 |
Clifton Via Wilford This route is split into 3 separate consultation documents. Each consultation document is divided into to parts to make it easier to download. You will require Adobe Acrobat Reader to view them.
|
Consultation Document
1 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Consultation Document
2 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
Consultation Document
3 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
If you haven't got Acrobat Reader then click
the link below to download a free viewer.
Download
Adobe Acrobat Reader
FAQ's
Phase 2 Design Consultation 2003/2004
Over the period August – December 2003, the promoters of NET conducted a detailed public consultation exercise regarding the design of the alignment with members of the public living closest to the proposed route; Clifton via Wilford. During this consultation we asked, in particular, for views on tram stop locations, mitigation measures, new road layouts and tree planting. We received lots of responses, and wrote back to members of the public who wrote in addressing the main issues raised. We also responded personally to those materially affected and those with more localised or isolated issues.
Below are the answers to the general and collective issues that were raised. Please click on an item from the list to view all questions relating to that section.
- Clifton Centre – including the Park and Ride and Farnborough Road
- Farnborough Road to Wilford Village
- Wilford Village to Nottingham Station
Click here to return to the top of the page
Clifton Centre – including the Park and Ride and Farnborough Road
Please choose an item from the list of links below or click here to return to the top of the page
- Distribution area
- Appropriateness of Park and Ride in Green Belt
- Visual intrusion of the site and its access road
- Traffic on Gotham Road and Barton Lane
- Heavy Rail Proposal at Ratcliffe-on-Soar
- Next stage and approval process
The purpose of the latest consultation was to inform local residents and other affected parties of more detail about the route alignments being developed for a possible TWAO submission, and to provide an opportunity to comment. The distribution of the consultation booklets therefore concentrated on areas close to the route alignment.
Appropriateness of Park and Ride in Green Belt
As you know, the proposed location for the park and ride site is adjacent to Nottingham Road within the boundary of Rushcliffe Borough. Some respondents queried whether the non-Green Belt land adjacent to Nobel Road Estate off Nottingham Road had been considered as an alternative site. In fact, this land has been allocated for residential development within the Nottingham Local Plan since 1997 and was carried forward into the Nottingham Local Plan review, for which the Inspector’s report is expected in July 2004. The site is strategically important in ensuring the balance of housing type, size and affordability within the City, and Clifton itself. It was considered to be inappropriate for park and ride because of its current status in the Nottingham Local Plan and there was no other alternative site on non Green Belt land in the vicinity of the A453 and Nottingham Road.
Respondents also expressed the opinion that they consider the site’s proposed location on Green Belt land to be unacceptable in any circumstances. National Planning Policy Guidance advises that park and ride is not necessarily inappropriate in Green Belt provided that non-Green Belt alternatives are investigated first and a number of criteria are satisfied.
The chosen park and ride site was identified following investigations of the remaining four Green Belt sites under consideration, and when assessed against national planning policy requirements, it was not considered an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In particular, the park and ride is an essential element of NET Phase Two and building the site in this particular location does not seriously compromise the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of the site’s inclusion in the Green Belt, nor will it reduce the protection of the adjacent Green Belt land against future development.
Maintenance of the park and ride site
Once built, as with the rest of the tram infrastructure, the responsibility
for the ongoing maintenance of the park and ride site would rest with the
tram operating company.
Visual intrusion of the site and its access road
Some respondents have expressed concern about visual intrusion from the park and ride site and A453 access road, stemming in particular from the possible impact on the Gotham Hill ridgeline, designated a Mature Landscape Area by Nottinghamshire County Council.
Considerable amount has been undertaken to minimise the visual impacts of the proposals for the park and ride site and the access road. The park and ride site will be developed in a way to reduce its prominence, being cut into the hillside with a 10 metre wide strip of native planting bordering the site. The access road will mostly be in cutting and only on a small raised embankment when approaching the A453.
Some adverse visual impacts are likely from adjacent Clifton properties, although these impacts will reduce as the newly planted vegetation matures. Impact from further along Gotham Road is likely to be minimal, with lighting making the new link road prominent only when it is dark. It will be important that the detailed design seeks to minimise visual impacts and this will be developed in consultation with Rushcliffe Borough Council.
Barton Lane has been proposed as an alternative access to the Park and Ride site to remove the need for a new link road from the A453. Although this option would be cheaper, Barton Lane would be longer and less direct for traffic coming from the A453 and the road would require upgrading. In order to maximise the attractiveness of the Park and Ride site it needs to be highly accessible. Building the link road to serve a Park and Ride will not reduce the Green Belt protection of adjacent land and it is therefore proposed to retain the new link road in the scheme.
Traffic on Gotham Road and Barton Lane
It is considered unlikely that the Park and Ride site will result in increased traffic levels on Gotham Road and Barton Lane. The Project’s economic consultants advise that the majority of tram users will already be making car journeys on local roads, but choose to divert to the Park and Ride facility instead of continuing their journey towards Nottingham by car. It is anticipated that a number of re-routed or new feeder bus services would access the site, where interchange facilities are proposed.
Heavy Rail Proposal at Ratcliffe-on-Soar
Some respondents considered that a park and ride facility at the Clifton via Wilford terminus would not be necessary, since the train operating company Midland Mainline propose building a ‘parkway’ station with a park and ride facility next to the main railway line near Ratcliffe-On-Soar power station.
Approval has been given in principle by Rushcliffe Borough Council to outline planning permission for the proposal, subject to satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues by Midland Mainline, and the outcome of a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) Public Inquiry in June 2004. The parkway station may attract people travelling into Nottingham but the rail service would be less frequent, more expensive and some distance from the most congested areas approaching Nottingham. It is expected that most use of the parkway station would be for trips travelling away from the area, allowing passengers to travel to London or the north without having to travel into Nottingham first. The Clifton Park and Ride site, situated on the edge of the built up area, would be best placed to immediately attract drivers before they enter the most congested roads and where they could connect with a frequent and reliable onward service into Nottingham.
Next stage and approval process
The consultation period for this route has ended and the findings from public consultation will be reported to the City and County Councils in April and May 2004 respectively. The Councils are then expected to meet later in the year to consider the submission of a TWAO application to the Secretary of State for Transport. An approved TWAO provides the powers to enable new tramlines to be built and operated. If a TWAO is submitted to the Secretary of State then an independent Public Inquiry would follow, probably in spring 2005, to consider the application, in which all interested parties could participate. The Secretary of State would take the final decision. If all necessary approval were granted, construction works could commence in late 2006, with trams running in 2009.
Farnborough Road to Wilford Village
Please choose an item from the list of links below or click here to return to the top of the page
- Queen’s Drive route
- Funding the project
- Use of information from the consultation process
- Location of tram stops
- Road crossings
- Noise and vibration
- Visual screening
- Parking and access to tram stops
- Impact on nature sites
- Footpath between Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane
- Speed and safety
- Coronation Avenue and the flood defences
- Electrical sub stations
- Wilford Lane maintenance area
Although this consultation sought comment on the detailed aspects of the proposed alignment via Wilford, a number of respondents have reiterated their view that the Clifton route should go via Queen’s Drive. This route has been rejected because it does not meet the Government’s economic criteria and therefore would not receive funding. It is, therefore, simply not an option.
Respondents have also queried how NET Phase 2 will be paid for. The development costs have been funded from Government grants, specific to the project and through the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP), and grants from Europe and the East Midlands Development Agency. So there has been no cost to the local council taxpayer. The scheme capital costs, should the project get the go-ahead (from Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County Councils and the Secretary of State following a Public Inquiry), will require Government funding and the case for this is currently with the Department for Transport. However, current Government requirement is that up to 25% of the costs should be found locally and the councils will have to determine how this funding can be sourced. We anticipate this coming from a combination of the development costs already incurred, any land provided by the councils, contributions required of local developers, future LTP money, regional and European funds and any local congestion charge that might be implemented. The councils will have to determine the availability of all such funding sources before deciding to proceed with the project.
Use of information from the consultation process
One group of respondents has suggested that council officers in the
NET team may choose to “cherry pick the replies they like and discard
the ones that don’t suit them”. Please note that firstly,
council officers have no reason to favour one option over another and
are required to act in the overall public interest, taking into account
all factors and government requirements, and are accountable to elected
councillors and secondly that this is not a referendum but an opportunity
to comment constructively on the detail available at this stage.
Respondents can be assured that we are recording responses so we can ensure
that we are fully aware of all the issues and can respond, and that your comments
are being treated in a proper and professional manner.
The proposed tram stops have been located so as to be convenient and safe to use. However, as you will appreciate, a viable tramway must balance the extra patronage gained from additional stops along the route against the increased journey time and reduced attraction of NET for those making longer journeys.
The Wilford Village stop on Main Road is located to serve passengers from the village, staff, parents and children going to the Wilford schools and visitors to the riverside and other recreational activities. Respondents to the consultation have made a number of alternative suggestions – nearer the Toll Bridge, alongside Coronation Avenue and also nearer to the Nottingham Emmanuel School – but there is no consensus and the proposed site seems best to meet the different needs.
Many in the village have requested an alternative stop location near Bader Road. However, it is doubtful that an extra stop can be justified for the expected balance of patronage. Also, this site would be behind the embankment where it may be considered to be too isolated, with concerns for passenger safety and feelings of security, particularly in the evenings, both at the stop and when walking to and from it through the allotments and under the embankment bridge. Putting the stop on top of the embankment here would not be practicable because of the very long ramps that would be required to meet Disability Discrimination Act access requirements. The alternative of opening up views of a stop situated at ground level, by removing the embankment, has not received public support. Nonetheless, we will undertake further assessment of the comparative merits of the possible stop locations for Wilford village.
The Wilford Lane stop is situated to the south of the road as this is where most users are expected to come from, but also to keep it clear of the additional track requirements of the proposed maintenance access on the other side of the road (see “Wilford Lane Maintenance Area” below). However, the stop location will be kept under review in the light of emerging development proposals for the Chateau site.
A number of respondents have questioned the location of the Compton
Acres stop, requesting that it be moved just to the south side of the
Ruddington Lane/Compton Acres footpath, so that it is not immediately
adjacent to a residential property. We did not choose this location because
this would be a less open site and therefore less secure unless the surrounding
vegetation is much reduced. However, we have given further consideration
in view of the representations and propose that the stop be moved a little
to the south, necessitating removal of some planting and minor realignment
of the path.
In response to earlier comments, that the tram did not serve the local community
as well as it might due to poor access to some stops, we have proposed a path
linking St Austell Drive, via Kynance Gardens and the edge of the playing field,
to the Compton Acres stop. This has given rise to concerns regarding pedestrian
safety at the entrance to Kynance Gardens, possible unofficial park and ride
on the residential streets and a fear for the future of the playing fields.
The narrow road entrance could be given safety treatment such as full width
paving with pedestrian priority over motor vehicles. If a parking problem occurred
the City Council would consider the introduction of a Residents Parking Scheme
and we can confirm that there are no proposals to turn the playing fields into
a car park.
The Ruddington Lane stop is located with easy approach from Ruddington Lane and the local residential, business and industrial premises. The chosen design is intended to provide the optimum arrangement for local residents, tram and road users (see “Road crossings” below).
We are looking at the potential of providing an additional stop south of The Downs to serve Silverdale. As indicated above, we must balance the extra benefit gained from additional stops along the route against the increased journey time and reduced attraction of NET for those making longer journeys. In addition, there is no obvious and convenient pathway through from The Downs and a stop may feel a little isolated here. Nonetheless we would not wish to rule out this possibility and will undertake further investigation to see what can be achieved.
It is intended to cross Wilford Lane by a level, traffic signal controlled crossing rather than a bridge. This is because the original railway bridge was of sub-standard height for modern vehicles (buses, lorries) to pass underneath. A bridge would therefore necessitate constructing a higher embankment than is there now which would not be practicable in the width available and would have significant environmental impacts. It would also mean passengers having to climb long ramps to reach the tram stop.
Conversely, lowering the embankment will reduce the prominence of the
tramway, maximise the area available for planting trees and shrubs, allow
the existing footpath to be replaced and facilitate easy and convenient
access to the stop.
The Highway Authority (Nottinghamshire County Council) does not believe the
Wilford Lane crossing will have any significant impact on traffic flows. Unlike
a railway level crossing, the tram only requires the road traffic to be halted
for 30 seconds or so (similar to a pedestrian crossing facility). With an assumed
peak frequency of six trams per hour in each direction the traffic lights at
the crossing would only be called once every five minutes. The adjacent Compton
Acres traffic signals operate on a 70 second cycle making it almost 5 times
as likely that Wilford Lane traffic would be stopped there, and, with linking
between the lights, cars should not have to stop twice.
It is proposed that the Ruddington Lane crossing would also be at the road level, with traffic signal control, and again any delay to cars would be slight. To have an under bridge, with sufficient clearance for the tram overhead power lines, would require raising Ruddington Lane and lowering the track, both involving significant and unsightly engineering works. This would have made the stop unpleasantly situated in a deep cutting and would have significantly worsened the alignment of the road and the impact of traffic noise on local residents.
Instead it is proposed to lower Ruddington Lane by about 2 - 2½ metres and raise the tram track to the same level. This should actually improve the alignment of the road around this difficult bend and will provide a better facility for pedestrians to cross. The proposed design is intended to provide the optimum arrangement for local residents, tram and road users.
We omitted to state in the brochure that, except at road crossings and
along Main Road and beside Coronation Avenue, the track would be laid
on ballast – an omission for which we apologise. Ballast (graded
stone, on which sleepers and rails are embedded, like a railway), is
good at absorbing any vibration and noise from the wheel/rail contact
and is most suitable for off street running.
The noise and vibration characteristics of NET Phase 2 will be included within
the full Environmental Statement being prepared by our environmental consultants.
This will take into account all regulations and planning guidance regarding
rail noise (e.g. the Railway Noise Insulation Regulations 1996) and will be
available prior to any decision being made on a Transport and Works Act Order
submission (which is the bid to government for the powers to build and operate
Phase Two). The consultants’ initial findings indicate that noise levels
are unlikely to require special measures other than close boarded fencing which
in itself is a noise reducing feature. However, we await their final analysis
prior to determining if additional noise barriers or other noise mitigation
measures are needed. We will introduce noise mitigation if there is likely
to be significant impact.
It has been suggested that there will be constant announcements at the tram
stops about tram arrivals and departures, creating noise nuisance to residents
late into the night. This is not the case. With the simple network envisaged
for NET there will not be the need for tram announcements and the PA at tram
stops will only be used by exception, such as in the event of service disruption.
Most questions about visual impact have come from people living between Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane. Lowering the embankment will have the greatest impact on reducing the prominence of the tramway. However, this will involve considerable earth movement and disposal by heavy vehicles. These works will be subject to approval by planning, highways and environmental health officers to minimise impacts during this period of time, which is expected to be fairly short.
The brochure has attempted to show what can be achieved with planting once the tramway is operational. It is intended that this be with native local species to provide a hedgerow effect, with interspersed trees. Details will be agreed with the appropriate council’s planning and arboricultural officers, including growth characteristics and maintenance. The natural approach may not provide the density that some evergreen species might achieve, but will be less intrusive and will best replicate the existing habitat. In some locations the available width may be too little for substantial screen planting and residents may wish to see additional planting at the end of their gardens. Such arrangements can be agreed on an individual basis at a latter stage.
In addition to the planting it is proposed to enhance garden boundary fencing, where necessary to ensure a minimum two metre high screen. Higher fences are not advisable as they would be excessively dominant in smaller gardens, cause significant shade and be difficult to maintain.
Parking and access to tram stops
Passengers will access tram stops by foot, cycle (with provision of cycle stands at some stops), bus, ‘kiss and ride’ (dropped off by car) or park and ride (at the Clifton Park & Ride site). We do not want to attract unnecessary car journeys and so, with the exception of the Clifton P&R stop, there is no provision for parking at the stops. The stops are intended for use by local people. If parking occurs at other stops, the City and County Councils, as Highway Authorities for their respective areas, will consider if restrictions (double yellow lines or residents parking schemes) should be introduced to prevent dangerous or inconvenient obstruction from parked vehicles.
Measures will also be taken to deter park and ride usage of the proposed car park at Main Road and on adjacent streets.
We expect bus operators to amend some of their services to provide feeder services linking with the tram. The details of any feeder services will be determined in consultation with the operators at a later stage, although initial discussions about NET Phase 2 have taken place with them. There are a number of locations where bus/tram interchange could occur. Buses from the outlying villages could call at the Clifton Park & Ride site and possibly at Ruddington Lane. Clifton circulars could link at each end of Southchurch Drive and in Clifton centre. Buses serving Compton Acres and Wilford could link at Wilford Lane.
Some respondents have complained that the brochure refers to ‘Disused Railway Embankment’ implying that the promoting authorities believe it has no current use. This interpretation is unfortunate. The reference is to the embankment being a former (now disused) railway. We should perhaps have said “Dismantled” as labelled on OS maps. There are many locations up and down the country where old railways now have different uses. This does not change the fact that geographically they are still old railway lines. Nonetheless we do apologise if anyone felt this location description was intended to detract from the amenity value of the feature.
It has been suggested that we have previously said there would be minimal impact on the old railway embankment (a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, SINC). This is simply not the case. We have always acknowledged that use of the embankment will impact on existing flora and fauna, at least in the short term. Our earlier consultation documents during the winter of 2001/02 identified potential ecological impact from “Loss of habitat and impact on wildlife on the former railway line wildlife site and reduction in the amenity of the footpath”, with an illustration of a typical cross-section of the embankment showing before and after drawings indicating a complete change of trees and vegetation with a comment that this was “what the location might look like a number of years after the trees have been planted”. The ‘your questions answered’ brochure recognised that “The embankment is identified as of high nature conservation value” and clearly stated that “There would be a loss of vegetation and habitat area, particularly during construction”.
Our aim has been, not to diminish the value of the loss, but to determine what mitigation is feasible and then weigh the overall balance of benefits and disbenefits. Our environmental team has done much work to determine how best to deal with the impacts and it is intended that replacement planting, using native species, will quickly restore the ecology, much as happened when the railway was closed. As indicated above, the detail of planting will be determined with the input from the appropriate council’s planning and arboricultural officers, with a view to appropriate species, growth characteristics, appropriateness for replacement of the existing habitat and maintenance.
At the southern end of the old railway the alignment turns away from
the railway at the earliest opportunity. It will therefore not impact
on the Wilwell Cutting Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and
only just cut a small slice from the extended arm (outside the boundary
of the SSSI) of the Nature Reserve. Our environmental consultants, in
discussion with English Nature, have carefully investigated the local
hydrology, which is so important to the flora of the reserve, and have
concluded that there should be no adverse impacts. The engineering design
will have to allow for the disposal of water that currently accumulates
under Clifton Boulevard and a buffer area of bunding (i.e. raised mounds)
is proposed on the SSSI side to retain and improve the habitat by ‘closing
off’ the nature reserve (it currently runs out at the underpass
below Clifton Boulevard).
North of Wilford Lane we are trying to balance the different objectives of
utilising the old rail alignment (in accordance with Nottinghamshire Structure
Plan policy), minimising land take and accommodating development proposals.
The consultation is helping to inform discussion around this issue.
Footpath between Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane
Many responses have commented on the amenity value of the existing walkway
along the old railway. But some residents close to the alignment have
questioned the need for the path, fearing it will attract vandals/burglars
and noting that its removal will give more space for planting to shield
their properties. There is also concern that lighting along the footpath
would cause light pollution for adjacent residents.
This is a difficult balance. The path is an existing feature. Its replacement
should have no impact on security over the existing situation; indeed, such
footpaths are a common feature throughout the Compton Acres estate. Our current
proposal is to include the path but, as now, not to have lighting, except at
the approach to the tram stops. Separated from the tracks by a fence and hedge,
the path, although somewhat reduced in value by the presence of the tram route,
will still be an important element in the network of paths in the area, thus
retaining an amenity for the wider community for walking, dog exercising and
jogging.
An earlier illustration (Clifton “have your say” brochure, December
2001) indicating a possible cross-section of the embankment near Mulberry Close
showed the footpath on the west side of the tracks. This was for illustrative
purposes only but any misunderstanding is regretted. The existing footpath
is linked into the residential area, at Cranberry Close and Acorn Bank, from
the east side and therefore, to avoid walkers having to cross the tram tracks
unnecessarily, it is proposed that the path be also on the east side.
Return to section list
The tram is capable of speeds of 80kph (50mph) on straight and level
track but in practice, for most of the proposed alignment, trams will
be travelling at speeds well below this as they pull away from or slow
down for stops, bends, pedestrian crossings, etc. For example, between
the Wilford Lane, Compton Acres and Ruddington Lane stops the top speed
is only possible for about 100m and for more than half the distance the
speeds will be below 30mph. Unlike trains, trams are driven by sight,
like a road vehicle, and the driver has to drive at speeds that allow
for all operating conditions and tram characteristics and adjust his/her
speed accordingly to suit traffic, pedestrians and weather conditions.
But unlike other road traffic, speed limits will be determined for each
different stretch of track and will be strictly enforced through automatic
recording of the tram movements.
The proposed fencing and hedges should ensure that pedestrians only cross the
line where drivers expect them to do so, or at least will act to inform people
of safe limits and make it difficult for them to cross these limits. These
factors make the tramway safer than a road where there is rarely fencing and
much less speed discipline.
There have been particular concerns expressed about visibility at the
Coronation Avenue /Nottingham Emmanuel School corner. Tram speeds will
be consistent with the available forward visibility and the needs of
safety. The brochure indicates proposals for paths to provide safe crossing
by pedestrians and cycles. As at all locations where children are likely
to be about, the advice of the councils’ road safety officers has
been sought.
Braking requirements for trams are a more complicated issue than for cars for
which stopping distances are the main measure for performance. The Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) impose limits for the breaking performance in order
to protect standing passengers from injury during braking procedures. This
HSE requirement does result in longer stopping distances than for cars, in
which passengers are restrained by seat belts. It is a balance between the
two conflicting requirements. The emergency stopping distance from 30kph would
be typically 32metres, approximately equivalent to a tram length.
Concern has been expressed about the reported derailments of the tram on Line
1 and the possible consequences for the proposed Phase 2 routes. We can advise
that these incidents were caused by aspects of the installation and operation
of points during very early testing and commissioning of the new infrastructure
and familiarisation with procedures. Full investigations involving the HSE
have been undertaken and remedial action taken. The HSE has allowed continuation
of the commissioning and driver training programme, seeing no cause for concern
for the safety of the public. Trams are subject to very rigorous safety regime
and the HSE will be paramount in giving approval to open Line 1 and, should
Phase 2 go forward, to the design and operation of the Wilford route.
Coronation Avenue and the flood defences
A number of options for alignments avoiding running alongside Coronation Avenue have been investigated. However these would involve considerable new structures across the river, the Iremonger Pond SINC and the flood storage area, with their supports impacting on the free flow of the river, particularly when it is in flood. This makes them not viable on the grounds of environmental impact, impact on flooding, cost and, should the existing stub end of the railway embankment be used, the requirement of a stop at a high level with long access ramps.
The proposed floodwall is designed to do at least the same job as the existing embankment and small excavations from the end of the old railway embankment will replace any loss of flood storage area. The position of the tram tracks and floodwall are a balance between visual impact, protection of the pond and flood requirements. Consultation with the Environment Agency has been positive and the final designs for the Coronation Avenue and Main Road flood prevention aspects will have to be fully approved to be no detriment to the existing situation.
As the NET is powered by electricity it will be necessary to provide electrical sub stations to feed power into the system at a number of locations along the route. Along this section of the route there will be need for two sub stations, which are typically 5m by 15m and 3m high. We have looked for locations away from houses and proposed sites are within the maintenance access area north of Wilford Lane and adjacent to the Wilford Industrial area.
The maintenance area is required to enable very occasional access by a tamping machine (a rail vehicle undertaking periodic maintenance of the long stretch of ballasted track). The points for this access are shown to the north of Wilford Lane, away from residential properties. The area will be gated, fenced and surfaced and will also provide access to the electrical sub station. The tamping machine is not suitable for on street running and therefore cannot come along the tram tracks through the city centre. Unlike the situation on Line 1, where there is direct access from the Wilkinson
Street depot, for the Wilford section of ballasted track the tamping machine will come on the back of a road vehicle.
Wilford Village to Nottingham Station
Please choose an item from the list of links below or click here to return to the top of the page
- Crocus Street/Arkwright Street/Nottingham Station area
- Queen’s Walk – impact on trees
- Queen’s Walk – location of footway
- Wiford Toll Bridge
- Noise and vibration during tram operation
- Effect of construction work
- Overhead wires and poles
- Tram frequency and times
Crocus Street/Arkwright Street/Nottingham Station area
In this area the NET proposals aim to tie in with proposals for Nottingham Station Master Plan and the Southside development. As such details of junctions, road layout, routes for pedestrians, buses, cyclists etc. are yet to be developed. However, Crocus Street would be closed at its junction with Arkwright Street, as the tramway viaduct would be ramping down to reach ground level in that area.
Queen’s Walk – impact on trees
A number of respondents have raised concerns about the possible impact of the proposals on the trees along Queen’s Walk. We recognise that Queen’s Walk is an important feature in Nottingham. It is currently a pedestrian and cycle route from Wilford and parts of the Meadows into the City Centre, framed by an attractive single and double tree-lined avenue (mainly lime trees). The aim of the design along Queen’s Walk would be to retain as many of the existing trees as possible, using careful construction methods and replace any trees that would be lost. Locating the tramway down the centre of Queen’s Walk would enable the retention of as many of the trees as possible.
The southern section of Queen’s Walk (south of Robin Hood Way) has two rows of trees. Our environmental consultants have indicated that the inner row of trees may need to be removed on this section, as the roots may be significantly damaged by the tram construction. This view is based on visual assessment of the type, size and condition of the tree. Should the project reach construction stage it would be a requirement of a future contractor to reassess the impact on trees by obtaining specialist arboricultural advice when the roots are exposed, with the aim of minimising the number of trees to be removed. Where tree loss cannot be avoided, new trees would be planted to re-establish a double row along this section. Replacement trees would be located away from the tramway in order to avoid any conflict. In terms of possible impact on trees along Queen’s Walk, in the Victoria Embankment/Wilford Toll Bridge area related to the introduction of a tram stop, please note that new areas of open space are proposed, primarily consisting of grass and tree planting. We feel that it is important to include a tram stop in that area to serve the local community and tie in with development proposals.
On the northern section (between Robin Hood Way and Meadows Way), where there is currently one row of trees, potential tree loss is expected to be minimal. However, the intention is that additional tree planting would also take place along this section of Queen’s Walk as mitigation for any trees lost. In addition a further row of trees could also be planted on this section, to match the double avenue of trees on the southern part. Replacement trees are likely to be lime trees. We recognise that it would take a number of years for replacement trees to reach the stature of existing trees; this is unfortunate but cannot be overcome. Trees would be planted carefully to avoid future overcrowding. Please note that planting would also aim to ensure privacy to residential properties is maintained. Although I am unable to state exactly how many trees are likely to be lost in total, as minimum we would plant one new tree for each tree that had to be removed.
We were asked to consider single track along Queen’s Walk in order to minimise potential impact on trees. For operational reasons, we plan for two tracks along the entire route, as single tracks can create difficult bottlenecks for tramway operation, severely restricting capacity and reliability of service to the travelling public.
Some respondents also suggested avoiding all or parts of Queen’s Walk. The alternative route via Meadows Way and Robin Hood Way is however very circuitous, nearly one kilometre longer and on the periphery of the populated area. This would result in a longer journey time, impacting on the viability of the route and reduce its attractiveness to potential users. Construction and operating costs would also be higher.
With significant tree planting and high quality urban design, the proposals would ensure that Queen’s Walk remains an attractive boulevard.
Queen’s Walk – location of footway
Concerns were expressed, mainly relating to personal security about the proposal to locate the pedestrian footway at the edges of Queen’s Walk, rather than down the centre. The concerns have been noted and we are looking at the possibility of revising the proposals to place the footway next to the tramway. The NET proposals aim to tie in with existing paths and we are therefore not proposing to close paths that provide links across Queen’s Walk. The presence of the tram may actually act as a deterrent to illegal or anti-social behaviour, particularly near stops, which would have CCTV coverage and be lit.
A number of respondents suggested the introduction of physical barriers to cordon off the tramway. We take public safety considerations very seriously, although introducing a physical barrier, such as fencing between the tramway and the rest of Queen’s Walk is not considered necessary or appropriate. The safety record of tram systems is very good and the system would not be allowed to operate until the Health and Safety Executive are satisfied that it is safely designed and implemented taking account of its local environment. Tram speeds would be carefully assessed relative to the surrounding environment and speeds along the Queen’s Walk would be low, (not exceeding 30mph) allowing the driver to react to people crossing/walking/cycling beside the tramway. The introduction of fencing would also create an oppressive physical barrier on what is an attractive and pleasant environment.
The bridge would need to be widened to allow for space for the tram, pedestrians and cyclists. I confirm that access between Wilford village and Queen’s Walk, Victoria Embankment, Riverside Way would be maintained during the construction period.
Noise and vibration during
tram operation
The tram is a relatively quiet form of transport. Track and vehicle designs would seek to minimise noise and vibration disturbance. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) currently being prepared for the TWAO application will cover noise and vibration issues. Where an adverse impact is identified the EIA will identify the potential measures to minimise or remove the impact. The EIA will take account of all regulations and planning guidance regarding noise and vibration (e.g. the Railway and Noise Insulation Regulations 1996). We will be undertaking further assessment of possible noise and vibration impacts once we have more information on the trams currently being tested on Line One.
Inevitably construction works would cause some inconvenience. We would however ensure that works are carefully planned keeping restrictions to a minimum and local residents would be kept well informed. A code of construction practice would be produced to ensure environmentally sensitive procedures would be put in place to minimise noise, dust, vibration and other construction nuisance would be kept to a minimum. Although construction works for Phase Two (which includes the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route) are expected to take approximately three years to complete, works at any one location would be much less than this. The impact on people living in the area would be mitigated by sensitive working methods, close public liaison and intensive communication of information.
On the issue of possible visual intrusion associated with the overhead wires/poles. I confirm that the design and layout for such equipment would be undertaken in order to minimise intrusion and retain as far a possible the existing character of Queen’s Walk.
Trams would run approximately every 10 minutes in each direction during the day. Less frequent services would operate in the evenings and on Sundays.
