APP/R1 West Midlands Combined Authority s (WMCA) EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OBJECTION OBJ/06 Martineau Galleries No.1 Ltd and Martineau Galleries No.

Transcription

1 APP/R1 West Midlands Combined Authority s (WMCA) EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OBJECTION OBJ/06 Martineau Galleries No.1 Ltd and Martineau Galleries No.2 Ltd

2

3 West Midlands Combined Authority s (WMCA) EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OBJECTION OBJ/06 Martineau Galleries No.1 Limited and Martineau Galleries No.2 Limited TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 MIDLAND METRO (BIRMINGHAM EASTSIDE EXTENSION) ORDER INQUIRY NOV 2017

4 Page 2 of 10 APP/R1

5 Evidence in Rebuttal of Objection OBJ/06 Martineau Galleries No.1 Limited and Martineau Galleries No.2 Limited 1. Proofs of evidence in connection with Objection OBJ/06 have been prepared by Carolyn Kenney, Ruth Jeffs and Andrea Arnall (documents OBJ/06/P1.1 OBJ/06/P3.2). The points raised within these proofs are addressed below by the WMCA s witnesses; silence on any matter should not be taken as indicating WMCA s agreement. 2. The points raised are dealt with by WMCA s witnesses as follows: Issue raised in the Proof of Ms Ruth Jeffs (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) More land is being acquired from the objector than is required as the corridor in re-aligned Albert Street is wider than necessary as: (1) It is wider than in other parts of the route (2) The footway is significantly wider than required (3) The area would be better served by roadside platforms in place of the proposed island stop WMCA Witness Items (1), (2) and (3 in part) Stephen Luke Engineering Item (3 in part) Eddie Mellor - Transport Fixing of equipment to Martineau Galleries buildings Issue raised in the Proof of Ms Andrea Arnall (OBJ/6/P3.1) The requirement for catenary fixings creates uncertainty in terms of preparing plans for redevelopment of the objector s land The permanent acquisition of land could result in sub-optimal redevelopment of the objector s site Stephen Luke - Engineering WMCA Witness Paul Ellingham Town Planning Introduction 3. This rebuttal has been prepared by Mr Eddie Mellor (Transport Witness), Mr Stephen Luke (Engineering Witness) and Mr Paul Ellingham (Transport Planning Witness) in response to the Proof of Evidence of Ms Ruth Jeffs (OBJ/6/P2.1 and Page 3 of 10

6 2.2) and Ms Andrea Arnall (OBJ/6/P3.1) on behalf of Martineau Galleries. Proposed Corridor Width The Objector s Evidence 4. In paragraph 3.5 of her proof of evidence (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2), Ms Jeffs states that When you examine Figure 1 [as appended to Ms Jeffs proof of evidence] it is clear the limit of deviation and of land to be acquired or used, the area highlighted blue, is much greater than needed to deliver the BEE tramway system. 5. At paragraph 4.18 of her proof of evidence, Ms Jeffs states: When you examine Figure 2 it shows the limit of deviation and of land to be acquired or used, the area highlighted blue, is much greater than needed to deliver the BEE tramway system. The land proposed to be acquired therefore exceeds that reasonably required for the needs of the BEE. 6. In support of her contentions Ms Jeffs addresses the following issues: i. Tramway/carriageway width ii. iii. Footway width Tramstop The Promoter s Response Stephen Luke 7. In responding to Ms Jeffs evidence, I will adopt the headings in her proof of evidence. Proposed Corridor Width 8. In order to determine appropriate corridor width it is not sufficient to restrict the analysis to comparing one part of the route with another, as different considerations will apply to different sections of the route. 9. The section of the route identified in Ms Jeffs Figure 1 cannot be compared with those referred to in paragraph 3.3 of her proof of evidence, as the section of the route identified in Figure 1 has to make provision for a tramstop, retaining a dedicated eastbound cycle lane, and provision of bus stops within layby arrangements on both sides of Albert Street (to separate tram and bus stopping patterns to maintain public transport reliability). These requirements have not been considered in Figure This section of the BEE route also contains complex horizontal and vertical geometry requiring consequential alterations to the highway including the levels and layout of the carriageway, footways and kerbs. 11. Paragraph 10.2 of the proof of evidence of Mr Stephen Luke (APP/P3.1) provides Page 4 of 10

7 more detail of the extent of temporary and permanent acquisition required. Optimum Corridor Width Tramway/Carriageway 12. In paragraphs 4.2 to 4.3 of Ms Jeffs proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) she quotes from Guidance on Tramways Railways Safety Publication Part 2, Office of Rail Regulation (November 2006) [BEE/C1]. In paragraph 4.4 she states Therefore, I would expect the tramway/carriageway width alongside MG s area of interest to be greater than 7.3m (2x3650mm) since an allowance for DKE must be included. 13. In paragraph 4.5 of Ms Jeffs proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) she states that from my full review it is clear that the section at Meriden Street North of Coventry Street is also a shared track similar to the section of BEE alongside MG s areas of interest. In my opinion, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the two-way carriageway/tramway width of 8.6m associated with Meriden Street North of Coventry Street could also apply to the section of BEE alongside MG s areas of interest, as opposed to the overly engineered corridor which is presently proposed. 14. This is incorrect and I would refer to the rebuttal of paragraph 3.5 of Ms Jeffs proof above. Footway 15. In paragraph 4.9 of her proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2), Ms Jeffs states that In my view, the footway allowed is significantly wider than would appear to be required in accordance with the guidance, and results in more land being identified for acquisition than is actually justified. 16. I do not agree with this statement. Birmingham City Council (BCC) and the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) are committed to providing a high quality public transport network, complemented with a public realm that encourages sustainable travel. BEE provides an opportunity to further improve connectivity and encourage walking, meeting the objectives of the Local Transport Plan. To achieve this, the BEE scheme has sought To set footway widths based on the minimum requirements of BCC for city centre areas, realising the potential for increased pedestrian flow in this area in the future due to the proposed Martineau Galleries development and HS Paragraph 4.9 of Ms Jeffs' proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) states that the corridor alongside MG s areas of interest is defined as a low flow street so the minimum unobstructed width for pedestrians should generally be 2m. 18. Ms Jeffs (at paragraph 4.8 of her proof of evidence) relies on the Transport for London (TfL), Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London (which she appends to her evidence as Appendix 2). The TfL guidance states on page 25 that The recommended minimum footway width (total width) for a site with low flows is 2.9m. This is consistent with the current BEE design proposal, and the aspirations of BCC and WMCA. 19. The TfL guidance continues In high street or tourist areas the total width can be reduced to 2.6m if there is no street furniture (except street lights).... Finally, the guidance states, In other areas, low flow streets can be 2m wide if there is no street furniture. This total width is a required for two users to pass comfortably and Page 5 of 10

8 to meet DfT minimum standards. 20. The location in question will contain street furniture. As a minimum there will be lighting columns and potentially Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) columns. The bus stops will also require a bus stop pole as a minimum. Further furniture such as litter bins could also potentially be required. 21. In addition, although the current level of pedestrian flow is low, it is anticipated that flows will increase in the future. The current low flows are attributable to the fact that there is no pedestrian entrance to the NCP car park from this road and that office buildings on the southern side are currently vacant, with St Michaels Church being the only pedestrian accessible building in use. As such, the majority of the flow is pedestrians passing from Dale End to Moor Street Queensway and any users who wish to use the bus stops. 22. HS2 Curzon Street station proposals include an entrance located in close proximity to Albert Street. Albert Street will provide an easy walking route directly to the city core, and bus and tram stops and it is reasonable to expect that a large proportion of these passengers will use Albert Street for part of their journey as pedestrians and/or tram or bus passengers. 23. There are further masterplan proposals such as City Park Gate proposals which further the need for a high quality pedestrian environment on Albert Street. 24. Designing to the absolute minimum standard considering the expected footfall on Albert Street would be sub optimal and would not support and encourage pedestrian connectivity in the city. Eddie Mellor Tramstop Traffic 25. In section 4.10 of the proof of Ms Jeffs (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) she states that It is my view that the island tram stop depicted on the application plans near MG s areas of interest is detrimental to local traffic and results in more land being identified for acquisition than is actually justified. In my opinion, the area would be better served by two roadside tramstops. 26. With regards to the requirement for a U-turn facility loop (paragraph 4.13 of Ms Jeffs proof), this facility was designed in order to incorporate the Ikea vehicular access facility. 27. The Ikea vehicular pick-up is accessed from Albert Street on the northside adjacent to the proposed island tram stop. Due to the position of the platform and the height restriction for traffic entering from Dale End it has been necessary to include a traffic signal controlled U turn/loop to allow delivery vehicles to access the Ikea delivery area from Albert Street. 28. The provision of roadside platforms at the eastern end of Albert Street (the preferred BEE location) in order to provide visibility from HS2 would further compromise access to Ikea as the current entrance position would have to be relocated. If this were feasible, the U turn/loop facility would still also be required if Page 6 of 10

9 two roadside platforms were located at the eastern end of the street. Stephen Luke Tramstop Engineering 29. The land required for the loop does impact on the available kerb space for bus stops and tramstops as the facility is in the vicinity of the curved section of the alignment. Tramstops should be on straights, as is desirable for bus stops. 30. The provision of side platform arrangements also precludes the ability to maintain safe cycle lanes as trams entering the stop create pinch points as the width between the tram platform and tram track is reduced to enable level passenger boarding between the platform and the tram entry/exit door. 31. With a side platform option, due to the constraints on the Albert Street alignments, bus stops would need to be provided on-street, rather than in lay-bys (as proposed in paragraph 4.14 of Ms Jeffs' Proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2). This type of arrangement could disrupt the efficient operation on the tram network by impeding the movement of trams. 32. Throughout the BEE development WMCA sought the provision of bus stops within laybys on tram corridors. 33. In paragraph 4.15 of her proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) Ms Jeffs states that From measurement on site of the Stephenson Street eastbound Metro stop outside Birmingham New Street, the tramstop and accompanying footway width is effectively 5.1m (comprising 2.9m tram stop, 150mm channel and 2m footway). In my view, the same measurement would be appropriate to apply as a maximum width for roadside tramstops adjacent to the MG site. 34. In my opinion this is an entirely inappropriate comparison. New Street Station / Stephenson Street is a very constrained location and the footway widths there would not be considered desirable. The location of buildings to the north of the street and the columns for New Street Station itself (which are in privately owned land, not on highway land) limit the available width. The Midland Metro layout was designed to provide as wide a footway as possible acknowledging the significant constraints that exist in this area; the building containing the retail unit on the corner is listed, and the Burlington Hotel and shopping arcade would have also required frontage demolition work to enable the provision of a 3m wide footway in this area. 35. With the realigned Albert Street proposal, we have the opportunity to develop an optimum design solution which meets the future needs of the city. It would be inappropriate to develop a compromised solution to meet minimum design guidance. Page 7 of 10

10 The Need to Attach Catenary Equipment The Objector s Evidence 36. In paragraph 5.6 of her proof (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) Ms Jeffs states that The proposed footway widths for the BEE corridor in the vicinity of MG s areas of interest discussed in Section 4 (of at least 2.9m in width), associated with both the BEE and the optimum corridor width will provide sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian flows at points where poles would be sited in place of catenary fixed to buildings. Therefore, no catenary connection to plot 26 is required. 37. In paragraph 5.7 (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2) Ms Jeffs states that In my view the 1.5m wide cycle lane is not essential to deliver the proposed tram route or to provide for all road users as cyclists could use the carriageway. If the cycle lane was removed a wider footway could be provided, meaning that poles could be used to support tram apparatus rather than building fixings. The Promoter s Response Stephen Luke 38. The Planning Direction Drawings (BEE/A11) do allow for the possibility of poles in this area although there is the opportunity to provide building fixings. Building fixings are desirable as opposed to OLE poles as they remove street clutter and avoid the costs and disruption associated with subsurface works to install foundations and potentially relocate utilities. 39. The corner of Bull Street / Corporation Street has a split-level footway in this area. The old subway ramp is being filled in and the upper levels shops are to remain. This leaves too great a level difference to remove across the footway, so a small retaining wall is proposed that splits the approx. 4m footway in half. It is envisaged this would be removed should the site be developed and the footway combined into a single width footway. 40. There is currently a cycle lane heading south along Corporation Street that shifts from carriageway to footway then back to carriageway as it passes around the corner into Bull Street. Given that BEE fills in the old subway ramp, there was an opportunity to improve this arrangement and maintain the cycle lane on carriageway throughout, improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. The cycle lane is then maintained along Bull Street heading south. It was not considered desirable to remove the relatively small extent of cycle infrastructure place in this area. 41. I consider that evidence presented to Inquiry provides a strong evidence base for the TWA Order to be made by the secretary of State. This rebuttal provides a comprehensive response to the specific matters of objection raised by Martineau Galleries, and considers the transportation and engineering issues set out in the proof of Ms Jeffs (OBJ/6/P2.1 and 2.2). 42. It can be concluded that the Albert Street design is the optimum scheme solution, and no modification is required to the scheme for which TWA Order powers are sought. Page 8 of 10

11 The Current Scheme Proposals and the Power to Acquire Goes Beyond the Power Necessary to Deliver the Scheme and Represents an Unjustified Interference with the Objector s Property Rights The Objector s evidence 43. Ms Andrea Arnall (OBJ/6/P3.1 and OBJ/6/P3.2), at paragraph 5.1 of her proof of evidence, concludes (inter alia) that: i. The requirement for catenary fixings creates uncertainty in terms of preparing plans for redevelopment of the objector s land (bullet point 6) ii. The permanent acquisition of land could result in sub-optimal redevelopment of the objector s site (bullet point 7) The Promoter s Response Paul Ellingham The power to affix equipment to buildings (Article 19) 44. As set out above in paragraph 36 by Mr Stephen Luke there is a preference by BCC to use OLE building fixings rather than poles where possible in order to reduce street clutter and minimise impacts on townscape character. 45. In order to reduce street clutter and impacts on visual amenity and townscape character the WMCA is seeking the powers to fix the OLE to buildings where possible. In terms of Martineau Galleries, there is an opportunity to co-ordinate the public realm design and reduce street clutter by utilising building fixings for the OLE. However, due to the uncertainty around the timing of the Martineau Galleries development, the absence of details in any full planning permission or reserved matters approval, it is not known at this stage whether it will be possible to attach fixings to the replacement buildings to be constructed at this location. In the event that building fixings are not possible, the OLE could be installed using a pole system and the powers being sought within the draft Order allow for this also, with the details for this being approved as part of draft conditions 2 and 3 to the deemed planning permission (BEE/A2). 46. It is appropriate for the draft Order to provide a power for building fixings to be used, whilst also allowing poles to be used where this is not practicable. I see no basis on which this creates uncertainty for the redevelopment of the Objector's land. The existence of a power to affix OLE to buildings does not impose any obligation on a developer to design a future building in such a way as to make it suitable for fixings. If a building is suitable for fixings they can be used, if not poles can be provided. The WMCA will work with the developer of Martineau Galleries and BCC to integrate the design of the respective schemes. If building fixings are not practicably possible, then the OLE can be supported by poles in this location with the design and external appearance to be agreed as part of the discharge of conditions process with the local planning authority. Impact of the TWAO proposals on future redevelopment of the Objector s land 47. The extent of land proposed to be acquired is necessary to allow for the safe demolition of the Kings Parade building, the realignment of Albert Street and associated highway works. Page 9 of 10

12 48. The WMCA has now reached an agreement with the Objector on the basis of which the Objector has withdrawn its objection. The agreement provides certainty to the Objector that the land which is subject to powers of acquisition in the draft Order will not prejudice the redevelopment of the Martineau Galleries site which can take place alongside the development of the BEE in accordance with local planning policy. 49. The proposed alignment of the BEE Scheme fully accords with the BDP, City Centre Masterplan (BEE/E22/1 &2) and Curzon Street Masterplan (BEE/E19). We refer you to paragraph of my Proof of Evidence which reinforces how the scheme supports Policy GA1.1 and also in paragraph how the Scheme aligns with Policy TP41 of the BDP. 50. As noted in paragraph 3.5 of Ms Arnall s evidence, there is also policy support for the redevelopment of the land at Martineau Galleries through Policy GA1.1 of the BDP. Plan 5 of the BDP (City Centre Spatial Plan) identifies the Martineau Galleries land as a Major Development Site (No.28). Page 10 of 10