Arkwright Street frontage might be avoided; that to Abbey Road and Chilwell road would be unavoidable, but serious steps should be taken in mitigation. In his report, Inspector Barker demonstrates that there is a compelling case in the public interest to allow the NET proposals to proceed. The residual harm which would be caused to listed buildings and conservation areas, once full steps have been taken to minimise its effects, is acceptable.

Matter (v) - Adequacy of the Environmental Statement [64-71, 72-102]

257. Read as a whole, the Environmental Statement (ES) and the supporting material to the consent applications,329 made public at the same time as the ES, provide a good basis for assessing the broad effects of the NET proposals on listed buildings and conservation areas. I see no evidence that any party’s interests have been prejudiced by the content of the ES and associated material, or its method of presentation.

258. The information has been amplified by exchanges between parties, proofs of evidence, appendices, and exchanges during the Inquiry. Alternative approaches to achieving aims within the NET proposals have been explored. In this way, design information has developed productively and allowed satisfactory assessment of the consent applications and the effects on cultural heritage resources.

259. Inevitably, to a greater degree than might be expected with elective consent applications, some detailed aspects of the works remain to be resolved. However, control of these aspects through conditioning would be adequate, in my view. One of the parties that comprise the applicants for the consents is Nottingham City Council. However, properly executed, this ought not to compromise its separate role in approving conditioned matters.

Matter (vi) – The Form of Conditions that should be Attached

260. The final version of conditions suggested by the Promoters, assembled following discussion in the Inquiry, has been used as the basis for those attached to the recommended consents. The conditions have been amended and reworded for reasons of clarity and to accord with the details of the

329 NET.A12

assessment of each application. They act to mitigate harmful effects of the proposals.

Matter (vii) – Any Other Matters

261. Other matters, besides those set out in the Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters, have been integrated into the report.

Recommendations

262. I recommend that all the applications for listed building consent and conservation consent should be granted subject to conditions as set out above in paragraphs 164, 172, 177, 185, 193, 198, 202 and 207. Also, that the Promoters take note of the adverse effects indicated on the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas of the demolition of unlisted buildings outside the boundaries of conservation areas and does all that is possible to mitigate those effects.

Alan Novitzky Inspector