GROUP 32 – OBJECTION NO: 164 WARDIE BAY RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION PROMOTER REBUTTAL TO DAVID JAMIESON STATEMENT BRIAN EVANS 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 This rebuttal statement is presented in response to the witness statement of

Mr David Jamieson regarding the impact on Lower Granton Road. 2.0 ISSUES OF CONCERN

Realignment over the west end of Lower Granton Road. 2.1 I do not support Mr Jamieson’s statement that the re-alignment of the west

end of Lower Granton Road will be insufficient and that “the opportunity to create a safe residential environment and a good urban space will be missed.”

2.2 It is important that the redesign of this area is used to create a good urban

space of which the tram is an integral element. 2.3 As stated in my witness statements, tie had the foresight to commission the

production of a design manual which:

• First- sets out the issues of design, townscape and environment which must be addressed through sensitive design;

• Second - identifies design principles which can address these issues and which the planning authority can use to evaluate the emerging design;

• Third - sets out guidelines which can be used to apply the design principles in the development of the system and which can be used in partnership with third parties to ensure wider integration (e.g. in wider public realm/development projects beyond the scope of the tram system); and

• Fourth - sets out requirements which mandate the contractor & operator to detailed requirements for the design of the system and of the immediate area for which it is responsible.

Ref to: “’Living Spaces: Greener, Safer, Cleaner’ (ODPM 2002)”

2.4 This document is not applicable to this context.

“Designing Places”

2.5 Whilst the sentiment referred to here, ‘a reviewed interest in improving the streets of our cities’, is embraced in the Policy Statement for Scotland ‘Designing Places’, the document itself does not apply.

2.6 Designing Places has 6 key criteria for successful places:

• Identity

• Safe & pleasant spaces • Ease of movement • A sense of welcome • Adaptability • Good use of resources

2.7 Accessibility is very important together with safety and functionality. Aesthetics are also very important, but place making is about much more than simply that.

2.8 Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed earlier in the paragraph (ref

CABE/ ODPM) this advice is not applicable to Scotland.

A street design primarily for the pedestrian. 2.9 I agree with Mr Jamieson’s statement that the street should be “designed

primarily for the pedestrian, i.e. the user of the tram”. 2.10 An appropriate fit is achieved by addressing the existing volume of space in a

holisitic way, respecting the overall form and coherence of the places affected. The design solution must balance a number of different and sometimes conflicting pressures and constraints in a simple, elegant and intuitive way.

The intention of the Draft Design Manual: setting standards to live up to

2.11 Some limited degree of interruption is acceptable to achieve the overall

aspirations for the city. Design should be used to minimise interruption and to compose a response in an elegant way.

2.12 tie recognises the value of the city’s heritage and the importance of achieving

an appropriate urban fit. This is addressed in the Draft Design Manual (March 2004).

2.13 The Council’s aspirations for a creative and innovative approach to new

development, which draws on and interprets the city’s past are set out in their document “Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design”.

2.14 The Council is keen to ensure that the proposed tram will enhance the image

of the city and demonstrate the city’s commitment to high quality modern design and engineering that emphasises creativity and innovation and avoids prescription and pastiche.

2.15 A holistic approach to design is being adopted to ensure that the proposed

tram system reflects the quality of Edinburgh’s world-renowned townscape. 2.16 In balancing the frequently conflicting criteria at this particular location and

satisfying the aspiration to improving the pedestrian environment, consideration was given to extending restricted pavements by extending a new combined footway and cycle path on the seaward side of the existing sea wall as mitigation. This is referred to in the ES, Chapter 8, Landscape & Visual Impacts.

2.17 At this particular location, the requirements of setting and the aspiration to

improve the pedestrian environment were balanced against engineering criteria etc to provide a solution which provides an equitable design solution.

3.0 SUMMARY 3.1 We are not at the detailed design stage. Good design will mitigate issues, like

those raised by Mr Jamieson, as part of the detailed design process.

Brian Evans Partner Gillespies LLP

GROUP 32 – OBJECTION NO: 164 WARDIE BAY RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION PROMOTER REBUTTAL JIM HARRIES 1 Background 1.1 This rebuttal is in response to part of the Witness Statements

presented by the Wardie Bay Residents’ Association. 2 Agreed Issues 2.1 This rebuttal addresses matters associated with the speed of the tram.

It follows on from my witness statement that relates to the speed of the tram and from the witness statements presented by the Wardie Bay Residents’ Association. Other matters are subject separate rebuttals presented by the Promoter.

3 Issues in Dispute 3.1 These issues follow in sections 4 to 7 below:

4 Access to Wardie Beach

4.1 The statement made at the Community Liaison group on 15 March

2004 was before the involvement of Transdev, the company that will operate the system. The statement is correct for locations where the tram runs on a road where both trams and road vehicles share the same carriageway and the prevailing speed limit is 30 mph. Where trams do not share the same carriageway as road traffic, the trams may be able to operate at higher speeds than the road traffic.

4.2 Other witnesses for the Promoter have explained that the tram system must offer rapid journey times to meet its goals. Clearly, the speed of the tram has an impact on the journey times, and Lower Granton Road is one area where trams are expected to be able to operate safely at speeds in excess of 30mph.

5 Tram system design for safety

5.1 The concerns raised by the objector about tram speed and safety are addressed in my witness statement on the speed of the tram. This witness statement explains the process by which the overall safety of the tram system will be assured, and that the process is subject to acceptance by HMRI and others.

6 Barriers

6.1 Detailed design of the alignment, tram speed and of any necessary

barriers required in order to ensure safety has not been started. Generally in this area, the tram driver’s sight lines are good, and the Promoter is confident that trams will be able to operate safely at speeds in excess of 30mph over portions of the route. Some barriers may be required to stop people from walking straight onto the tramway at some locations, but it is not anticipated that high barriers will be necessary along the greater majority of the route through this area.

7 Design Process

7.1 There is a balance to be struck between having an effective and rapid tram system, and having a public open space that conveys an atmosphere of calm and tranquillity. The busy road through the area now limits what can be achieved in terms of calm and tranquillity. Trams can pass through public open spaces and contribute to making a pleasant urban environment, and it is tie’s intention to work with:

• the Council’s Planning Authority • the Council’s other departments, and • local residents

in order to achieve the best possible balance between the needs of the tram system and the concerns of the residents in this area.

JIM HARRIES PROJECT ENGINEER TRANSDEV

GROUP 32 – OBJECTION NO: 164 WARDIE BAY RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION PROMOTER REBUTTAL GARY TURNER 1 Background 1.1 This rebuttal is prepared in response to the witness statements

submitted by Wardie Bay Residents of group 32. 1.2 It will cover the points raised associated with: Road width and separation from existing listed terrace

Bus Stops accessibility adjacent to the tram Access to Wardie Beach Impact on Public realm Sea wall 2 Agreed Issues 2.1 There are no agreed issues. 3 Issues in Dispute

Road width and separation from existing listed terrace 3.1 The issue of the existing space availability and the tram proposals

along Lower Granton Road (LGR), based on their original objection, break down into three main issues for the residents. The first is the commitment from the City of Edinburgh Council roads authority for the existing road to be moved away from the existing properties. Whilst the road realignment work is not part of the tram commission, it is recognised that the two need to be considered together to enable an overall solution to be produced. The second issue is the aspect of road safety and how the two schemes work together, and the third issue is one of good public realm.

3.2 With regard to the proposals of space availability the attached drawings 203011\EDIN\604 & 605 (P3) indicate the promoter’s preferred option and the separation that is available between the realigned road and the existing properties. The existing footpath separating the properties from the road is between 1.3m and 2.2m. With the current proposals of utilising a segregated tram alignment and realigning the road the footpath widths would vary between 3m and 5.4m. Through the provision of formal parking bays the road alignment would be between 5.1 and 6.2 m away from the properties.

3.3 With regard to the statement from David Jamieson that “the seaward walkway is a narrow missed opportunity” it should be borne in mind that at present there is a nominal footpath to the north of the road. The proposals are to replace this with a formal walkway/cycleway 3m wide adjacent to the sea wall (not 2.5m as indicated on the objector’s accompanying drawings). It is therefore contested that the tram proposals do not provide for the road to be realigned sufficiently far away from the existing properties and that the walkway is “insufficient for such a prominent location”.

3.4 As part of the ongoing discussion with the residents one of the key

issues raised is how the speed on the realigned road can be calmed to prevent speeding. To allay these concerns it was agreed with the City of Edinburgh Council roads authority that the road width could be reduced to 6m so as to act as traffic calming. This agreement was subject to a Road User Safety Audit which has now been carried out. The audit concludes that there are no safety implications by reducing the road width. It is noted that the objectors make reference to the use of bus stops as traffic calming. Whilst it is recognised that use of bus boarders can slow traffic down it is not intended to be, and should not be relied upon, as a means of traffic calming.

Bus Stops accessibility adjacent to the tram 3.5 With regard to the existing bus stops on LGR the west bound bus stops

are not affected by the tram proposals. The east bound stops, however, will require to be rationalised on the ground of safety. At some of the existing eastbound stops the tram alignment is adjacent to the road with the walkway/cycleway being on the opposite side of the tram alignment. To avoid bus passenger boarding and alighting across the tram tracks the bus stops are proposed to be repositioned to locations where there is a safe verge. This issue still has to be resolved with the residents and further discussions will be undertaken as the scheme develops.

3.6 Of the 6 existing east bound bus stop locations from Granton Square to

the Trinity Road junction it is anticipated that the stop on Granton Square will remain, the stop just east of Granton Square will be incorporated with the Granton Square stop. The stop just west of the breakwaters will be relocated to just east of the breakwaters to PBS1, the stop east of the Wardie Hotel will be moved east to PBS2, the stop opposite Victoria Court will remain and the stop west of the Trinity Junction will also remain. Pedestrian crossing points are proposed adjacent to all the bus stop locations. (See drawing reference 203011/EDIN/604 (P3)

Access to Wardie Beach

3.7 The attached drawing (reference 203011/EDIN/605(P3)) indicates

three crossing locations in the vicinity of the Wardie Beach (Eastern

Breakwaters), all of which are signalised and will permit safe access across the road and the tramroad.

Impact on Public realm

3.8 A public realm project along Lower Granton Road, to complement the

ETL1 scheme, is being progressed by the City of Edinburgh Council. A draft of the design brief being developed is attached for reference. This design brief will be amalgamated with a similar brief developed for Trinity/Starbank and progressed as a single project.

Sea wall

3.9 The residents concerns about the sea wall height will be considered as

part of the public realm project being carried out in parallel to the tram scheme. The public realm design brief takes into account the listed status of the sea wall.

3.10 With regard to the sea wall the residents have proposed an alternative

of utilising a cantilevered walkway to create even more space at this location (this stems from similar proposals along Starbank Road). At Starbank Road the walkway on the seaward side of the sea wall has been promoted to recreate parking for the residents rather than to develop the urban landscape. At LGR there are no such space constraints and parking and segregated running is possible within the area available.

3.11 More importantly, the development of the walkway at Starbank Road

proposes to have the walkway independent of the sea wall so that there is no reliance on the structural condition of the sea wall. This approach is not possible at LGR as the walkway would be within the geological SSSI and the promoter has already been requested to give assurances that the tram proposals will not impact on this area. Cantilevering the walkway off the sea wall is not practical due to the unknown construction of the wall and the extensive works required to make it load bearing.

4 Conclusion 4.1 An alignment has been produced to give optimum space between the

tramroad and the existing properties to meet the resident’s aspirations of moving the existing road away from the properties at this location.

4.2 A number of key provisions which address the concerns of the local

community have been incorporated into the tram alignment proposals in this area. The footpath width has been increased and formalised parking bays have been created, both resulting in the road being moved by the order of a further 3m away from the existing position. The road has been proposed as a 6m wide carriageway width which will act as a traffic control measure.

4.3 All west bound bus stop locations remain. Of the 6 existing east bound

bus stop locations 5 remain, 3 in their existing locations. 4.4 The City of Edinburgh Council is developing public realm proposals in

parallel to the tram project. 4.5 There are currently three crossing locations proposed in the vicinity of

the Wardie Beach (Eastern Breakwaters) access steps, all of which are signalised and will permit safe access across the road and the tramroad.

Gary Turner Divisional Director Mott MacDonald

GROUP 32 – OBJECTION NO: 164 WARDIE BAY RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION PROMOTER REBUTTAL STUART TURNBULL 1 Background 1.1 In this Rebuttal Statement I comment on the traffic and

congestion issues raised in the Witness Statements submitted on behalf of Group 32.

2 Agreed Issues 2.1 There are no noteworthy agreed issues that have been raised in

relation to my area of expertise. 3 Issues in Dispute Dalrymple / Bennett / Sydenham 3.1 In respect to the proposals to alter the carriageway width along

Lower Granton Road and associated approvals, I would comment as follows.

3.2 It was necessary prior to lodging the Parliamentary Bill to

demonstrate to the satisfaction of The City of Edinburgh Council that engineering solutions existed that operated in a robust manner.

3.3 In the City of Edinburgh Council Committee Report of 13

November 2003 it was stated: “The results of this design process has enabled the Council to

conclude that workable layouts for all junctions have been achieved which accommodate the tram, other public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. In many cases the layouts that have been generated require further design work and refinement however the Council is satisfied that acceptable solutions will be achieved.”

3.4 In terms of specific approval for the reduction of the carriageway

width from Lothian and Borders Police, I would advise that there is no statutory requirement to obtain such approval. The promoters did however undertake a consultation exercise with the emergency services in respect of Tram Line 1. Furthermore, throughout the continuing design process (should the Bill

receive Royal Assent) consultations with relevant bodies will take place.

Bennett / Bray / Sydenham & Jamieson 3.5 In relation to the comments on speed of road traffic, namely

“We are concerned that trams travelling along at 50mph are not going to encourage road traffic to maintain 30mph”

3.6 A number of existing ‘second generation’ tramways have

sections where the tramway and road traffic sit within parallel corridors and the speed limits on the two modes are different, amongst these locations are;

• Dublin, Naas Road – highway speed 40mph/64kmh,

tramway speed 70kmh; • Dublin, Cookstown Road – highway speed 30mph/48kmh,

tramway speed 70kmh; • Croydon, Lodge Lane – highway speed 40mph/64kmh,

tramway speed 70kmh; and • Croydon, Coombe Road – highway speed 30mph/48kmh,

tramway speed 80 kmh.

3.7 In all of these cases the highway authority, in agreement with the appropriate rail safety body, has issued a derogation from the normal highway speed for trams. In Croydon, the Metropolitan Police originally expressed fears that a differential speed would encourage reckless motorists to ‘pace’ or race trams, the situation was monitored for the first few months after the differential speeds were established and the fears proved unfounded.

3.8 Given the nature of the Lower Granton Road and its proposed

layout post-tram (continuous line of dwelling houses, relatively narrow carriageway, formalised parking on south side, traffic signal control at each end of road) it may be considered unlikely that even the most reckless motorists would speed along this section of road. If speeding is found to be a problem then traffic calming measures could be introduced to reduce speed. It would also be possible for the roads authority to introduce a 20mph zone along the road to further widen the speed differential, thus making ‘pacing’ less likely and encouraging traffic diversion away from Lower Granton Road.

4 Conclusion 4.1 The City of Edinburgh Council Committee Report of 13

November 2003, provided approval in principle to amend Lower Granton Road and its junction with Trinity Crescent and

Starbank Road. A consultation exercise was undertaken with the Emergency Services in respect of the Tram Line 1.

4.2 A number of existing ‘second generation’ tramways have

sections where the tramway and road traffic sit within parallel corridors and the speed limits on the two modes are different. A study of the situation in Croydon, demonstrated that fears of general traffic ‘racing’ or ‘pacing’ the tram were unfounded.

4.3 The City of Edinburgh Council could implement traffic calming

measures within Lower Granton Road, if post construction there concerns relating to general traffic speed.

Stuart Turnbull

IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC REALM at LOWER GRANTON ROAD OPPORTUNITY FOR PLACE MAKING

Draft Design Brief 7th March 2005 AIM To design a new waterfront space at Lower Granton Road, a place which connects the buildings to the waterfront, taking into account current transport proposals. PURPOSE The purpose of the work will be to take forward the commonly agreed objectives, identify design options for the area, and agree a finalised design. STAKEHOLDERS There are 3 main stakeholders, the Local Residents (Community Liaison Group), the City Development Department of Edinburgh Council and TiE. Inputs will be sought from consultees such as Historic Scotland, SNH, Lothian and Borders Police, and other council departments such as Environmental and Consumer Services. ISSUES The following is a list of key issues agreed by the Stakeholders to be addressed; • Need to take account of the strategic design objectives for the tram. • Establish best option for reducing the impact and speed of traffic on Lower

Granton Road whilst ensuring an effective east - west road link is retained • Change the emphasis within the space from being dominated by cars, to

dominated by people. • Ensure bus stops are in the most appropriate location • Configure the walkway/cycleway from Western Harbour (Pier Pl) –

Starbank Rd, and Trinity Cres/Ave to ensure a continuous linkage along the whole waterfront

• If lowering the height of the sea wall, (which is listed) which section and by how much? Can this be done without affecting the structure of the wall or impacting on the sea defence?

• Ensure local aspirations for the walk/cycleway are factored in • Reconcile the heritage issues of the setting of the houses (listed) with the

character of the sea wall (also listed) • Cascade down the strategic waterfront objectives to this locality • Improve the streetscape and bring in softer surfaces OBJECTIVES The following is a list of objectives agreed with all stakeholders. These should be used to inform future design work • Maximise the segregated running of the tram. • Ensure bus stops serve local residents and fit well with tram proposals

• Provide for some lowering of the sea wall, whilst ensuring no adverse impact on structure and coastal defences.

• Establish the most appropriate position for the walkway/cycleway (on or next to sea wall).

• Good landscaping to address the impacts of noise and pollution on local residents

• Reduce the overall adverse impact of traffic for the residents, most especially reducing the speed of traffic.

• Provide a sufficient number of safe and accessible pedestrian crossing facilities

• Protect and enhance of the setting of the cottages. • Consider any implications for future water-borne transport or recreational

use of the foreshore • No adverse impact on SSSI or SPA • Maximise the opportunities to provide a complete waterfront esplanade,

connecting into other existing or proposed arrangements on adjoining sites.

• ‘Placemaking’ to improve the sense of identity of the space, maximising the potential for recreational use.

BACKGROUND A sum of money is available for transport improvements in this location. Lower Granton Road and its adjacent green sward also form part of the route of Tram Line 1. It is widely agreed that this area does not maximise its potential in terms of public realm. There is an opportunity to rectify this, bringing together the different strands and improve the overall amenity and environmental quality of the area. In addition, there is an opportunity to ensure that a continuous walkway/cycleway linking the area to both Leith in the East and Cramond in the West is provided. The Residents of Lower Granton Road are involved in a Community Liaison Group for Tram Line 1. Lower Granton Road is a residential street connecting Granton Square at the west end, with Trinity Road at the east. Houses and flats on the south side of the road overlook Wardie Bay, Wardie Beach and Granton Harbour. Half the length of the road includes the seafront esplanade called McKelvie Parade. The area is used by a wide section of the local community, visitors and tourists for walking, exercise, fishing and swimming. The residents have advised that they campaigned for Lower Granton Road to be realigned and the old railway embankment (on the sea wall) to be removed in 1989. Following the campaign, the Council agreed to demolish the railway embankment and to realign Lower Granton Road in 2 phases. The first phase of demolishing the embankment was carried out in 1991/2 which eliminated the tunnel effect. Unfortunately due to lack of funds Phase 2 is only now due to be undertaken due to section 75 money from Forth Ports. This is now being held back due to discussion concerning the proposed tram. Residents are concerned that the proposed leveling out of the current landscaped/grassed area beside the sea wall will reintroduce the tunnel effect and will also create a 2 metre wall adjacent to the proposed walkway/cycle path.

They have already been in negotiation with TiE and City Development over the proposals for the tramline adjacent to their properties. They have concerns about a segregated alignment for tram. The narrowest area at the western end of the Road ranges from approximately 21 - 26 m wide from the residents cottages and the sea wall. This makes the space available extremely valuable and creates an opportunity for some innovative and intelligent use of the land. Planning and Strategy (City Development Dept) recognise that the area has the potential to be of high amenity, with the views to the sea, the redevelopment of Western Harbour and walk/cycle routes to Leith and Cramond (east/west). The area is covered by two adopted local plans - North East Edinburgh Local Plan, as altered, and North West Edinburgh Local Plan. These show Lower Granton Road and environs affected by road proposals, walkway/cycleway proposals, and a public transport safeguarded route. These plans also define the foreshore as a SSSI. The road is already busy, being a key link for traffic travelling east/west. Further development along the whole waterfront area is likely to increase the amount of traffic on the road. The Department’s Design Champion has stated that the Waterfont area ought to be ‘a visitor attraction in its own right’ as part of the Waterfront City theme. This ‘place making’ objective therefore, has a crucial role in this. It is therefore considered that it is important to implement the transport proposals, but in addition to take the opportunity to create a sense of place, maximising the potential of the area, and also protecting the natural and built environment. The Waterfront Communities Project is an EU funded project with 10 partners from around the North Sea Region. Edinburgh (City Development) is the lead partner. The main aim of the project is to create sustainable, economically vibrant and socially inclusive waterfront areas in European cities and reconnect the city to the sea. The main outputs of the project will be an international database of best practice, a learning network, a framework for organising knowledge of key concepts which will inform policy and action requirements. There is a ready made communication network which may be able to provide information and assistance if necessary. This provides some additional useful context for the proposals. TiE are taking forward the Councils proposals for a segregated tram route along the amenity strip opposite the cottages. This amenity strip has been safeguarded in the local plan for a public transport route. The residents are not opposed to the tramline, they would like to reduce the impact and speeds of the traffic, improve the amenity of the area, and establish a walk/cycleway. TiE have stated that the tram will have to run on segregated lines to ensure a regular frequency of service. Consideration has been given to moving the

road adjacent to the sea wall, and have the tram adjacent to the housing. This was not favoured by some of the residents as it may cause car parking issues, and HMRI have stated that crossing tram lines by vehicles for parking access is undesirable. It may be worth revisiting this option, but it is doubtful if an acceptable design could emerge from this. DESIGN 1 (TIE) TiE have draft proposals for this area. The design does not appear to maximise the potential of the setting in terms of public realm. The design should assist in creating a place that people would want to linger, and there is very little evidence of this from this design, as the current remit is to incorporate the tram but not to develop the public realm for the area as a whole. Elements of design include; • Shared walk/cycleway against the sea wall • Segregated tramway on grass track • Optional parking/loading bays • Footpath widened where possible • Improved access to foreshore • Eastbound bus island with pedestrian crossings • Signalled pedestrian crossing The design proposed by TiE clearly shows segregated running of the tram, which will run along to safeguarded amenity strip between the road and the sea wall. The design shows commitment for the road to be reduced in width to 6m, with separate parking bays, this will be subject to a road safety audit. The existing road is wider than 6m. However, residents parking currently takes place on road and pavement which tends to slow traffic but makes pedestrian access difficult on the south side pavement. Residents have an aspiration to narrow the road to 6m. This should ensure that traffic speeds are reduced. A Road User Safety Audit must be undertaken before a decision can be made on this. Slower traffic speeds, however, increases air pollution, therefore the open aspect towards the sea should be capitalised, to assist in the dispersal of the traffic pollution (Residents at Trinity Crescent - approx 1 km east - would prefer traffic flow to increase). The design shows that total distance from the road to the housing including the footpath and parking bays will be 6 metres. The design also allows for an integrated cycleway and footpath up to 4 metres adjacent to the existing seawall, and includes improved access to the beach. The design does not indicate how this will be designed. It also does not detail how much of the seawall needs to be reduced to accommodate the walk/cycleway without impacting on the seaward views. DESIGN 2 (LOCAL RESIDENTS) Two proposals have been submitted by the community group (drawings by Zone Architects which represent community consultation discussions). Local residents consider both acceptable as they give sufficient width to pavements, the cycleway, landscaping and traffic calming measures.

Proposal One is for an integrated tram/roadway over the 400m western end of LGRd. Proposal two has a segregated tram and roadway for the entire length of LGRd with a cantilevered boardwalk over the listed sea wall at the narrower west end of LGRd. The CLG feel that given the unique seafront location the design of the street should have pedestrian movement as its priority both to take advantage of the views, opportunities for exercise, sea air etc. and to encourage use of public transport and the tram. It is proposed that pavements should be no less than 3.0m wide and the cycleway should be 2.0m in addition to that. The roadway should be no more than 6.0m wide unless an integrated solution is adopted. The residents have suggested a minimum width from the front of houses to the kerb of 10.0m given the amount of traffic on the road. It should be noted that there are a lot of single aspect, north facing houses and flats whose occupants are unable to open their windows due to traffic noise and fumes. Another proposal was presented at a RIAS conference “Tramspotting” in November 2004 by Zone Architects who live and work in the area. This is a proposal for the improvement to the east end of Lower Granton Rd taking the essential reorganisation of space to accommodate tram infrastructure as a starting point, but focusing on the pedestrian perspective to make it work. The design attempts to create a clear hierarchy for all modes of traffic, but places pedestrian and cyclists as the most privileged users of the space available. METHODOLOGY The following elements of work will be necessary to ensure that the aim is achieved; • Urban design analysis to be carried out on the basis of existing and

proposed situations. • Initial briefing workshop with Stakeholders • Generation of Outline Design Options • Consultation on proposed options with all stakeholders • Road user safety audit to be carried out on LGRd • Workshop with CLG and other Stakeholders to ensure that objectives are

integrated with plans further along the waterfront. • Recommendation of preferred Design • Detailed design proposals to be finalised on this basis (optional – if funds

are available) OUTPUTS Outline design to be produced showing disposition of the different public realm elements including

- Tram route - Pedestrian/cycleway - Hard and soft landscaping - The road - Disposition of Bus stops - Recreational space - Pedestrian crossing facilities

- Proposed alterations to the sea wall. TIMING 3-4 Months FUNDING Funding is still to be identified for the following, but consideration will be given to using funds arising from the S.75 relating to Western Harbour/Granton Harbour.

• design work • implementation

Other potential sources of funding are currently being explored. APPENDICES/BACKGROUND PAPERS Adopted or approved policies North West Edinburgh Local Plan North East Edinburgh Local Plan Alteration to the North East Edinburgh Local Plan Limits of Deviation for Tram Line 1 Environmental Statement for Tram Line 1 Tram Draft Design Manual (approved for consultation) Planning Committee Report on The Edinburgh Tram Project – November 2003 DQ Guidelines on

• Biodiversity • Quality of Landscaping in Developments • Community Safety • Art in Public Places • Site Planning and Sustainable Developments • Movement and Development

Edinburgh’s Streetscape Manual Edinburgh Standards for Urban Design Local Transport Strategy 2004 – 2007 Extract from S75 Agreement on Western Harbour (Forth Ports plc) (see appendix) Extract from S75 Agreement on Granton Harbour (Forth ports plc) (see appendix) Various other drawings/visuals including Tram plans – indicative layouts Tram Planning Paper No 6 Tie’s current proposals for tram alignment (paper copy) Zone Architects “Tramspotting” submission (on disk) AMG/LOWERGRANTONbriefmar/CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT(P&S) APPENDIX

SECTION 75 PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE LOWER GRANTON ROAD AREA NB Where the provisions in these Agreements overlap, they should be read as first past the post. They are not cumulative. EXTRACT – GRANTON HARBOUR S.75 – APPLICATION NO: 01/00802/OUT DATE OF SIGNING: 19TH/20TH June 2003 Title Description of works sum of money Eastern Corridor Transport improvement contribution

to facilitate Eastern Corridor transport improvements (itemised in schedule)

£115,000 max (indexed)

Waterfront corridor transport improvement contribution

to facilitate Waterfront corridor transport improvements (itemised in schedule)

£50,000 max (indexed)

Lower Granton Road realignment contribution

to facilitate realignment of LG Road – (drawing 3 attached to S.75)

£1,000,000 max (indexed)

Tram line route transfer of land for tram line

land only

Cycle route provision of continuous cycle route through the development site from Lower granton Road at Granton Square to West harbour Road

provision of route

Granton Square improvements

road layout arrangement at Granton Square to be improved and roundabout at Granton Square to be signalised to facilitate vehicle and pedestrian movements and improve pedestrian safety

joint working with Council to develop design and appropriate phasing for road realignment: programme for completion of works by 30 June 2006: consents to be obtained by Council and works to be carried out by Forth

EXTRACT – WESTERN HARBOUR S.75 – APPLICATION NO: 01/03229/OUT

DATE OF SIGNING : 28th June 2002 N.B. Currently being renegotiated – but only with regard to tram route Title Description of works sum of money Eastern Corridor Transport improvement contribution

to facilitate Eastern Corridor transport improvements (itemised in schedule)

£115,000 max (indexed)

Waterfront corridor transport improvement contribution

to facilitate Waterfront corridor transport improvements (itemised in schedule)

£50,000 max (indexed)

Lower Granton Road realignment contribution

to facilitate realignment of LG Road – (drawing 3 attached to S.75)

£1,000,000 max (indexed)

Tram line route transfer of land for tram line – 10 m wide max between certain specified points and within the road carriageway (Plan 4)

land only

Tram line route extension

Extension to tram route plus land for stops

Land only