Minutes of the Community Councils Together on Trams/Trams Team meeting (Construction Phase) via Google Meet on Thursday 28 January 2021 at 5:30pm
Actions and decisions are red italic. ‘TT’ means ‘Trams Team’.
|Robert Armstrong||TT||Steve Jackson||TT||Bruce Ryan||CCTT minutes secretary|
|Mike Birch||CCTT/NTBCC||Rob Leech||TT||Harald Tobermann||CCTT/LCCC|
|Charlotte Encombe||CCTT/LCCC||Andrew Mackenzie||CCTT /LLCC||Chris Wilson||TT|
|Don Giles||LHNCC||Jennifer Marlborough||CCTT/LHNCC|
|Angus Hardie||CCTT/LLCC||Carol Nimmo||CCTT/NTBCC|
None, but R Armstrong was late due to attendance at another meeting
3 Update/queries CCTT
Additional discussion and information given in the meeting is noted in at the bottom of each issue’s row.
|Ref||Categories||CCTT query/issue||TT initial response (via email), provided 27 January|
|0121.1||environmental impact, quality of life||slow progress around ground borne noise/vibration issues at Leith Walk address||The technical report is currently being finalised.|
|0121.2||sharing information||late provision of drainage information (discussed in OCT, promised at NOV meeting, requested in DEC before Christmas, provided in JAN)||This has been discussed at a number of meetings we did debate whether the information was useful to CCTT members given its technical nature. Information now issued.|
|0121.3||impact on pedestrians, quality of life||poor signage and no advance warning for changes to pedestrian cross-tram work routes||Signage on site is adequate and making minor amendments to pedestrian crossings to accommodate the works was always envisaged and given the nature of these minor changes does not require any notification|
|0121.4||impact on pedestrians, quality of life||what was the total number of cross-tram works pedestrian crossings in FEB20, SEP20, now?||The number of pedestrian crossings along the route remains unchanged and in line with the traffic management plans, although as noted above these may move from time to time to accommodate the works|
|· TT: the number of crossings has not been reduced since work started, but some have moved.|
|0121.5||impact on pedestrians, quality of life||the CCTT/TT concordat envisaged ‘no detriment to local services’; we see broken street lighting, insufficient resources for daily waste collection, drop kerbs filled with puddles and ice||Street lighting have been made aware and are monitoring the route (please note, side streets (which is the biggest complaint) still need to be reported through the normal channels i.e. CEC contact centre).
Monthly meetings with waste, HT joined JE and RA last month and reported no major concerns and nothing was picked up on the site walk. Bins also moved following request from HT and a street swept.
|0121.6||traffic impact||conclusion to previous queries around future New Town diversions (modelling)||We are awaiting any feedback from CCTT, the modelling report was provided, queries raised by CCTT of which were then responded to and we were advised further queries were to be raised. These have not been received|
|0121.7||traffic impact||what is the Spaces for People programme interface with TT at London Rd (and elsewhere)?||TT attend any meetings that have work within the area, and copied in on all correspondence and proposed works that SfP are carrying out.|
|0121.8||environmental impact||we understand that, originally, all street-facing buildings along the tram line were to be surveyed but that surveys are now restricted to A-listed buildings only. Why this limitation?||All street facing buildings along the route will have an external building condition survey carried out. The contractor has assessed building that are either listed or in close proximity to works that would necessitate an internal survey. Where this has been identified the internal surveys have been completed where access was granted|
|0121.9||environmental impact||what should homeowners do if they discover structural damage to their homes and believe the damage to be caused by work associated with the Trams to Newhaven project? To whom should they submit a claim for compensation?||Residents should report the damage through our communication channels and we can take this through the required assessment process.|
|· See 0121.8 and 0121.10|
|0121.10||sharing information||we would like all noise & vibration data to be readily available for public scrutiny. We therefore request that the relevant contractor(s) publish the relevant raw data along with their own analyses and reports preferably on the project website.||We would like to discuss this request at the meeting.|
|0121.11||design||why final approved design drawing has not been incorporated from application 20/04060/PA (withdrawn 10/11/20) into planning 20/03058/PA as approved||This does not form part of the realms of the Prior Approval and so does not need to feature in the PA. We can confirm the final design is being constructed.|
|0121.12||environmental impact, quality of life||litter/rubbish at Ocean Drive/Melrose Drive||Suggest we discuss any specific issues at the meeting.
4 Update TT
4.a Summary of progress made by TT between 26 November and 28 January
- Leith Walk: work has continued work on utilities and excavation – the majority is now complete, and track is being laid (McDonald Rd to Annandale St, Pilrig St to Dalmeny St). More such progress will happen in February.
- Foot of the Walk to Coatfield Lane: we have nearly finished utility and excavation work. One minor gas main needs to be tackled. Foundation work of the graveyard wall will commence in February.
- Queen Charlotte St to Baltic St; drainage and ducting work will continue, and track should be laid.
- Baltic St to Tower St: track-laying continues.
- Stevedore Place: excavation work has started.
- Ocean Terminal to Rennies Isle: traffic management is in place, excavation and utility work has been started.
- Outside Ocean Terminal, track-laying has been started; and construction of the tram-stop is anticipated.
- Newhaven: completion of retaining walls is under way; works to lower Lindsay Rd are in progress.
- CCTT: can we see the new plans for rebuilding the graveyard wall?
- TT: Yes – there are some changes: a few extra openings but no real change in planning height.
- Action: TT to put these plans on its website
- Intra-CCTT: Steel Shed is stored at Port of Leith distillery. Forth Ports may provide final location, not on the tram route.
4.b New issues/’conflicts’ (if any) encountered by TT/contractors, review of latest TT dashboard
- TT: Detailed designs should be completed in the next two months.
- TT: 62% of utility conflicts have been resolved. Number of unresolved conflicts is an estimate, but more accurate than the original estimate.
- TT: key metrics (clearing the route, installing track-slab, ducting and drainage installation) are generally on target.
- Progress (as noted in item 4.a) is visualized on a route-map on the dashboard.
- TT: Health and safety dashboard shows numbers of incidents, and quality issues.
- TT: the dashboard also shows compliance checks.
- TT: ‘stakeholder and comms’ section shows time taken to respond to enquiries.
- Peaks on this graph correlate with key changes to the sight, e.g. installation of new traffic management.
4.c TT plans 29 January through to end February and beyond
4.c.1 Works planned; changes to pedestrian and traffic routes
TT: See item 4.a. Major changes to traffic management are unlikely. Manderston deviation will remain until end of March.
4.c.2 Timeline for upcoming TROs, designs of public realm, and planning applications
- CCTT: TROs were due around now, and one was before CEC committee today. Why just this one, without warning?
- TT: this was a standalone TRO to add banning of a left turn from Leith Walk to London Rd to the existing plans. Once statutory consultation has taken place, this change can be added to the overall TRO for this area. Then the ‘complete’ TRO can go to public consultation. It’s not controversial.
- TT: this change was not deliberately omitted from the original TRO. It comes from traffic and design modeling.
- CCTT: CCTT should have had prior warning of this TRO via this forum. CCTT did not know that TT was modeling traffic. Leith Walk and London Rd are arterial routes, not a rat-run. This change to a major turn will cause rat-runs. There appears to be communications failures between SfP and TT.
- TT apologies for this break in comms with CCTT. The modeling and TRO preparation in the long gap since the last TT/CCTT meeting. There is not a significant volume of traffic making this turn (~50 vehicles in the morning peak, and 100 in the post-noon peak. 30% of these came from Elm Row, rather than Leith Walk.) Signals will reduce traffic coming onto arterials. The term rat-run refers to traffic coming from Annandale St to Leith Walk to London Rd, pushing traffic onto Broughton St. CEC aims to push traffic onto arterial routes, not onto side-streets.
- CCTT: TT should have showed this modeling to TT. Pushing traffic onto Broughton St is not welcome.
- CCTT: We are concerned about not seeing the TROs and how they cover public realm. Can we walk through the route?
- TT: Public realm and TROs are different. Public realm plans went through 2 consultations before the final business case was put to CEC. TROs are about configuration of parking and loading, and traffic movement. TT is happy to take CCTT through TRO drawings in a separate meeting, prior to the wider public consultation.
- TT: TT apologies for not communicating with CCTT about this TRO. We need to go through the engagement process before building this starts, and will explain what’s to happen.
- CCTT: CCTT welcomes this offer. It is positive that modeling has now been done – earlier CCTT was told that modeling is not available. When will the other TROs be issued?
- TT: statutory consultation takes 1 month. It should end at end of February. Public consultation will start mid-March.
- CCTT: What are the plans for bus turns at Ocean Terminal and Ocean Point?
- TT: Bus U-turns are part of the designs for traffic signals.
- CCTT: how will TT respond to trees issues at Stevedore Place?
- Conversations with locals are in progress, covering extra trees (e.g. at former Genting casino, Fingal car-park, Ocean Terminal, Ocean Drive) and extra hedges. Some existing trees will go, but there will be 2-for-1 replacement of trees.
- Action: TT to share relevant plans with CCTT, and put relevant plans on its website.
- TT: this will not lead to concerns about leaves on the tram-tracks? Trees will be far back enough.
4.c.3 Changes (if any) to projected completion dates for key phases and the overall project
TT: no such changes are anticipated
5 Any other business
6 Next meeting
Thursday 25 February 2021