41. Will there be through services between NET Line One and NET Phase Two?
42. How will NET affect property values? Is compensation available?
43. What has been the impact on businesses along NET Line One?
44. Public consultation and land referencing
45. The Environmental Statement
46. How were tram stop locations chosen?
49. Impact on ecological habitats
50. Ground conditions/subsidence
51. Has flood risk been taken into account?
53. How will the streetscape be designed?
54. What about listed buildings and conservations areas?
Your Questions...
Will there be through services between NET Line One and NET Phase Two?
Contrary to comments made by some objectors, NET Phase Two services would be fully integrated with those currently operating on NET Line One with ‘through’ routes linking the NET Phase Two routes with NET Line One. So, for example, Clifton services may travel through the City Centre and on to Phoenix Park with Chilwell services operating through to Hucknall without the need to change trams at Nottingham Railway Station.
How will NET affect property values? Is compensation available?
The best available evidence is that overall, after construction, residential property values are likely to be higher in locations where a new tramway or other public transport system is provided when compared with similar locations where public transport is less attractive.
Where property needs to be acquired for NET Phase Two construction; the NET Promoters will fully comply with the framework of statute and case law known as the “compensation code”, which sets out the entitlement to compensation for compulsory purchase. If a property or some land is acquired for the project the owners will be fully compensated at the market value, both for the value of the land acquired and for the impacts of NET Phase Two on the remaining property. In some circumstances, compensation may also be awarded because of the impact of NET Phase Two even if no land or property is acquired.
Claims for compensation are dealt with by the Lands Tribunal, not the public inquiry, and affected property owners can get more information and guidance about compulsory purchase and compensation from the Department for Communities and Local Government (Tel: 0870 1226 236) The following booklets are available:
· Booklet 1 – Compulsory Purchase Procedure
· Booklet 2 – Compensation to Business Owners and Occupiers
· Booklet 3 – Compensation to Agricultural Owners and Occupiers
· Booklet 4 – Compensation to Residential Owners and Occupiers
· Booklet 5 – Mitigation Works
Affected property owners are advised to seek independent professional advice on this issue.
back to questions
What has been the impact on business along NET Line One?
It is generally understood that good transport links help economic development, particularly if integrated with other development initiatives or policies. Along NET Line One extensive development has taken place, for example in the Lace Market, where a number of developments are happening adjacent to the local tram stop. These include a landmark £25m building called the Pod which is approaching completion and the site board includes a picture of the tram stop. The developer of another scheme in the area, known as the Cutting Edge, stated:
“There is a stop right outside so there are more people milling around the area. If we hadn’t got the tram I’m not sure we would have done the (Edge) scheme. It gives it visibility, makes it easy to get to”.
David Hargreaves, Fisher Hargreaves Proctor (Nottingham Evening Post, Commercial Property 7th December 2004)
At the Hucknall terminus, a Tesco superstore has opened close to the tram stop, and along with new homes that have already been built, plans have been submitted for a 700 home extension to the town adjacent to the tram stop. Other developments are also in the pipeline.
In Hyson Green, it was recognised that there would be some impacts on businesses during the construction phase, and a financial assistance package supported a number of businesses during this time. It is understood that some businesses have struggled to recover from the construction, but overall the shopping area appears to be healthy, with reduced numbers of businesses closing and an increase in planning applications since NET Line One opened. A similar financial assistance package is being developed for small to medium businesses in the Chilwell Road / High Road area who might suffer from a short-term loss of trade. Public Consultation on the draft Financial Assistance Package (FAP) was undertaken by the County Council in 2004 and the current draft FAP was distributed to businesses and traders in the Chilwell Road/High Road area in late September 2007.
back to questions
Public consultation and land referencing
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. This is surprising and the NET Promoters contend that this is not the case.
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. 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.
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.
The headline results were:
Clifton via Wilford
· Three quarters of people asked felt that public transport needs to be improved
· 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.
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.
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. Changes have been made to the scheme as a result of consultation feedback - see below for details:
Clifton route:
· Reintroduction of a footpath along the centre of Queens Walk in the Meadows following concerns about security of side paths;
· Revised access arrangements for Nottingham Moderns Rugby Club in Wilford;
· Revised layout at Coronation Avenue in Wilford to avoid the tramway being elevated close to residential properties;
· Use of the former railway embankment to screen properties on Vernon Avenue in Wilford;
· Operating alongside the railway embankment between Vernon Avenue and Wilford Lane in Wilford, primarily to minimise ecological impact;
· Relocation of the Compton Acres tram stop to minimise impact on an adjacent residential property;
· Changes to the Ruddington Lane crossing to minimise visual impact on adjacent properties;
· Park and Ride proposal close to Wilwell Cutting SSSI not pursued;
· Changes to the layout of parking bays and tree provision in Clifton following comments from residents.
Chilwell route:
· Provision of cycle facilities behind the Meadows Way tram stop in the Meadows;
· A revised location for the ng2 tram stop which better serves the business park and minimises land impacts;
· Revised alignment to avoid impact on the Kings Meadow Nature Reserve in the area of Lenton Lane area;
· Modification to a proposed junction on University Boulevard to include a right turn facility into Highfields Sports Club, providing a high level of accessibility;
· Revision of the alignment of the tramway along University Boulevard to move the tracks further away from the high quality hockey pitch within Highfields Sports Club;
· Alterations to the layout (and associated land take) of one of the off street car parks proposed off Chilwell Road in Beeston.
· Introduction of a new tramstop at Chilwell Road/High Road in Beeston;
· Introduction of a new tramstop at Cator Lane in Chilwell;
· Changes to the alignment of the tramway at Sandby Court in Chilwell to avoid passing through the elderly persons’ complex.
Area wide consultation on transport strategy, including NET, has also taken place through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. In terms of the LTP 2006/07–2010/11 [NET.C22], consultation with residents was undertaken by way of leaflet mail outs and public events. Feedback received confirmed consensus that NET Phase Two, along with the A453 improvements, the Station Masterplan and the Ring Road major scheme, are vital to the development of Nottingham.
In addition to the consultation outlined in the Statement of Consultation [NET.A3] and summarised above, the NET Promoters have 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. A group opposing the proposals for the extension to Clifton via Wilford, ENT have claimed that the NET Promoters “have repeatedly refused requests from ENT to organise any public consultation meetings”. The NET Promoters have not refused to engage with the public or ENT, but their experience has been that large public meetings have proved an unproductive forum for constructive exchange and therefore have not been widely utilised in more recent years. Nevertheless, the NET Promoters have participated in public meetings along the proposed route, including a meeting held in Compton Acres on 4th July 2007, which was arranged by ENT.
In addition to the changes set out in section 5.3.5 above, 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. Such changes include:
· moving the proposed tram stop (and tram turn back facility) from the southern side to the northern side of Wilford Lane (on the Clifton via Wilford route). This change has occurred mainly in response to concerns raised by residents living in the St Austell Drive/Compton Acres area (see sections 7.5 and 7.6);
· withdrawal of the Conservation Area Consent application with respect to 1A Arkwright Street. (adjacent to Nottingham Station) (see section 8.3); and
· provision for a footpath adjacent to the tramway between Inham Road (Chilwell) and the Toton Lane Park and Ride site. Part of the footpath would run through the proposed open space adjacent to Teesdale Court and Inham Road/Field Lane.
· Withdrawal of the proposal to acquire the Argos store and three other properties in Beeston town centre.
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 Promoters went beyond the formal requirements by updating the NET website to include not only the TWAO application documentation but also the NET Promoters Statement of Case and supporting documents and, on an on-going basis, the Statements of Case submitted by objectors and supporters.
Some objectors have claimed that the land referencing exercise carried out by the NET Promoters and their agents, LandAspects was in some way inadequate, with some claims that it was unethical or even illegal. In fact, the exercise carried out by the NET Promoters and LandAspects followed standard procedures for TWA projects of this nature, with additional efforts made to ensure that those whose property might be affected by the construction of NET Phase Two, even though none of it was to be acquired, were also identified and notified. This is a new requirement of the Application Rules [NET.D4], which came into force in September 2006.
Details of the referencing and notification exercise are set out in inquiry document NET.A25 and can be summarised as follows. LandAspects were retained to:
· identify all those affected by the proposed TWA Order, including land-owners, tenants and occupiers of land subject to compulsory purchase, all those with private rights over such land, various statutory bodies and organisations, all those whose properties front onto part of a street in which equipment is to be placed, and all those who might have a claim under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (which gives a right to compensation for the impacts of works carried out under compulsory powers, even though no land has been acquired);
· compile a book of reference as required by rule 10 of the Application Rules;
· prepare ownership plans and notices and then serving these on affected parties, in accordance with the Application Rules;
· set up and maintain site notices along the route of the tram; and
· create, manage and maintain a database of land ownership information to support the exercise.
The land referencing exercise started with the use of publicly available sources, such as the Land Registry and the electoral roll, to compile initial information about land ownership. Contrary to claims made by some objectors, these sources were not used as a final resource, but as the starting point for the exercise. LandAspects then used this information to contact the reputed owners of the land along the proposed routes, either face-to-face, or by leaving questionnaires at affected properties. Contrary to claims made by some objectors, those carrying out the interviews were permanent employees of LandAspects, not students. Again, contrary to the claims of objectors, there was no element of compulsion involved: people were free not to reply to the questionnaires. When complaints were made about the content of the questionnaires, these were revised by the NET Promoters to exclude questions that were no longer relevant following the entry into force of the Application Rules. However, the claims that the questionnaires were illegal or unnecessarily intrusive are false: the NET Promoters were required to make diligent inquiry about land ownership, and the questions were intended to elicit that information. In particular, the claim that the questionnaires asked for financial information was also false: they asked for the identity of mortgage providers, as these bodies are entitled to notice of TWA applications, but did not ask for details of the mortgage. This exercise is standard practice for a TWA application. It is also untrue to claim, as some objectors have, that the referencing exercise unnecessarily included many properties that were not on the route of NET Phase Two (and therefore made people worry that their property would be subject to compulsory purchase when this was not in fact the case). The reality is that approximately 2,700 properties were referenced, resulting in 6,363 notices being served.
Once LandAspects had used the information garnered from this exercise they compiled a draft Book of Reference, then wrote to the identified parties, asking them to confirm that their identified interests were correct. Again, this is standard practice for a TWA application, and is particularly valuable in picking up changes to land ownership since the original exercise was carried out, or where questionnaires were not replied to. However, neither LandAspects nor the NET Promoters could require people to return the confirmation schedules, or to make any corrections that were necessary. Consequently, a number of errors have been noted by objectors in response to the notices that they subsequently received of the TWA application. (In many cases, the same objectors either refused to return the confirmation schedules or did so without correcting the alleged errors.) Nevertheless, the referencing and confirmation exercise carried out as set out above and in document NET.A25 constituted “diligent inquiry” for the purposes of rule 10 of the Application Rules.
It has also been claimed that the 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.
It has also been claimed that the NET Promoters 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.
back to questions
The Environmental Statement
Some objectors have suggested that the Environmental Statement [NET.A13 to A18] is inadequate. A substantial number of others complained that it is too extensive. The Environmental Statement reports the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which was undertaken for NET Phase Two. The EIA is a process that begins at an early stage in the planning and design of a new development, and is conducted alongside the development, taking account of changes whenever possible. The environmental impacts of construction and operation were assessed, and measures which would be used to mitigate potential adverse impacts are identified. The Environmental Statement describes the environmental impacts and, where appropriate, the measures intended to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. It includes comprehensive chapters relating to specialist issues such as noise and vibration, townscape, archaeology and ecology.
The requirements to be met by the Environmental Statement are set out in the Application Rules [NET.D4]. These include:
· A description of NET Phase Two, including in particular a description of the physical characteristics of the works, the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases, and an estimate of expected residues and emissions resulting from the operational phase;
· An outline of the main alternatives to NET Phase Two and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the proposed scheme, taking into account the environmental effects;
· A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by NET Phase Two;
· A description of the likely significant effects of NET Phase Two on the environment, including direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, negative and positive effects, and the description of the forecasting methods used to assess these effects;
· A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy any significant adverse environmental effects; and
· A non technical summary of the above information.
The Environmental Statement fully meets these requirements. It is a comprehensive document consisting of 4 volumes and a non-technical summary. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Volume 1 provide a description of the project and address the alternatives to the scheme. The potential impacts and proposed mitigation for potential adverse environmental effects is identified within chapters 5 to 20. Baseline and additional supporting environmental data is provided throughout the Environmental Statement. The results of noise, open space, ecology and air quality surveys are presented in the annexes, which are contained in Volume 2. A comprehensive arboricutural survey is presented within Volume 2, Part 2, Figures and Plans in Volume 3, and the Urban and Landscape Design Statement forms Volume 4. Throughout the EIA process there has been consultation with various interested parties, including statutory consultees. This consultation has been ongoing since the scoping process was undertaken in 2000 and a summary of this is included within the Environmental Statement.
How were tram stop locations chosen?
The tramstops proposed for NET Phase Two have been located so as to be convenient and safe to use. In determining the number and frequency of tram stops on any route, a balance needs to be struck between providing adequate access to the tram and the impacts on the overall journey time associated with the stops. For a route with many tram stops there would be greater public access and potential catchment area, but the resulting lengthening of the journey time would then detract from the attractiveness of the system. Conversely, with too few tram stops there would be a more rapid service, but with lower patronage due the reduced access.
The NET Phase Two scheme has been developed on the basis of linking the local suburban areas and district centres (Beeston, Chilwell and Clifton) and other regional centres (University of Nottingham and Queens Medical Centre) with the city centre and beyond via NET Line One, and therefore tram stops are proposed at these locations. To facilitate integration with other forms of transport, interchanges (stops) are proposed with the national railway network (Nottingham Railway Station) and local buses (Beeston bus station and possibly other locations to be determined with bus operators e.g. Clifton Centre). In addition park and ride sites would be created on the main highway approaches to the city at the route termini (Clifton and Toton Lane). Other intermediate stops have been located to suit likely origins and destinations for travellers, including community centres and major retail, commercial and residential areas. The location and positioning of these stops has taken account of responses from public consultation feedback.
Temporary parking restrictions would need to be agreed with the Highway Authority and appropriate prior notification would be given to allow residents and businesses to plan for such occasions.
back to questions
What is the impact on trees?
Tree lined boulevards and green spaces are part of the character of Nottingham. The proposals for NET Phase Two try to protect the quality and character of individual trees, avenues and woodland areas where possible and significant efforts have been made to reduce adverse impacts on trees which surround the route.
From the start of planning the proposals the NET Promoters have worked closely with a team of environmental and landscape professionals to draw up quality standards for areas where trees are affected. Arboricultural surveys, by tree specialists, have recorded the location, age and quality of every tree that might be affected by the NET Phase Two proposals and the information has been used to influence the design of the scheme.
The most recent arboricultural survey undertaken in 2007, included in Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement [NET.A16], has updated where extra protection during construction works would be required for mature or sensitive individual trees; where careful removal of current hard surfaces and installation of new paving may harm tree roots; and where trees can simply be pruned back to allow them to coexist with the tram infrastructure. As far as possible trees identified as being in good health would be kept. Where tree loss has been unavoidable mitigation measures have been included.
back to questions
What is the impact on Open Space?
Overall, NET Phase Two results in the loss of approximately 6.4 hectares of green space to which the public has access. This is principally informal open space and, while this would reduce provision locally, the design has sought to minimise this, and the remaining land in these locations would have replacement planting and other improvements to maximise its landscape and wildlife. Some of this loss is compensated by two substantial new areas of open space and provision of new habitats, proposed at Silverdale and Inham Road, with an area in total of around 4.2 hectares. These would be accessible to local residents and are considered suitable replacements for the areas of open space lost. The only formal recreational facilities to be affected are the Coronation Sports Club (in Wilford) which has already moved as part of the redevelopment of the Becket School and a children’s play area at Inham Nook (Chilwell), which would be moved to a new location, a short distance away within the existing open space.
Around Silverdale Walk, the opportunity is being taken to create a new open space around the tram route east of Fairham Brook and generate a quality wildlife reserve featuring various habitats, including wet grassland, native woodland, scrub, grassland and scrapes (where areas of subsoil are left to colonise naturally). The space would be accessible on the NET Phase Two Clifton via Wilford route and, in addition to providing habitat, it would act as a leisure resource for the whole area, and be an open, landscaped area with a network of paths.
Open space would also be created at Inham Road, on the Chilwell route. This open space would also be a green leisure resource for the whole area with a network of paths for pedestrians and cyclists, and a large, central grassy area for sport; behind a broad buffer of vegetation which screens the tramway.
back to questions
Ground conditions/subsidence
The tramway proposals include major engineering works such as major new structures and would generally require removal of existing ground below the proposed track level and replacement with suitable material to provide a base with sufficient strength to support the track, trams and other traffic. Considerable preliminary work has already been carried out to investigate the type and strength of the existing ground along the route, and further work would continue to be undertaken throughout the detailed design and construction of the project. In addition to addressing the need to provide a stable track, the design would also fully take into account the need to avoid adverse impacts from ground works on adjacent buildings. This could involve incorporating a range of special measures in the design and construction methodology, including removal or in situ strengthening of particularly soft or compressible material as well as additional foundation support to the track or bridges and other structures. The forms of design and construction which would be considered have generally been proven on similar tram or highway type schemes.
The Code of Construction Practice (see section 3.1, [NET.A15]) will require the contractor to identify adjacent buildings which could be at risk from ground movement and to undertake surveys before, during and after construction for signs of movement and structural damage and take appropriate action.
Has flood risk been taken into account?
Consideration of flood risk has been an integral part of the design development of NET Phase Two. 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.
NET Phase Two proposals would cross several watercourses and rivers, and both the River Trent and Fairham Brook floodplains. The tramway design in these areas would meet the requirements of the Environment Agency for minimum height above river levels and for replacement of any flood storage volume lost. Existing flood defences, which are to be relocated as part of the tramway works, would be reconstructed to the requirements of the Environment Agency and would provide as a minimum the same level of protection as the existing defences. Overall this would result in no adverse effect on flooding behaviour. The design would take into account the lessons learned from recent flooding events.
The tramway and associated works such as park and ride sites would include appropriate drainage. These would be designed to accommodate a suitable level of flow, and would discharge to various points including existing sewers and watercourses. The means of discharge would also be subject to the approval of the Environment Agency and local authorities, and would include measures (such as attenuation tanks) to reduce the peak out flow to acceptable levels.
back to questions
Overhead lines and poles
The NET trams would be powered through an overhead line electrification (OLE) system, comprising a contact wire supported by poles or fixings to adjacent buildings (subject to height and structural suitability). Although building fixings are the preferred solution as they reduce intrusion and minimise street furniture, the semi-rural and suburban setting for much of NET Phase Two would mean that poles are required in most areas. The spacing of poles depends on the layout of the tracks and the type of OLE system. For example, on straight sections of the NET Line One, poles are positioned at approximately 40 to 50 metre intervals. The spacing is altered on curves and corners: the tighter the bend, the closer together the support poles would be. The number of poles and associated contact wires required would be kept to minimum and poles would be painted in a colour which would best help blend them into the local environment.
The final positioning of OLE poles would also take account of other elements of the streetscape such as bus stops, traffic signs, pedestrian crossings, location of existing and proposed trees and to suit local circumstances including maintaining appropriate footway widths and vehicular / pedestrian access to adjacent premises. In some instances it may be necessary to locate the poles immediately adjacent to buildings fronting onto the tramway, though these would be positioned to maintain specific clearances from any areas of public access, including doors, windows and balconies or cellars.
back to question
How will the streetscape be designed?
The route alignments for NET Phase Two have been developed as far as possible to avoid significant negative impacts on townscape and visual amenity. However, the development of such a major scheme would inevitably have some impacts on the townscape and its views. To ensure that the scheme is designed to the highest standards, an Urban and Landscape Design Statement has been prepared (Volume 4 of the Environmental Statement). This sets out the overall design principles that would be applied during development of the scheme and illustrates how the works would be integrated into the existing rural and urban landscape. An important facet of the character of Nottingham is its built heritage. The proposals for NET Phase Two would affect certain important structures, such as Wilford Toll Bridge and Nottingham Railway Station (which become working parts of the tram route); and structures which are indirectly affected, such as Lenton Priory and buildings on the University of Nottingham’s campus. Where protected buildings and structures are affected, the proposals seek to retain historic features, and be sympathetic to settings and context. The built heritage of Nottingham makes a tangible architectural contribution to the public realm, and the proposals aim to treat this with the sensitivity and respect it deserves. Generally, the integrated urban renewal and regeneration that the scheme would bring, together with tree planting and revitalisation of streetscapes would help promote an overall change to the townscape, adding new interest and landmarks to the area. There is the opportunity for quality landscape design, including the provision of high quality hard landscaping, street furniture, structures, signage, lighting, and the provision of facilities for disabled people, which would contribute positively to environmental regeneration and streetscape enhancements. These enhancements would lift the image of areas currently perceived as being of low quality.
back to question
What about listed buildings and conservations areas?
Some objectors have queried the need for the listed building and conservation area consents and the likely impacts. The NET Promoters consider that they have made applications for the necessary alterations to the listed buildings and the demolition of those non-listed buildings in conservation areas considered essential to enable the scheme to be built. Each of the applications is discussed below.
Nottingham Railway Station
The NET Phase Two proposals involve the construction of a new bridge over the Grade 2* listed Nottingham Railway Station. The design of the new structures has undergone sensitive evolution to provide high quality, modern industrial structures which are sympathetic to the context of the Edwardian station buildings. The interface with the existing built elements of the station have been designed to minimise any alteration to the listed buildings and to ensure that any necessary alterations will not be visible to most users of the station. The principal works, to the building on Platform 4/5, involve the internal alteration of a building for the bridge piers and the careful dismantling and reconstruction of one part of the facade of the building. The works will not adversely affect the architectural or historic interest of Nottingham Railway Station as a whole.
Conservation Area Consents 1, 3, 4 and 7 – Station Conservation Area
The proposals also require the demolition of various structures within the conservation area surrounding Nottingham station. These include warehouses, hoarding, small fences, walls and gates, as well as the existing pedestrian link bridge between Nottingham station and NET Line One. Most of these structures make no contribution to or detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area, and their removal would have no adverse impacts, if the remaining sites are reinstated in a sympathetic manner. The west wing of Station House does make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Station Conservation Area. After the works, the remainder of the site, not required for access would be made available for an appropriate redevelopment.
Conservation Area Consent 2 – 1A Arkwright Street – Station Conservation Area
After further consideration of the proposals the application for the demolition of 1A Arkwright Street has been withdrawn.
Listed Building Consent 2 – Wilford Toll Bridge
The works to be carried out on the Wilford Toll Bridge, which is Grade 2 listed, are required to add a new widened bridge deck and piers and strengthen the foundations for the central three spans. The design has been carefully undertaken to minimise the physical impact on the listed bridge, the toll house and the adjacent listed gates, statue and telephone kiosk. The external appearance of the historic parts of the bridge will hardly be altered and the proposed replacement bridge deck is more in keeping with these parts than the deck which is to be replaced. Visually the most notable features of the new bridge will be the Overhead Line Electrification system (wires and poles) and lighting. The works will not adversely affect the architectural or historic interest of the bridge or its setting.
Listed Building Consent 3, and Conservation Area Consents 5 and 6 - Traffic management works in Beeston
The junction alteration works proposed in Chilwell and Beeston would have an impact on the curtilage walls of one listed building, The Grange (Beeston police station), and two other buildings in this conservation area, Chilwell Road Methodist Church and 2, Devonshire Avenue. The works would involve the demolition and replacement of these walls, and the removal and replacement of some trees. These works are necessary to ensure a safe layout and safe visibility at the realigned junctions. In all cases, replacement walls, matching the existing as far as possible, would be erected, and planting would be reinstated in consultation with the landowners. The reinstated walls and trees should ensure that there is no long-term detriment to the setting of the listed building or the character and appearance of the
