31 Greenfield Street, Dunkirk, Nottingham NG7 2JN since 1967
9th November 2007

We are one of the property owners who have received a Compulsory Purchase Order for land required if the NET Phase 2 tram proposals proceed with what was originally referred to as “Option 1” in the earlier proposals when two alternative routes were under consideration.

We wish to make statements under the following headings
1. The route chosen in the Dunkirk Area (there have been a number of proposed routes, and the one being proposed now appears to us not to be the best option).
2. Long term degradation
3. Urban regeneration
4. Construction
5. Requirements and Compensation

1. Choice of route around the University Arts Centre
1.1. Brief history

In the earlier proposals (“NET Phase 2 Consultation” “Beeston & Chilwell – have your say”, Fletcher Road to Abbey Street section, late 2003 / early 2004) two routes through this area were included. The one entitled “Option 1” ran behind the Arts Centre much as the current proposal does, and there was an alternative routing (entitled “option 2”) running in front of the Arts Centre. . We will use these references below. Scans of the two route options as published in that undated document are attached as appendix 1.

The published result of the survey was that “most people preferred option 2”, the route in front of the Arts Centre. The actual ratio of “option 1” to “option 2” was 4% to 23%, a ratio of nearly 6:1 against the current proposal.

[Page 62 of Nottingham City & County Councils NET Phase II Development Beeston/Chilwell Route Public Consultation Summary Report May 2004 by the “Keydata Group”.]

NET.P8/A page 56 interprets this result as “… a few objectors …”.

The ratio of 6:1 objecting to the proposal would be more, but for the fact that most properties on this side of Greenfield Street are owned by absentee landlords for student rental.

We were sent (by our MP Alan Simpson) a copy of a Nottingham City Council document on their assessment of the route options. (It is not clear just where the document originates; and it is sad that those of us who took the trouble to comment on the routing at the time were not informed of either the decision or the reasons.) It lists the advantages of the route through our garden under three points headed “Noise and Vibration”, “Track maintenance and system reliability” and “Open Space”.

A revised route using the front (“East Drive”) side of the Arts Centre has been prepared in some detail by Robert Howard and was presented by Alan Simpson MP as part of his submission on Thursday 8th November.

“There is a compelling case in support of the tram running between East Drive and Highfields Park” [Alan Simpson op cit]

1.2. Highfields Park and “Open space”

NB. “Highfields Park” is sometimes incorrectly referred to as “University Park” e.g. NET.P6/A has at least 4 incorrect references, there are more in other documents. University Park is the university campus, Highfields Park is the public area donated to the people of Nottingham by Sir Jesse Boot for their recreation.

We see references in NET documentation such as
“… high quality open space …”
“… impact on a Grade II Registered Historic Park …”

[References include e.g. NET.P2A p33]

The park was registered in 1996 by English Heritage through correspondence by local residents hoping to bring to an end the continuing damage being caused by the University of Nottingham. These local residents received no help or encouragement from the City or University authorities in this process.

We see references such as “… avoid impacting on high quality open space …”. The open-ness of the space has already been destroyed by the University. The two major new buildings (Arts Centre and D H Lawrence Building), although being of architectural merit in themselves, both have larger footprints and presence than the buildings they replaced. The concept of “open space” is additionally visually destroyed by, for example, car parks with raised banks which obscure the view. Pitch games cannot be played (there used to be football matches going on). Use by travelling fairs is restricted.

The City has already given much of the Highfields Park over to the university.
It is time for the university to be willing to concede.

1.3. Noise and vibration

This case is based on the disturbance the other route might cause to the university’s newly constructed “Orchestral Rehearsal Space” at the north end of the Arts Centre. “The proposed route is further from the recently constructed Orchestral Rehearsal Space”. We replied to the original request for objections to planning consent, insisting that the construction should not influence the choice between the two route options. Our views were accepted by the City planners, and planning permission for this building clearly stated that

“… development shall not be commenced until … details of an attenuation scheme to mitigate against potential noise and vibration from the NET Line II have been submitted … and approved in writing …” and further that

“No part of the development shall be occupied until … the attenuation scheme to mitigate against potential noise and vibration from the NET Line II has been implemented;”

(See our Appendix 5, points 2(e) and 3(a).) This has already been raised by Alan Simpson. I have searched the City’s website unsuccessfully for evidence of compliance with this.

The intention of the planning permissions as given are interpreted / summarised by me as
(a) The building must make allowance for the tram, not vice-versa
(b) The building must not affect the choice between routes in front of and behind the Arts Centre.

One of our many retirement occupations using a life-time’s expertise is recording local voluntary music groups, mastering the results and producing CDs for them. This activity will have to be abandoned.

Our property includes at the rear a coach house with 2-horse stables, currently occupied as a bed-sitter. It would be only a few metres from the tram if route “option 1” is chosen.”

The chosen route, of course, inflicts the noise and vibration about which the University is so concerned onto residents of Greenfield Street such as ourselves.

2. Long-term degradations caused by the proposed route

We will divide the long term degradations to our property into noise and vibration degradation, loss of land and security degradation.

2.1. Noise degradation

Noise and vibration is a major issue and concern, especially after the experience of Line 1. With a tram every 7.5 minutes in each direction, that give a 3 minutes 30 seconds interval between them from 7am to midnight 363 days of the year. Having bought a 1-week tram pass and spent days observing and riding on the existing Hucknall tram, the external noise of the trams screaming as they negotiate any sharp corners (for example in Nottingham’s central Market Square) is worrying.

The description any proposed sound barrier between us and the Arts Centre [see document NET.P7/B appendix 3 page 3] appears to be only for the benefit of the University, not the residents.

Theatre Royal experience
I attended an Opera North performance at the Theatre Royal on Saturday 28th October. The pre-performance talk was in a room on the top floor of the adjoining “Royal Concert Hall” complex in the “Len Maynard Suite”. The speaker had to pause each time a tram went past. During the performance, I sat in the stalls for the first half – there was a loud rumbling every time a tram went past. It was clearly intrusive, not only during quiet parts of the performance but during all but the loudest parts. From the dress circle in the second half, the rumble was still there but less intrusive.

In a document received by the Government’s Select Committee on Transport it says “The ability of tram noise and vibration to invade nearby premises is illustrated by the experience of audiences in the Theatre Royal in Nottingham. The noise of the tram can be heard during quiet parts of performances, and the vibration can be felt each time a tram passes. We would question whether there may sometimes be an adverse long-term effect of vibration on certain properties close to tram lines, e.g. older buildings on unstable land.”

[The above quotation is on the WWW at URL: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378we04.htm ]

2.2 Loss of land

The destroying of all gardens on the west side of Greenfield Street. If you have received relatively few complaints from addresses this street it is because the majority of the properties are owned by absentee landlords who will obviously not object. They do not look after their properties, and would be very happy to cash in on the compulsory purchase of their un-tended gardens. Their student tenants would certainly object if given the chance. The few owner/occupiers remaining on this side of the street are all incensed at the ruining of their properties and the environmental implications. The only reason we can see for “option 1” is Nottingham University's misguided desire for the trams not to interfere with those parts of Highfields Park on which they have been building and which they hope to take over in the future.

The strip of land subject to a CPO is reduced on the latest plans compared with the version of “Option 1” attached in Appendix 1. The earlier proposal prioritised university parking over Greenfield Street gardens. The present strip, using measurements taken from the map submitted with the CPO, varies in width from 4.65m at the north to 5.35m at our south boundary. Our plot, number 31 (our neighbours are numbers 25 and 35), is by far the widest of those involved and includes the largest house in the area. It was the first property to be built on what had previously been farmland and orchards. It was built between 1899 and 1901. It was originally called “Greenfield House”, and has (very close to the proposed tram route) a two-story coach house / stables block built for two horses and a carriage. The stables block is currently used as a bed-sitting room on the top floor, and is a craft pottery on the ground floor; it will be only metres from the trams.

NET state that “usable gardens will remain”. Could they please define the term “usable” relative to their own houses? When one buys a house, one chooses a property with a size of garden suited to one’s requirements.

The garden has been under continuous cultivation for over 100 years and has a large number of unusual varieties of plants and shrubs; during our tenure as owners of the property over the past 40 years we have maintained its status as a show garden. We are proud of its design and implementation. It has a maturity not found in newer properties, and a design which would be impossible to recreate in a smaller area. Visitors refer to it as an “oasis”. An inventory of our garden plants is shown at appendix 2, with an indication of which plants will be lost due to choice of the tram route “option 1”. It shows that we have an unusually large collection (over 300) of uncommon plants and shrubs. Some of these are original, others have been acquired from specialist nurseries throughout the country at considerable expense (Eric Foxley acted for a period as a garden centre inspector for Gardening Which magazine). It will be seen that, because of the layout of the garden (in terms of sunlight and shade), we loose a large proportion of our tree, shrub and plant collection. Both our hexagonal summerhouse and greenhouse / potting shed and their foundations would have to be moved and / or replaced. The bottom of the garden, where the CPO land lies, is at the south-west side, so that the high wall essential for noise and visibility protection will also darken a significant section of the garden. Under the proposed CPO we will lose some 127 of the 300 significant different tree, shrub and plant varieties in the garden. We take the quality of our garden very seriously. The design of the garden (NET members have visited to see the garden) is such that removing the western strip involves a complete re-design.

[Photos of the garden are available on the WWW as a link from www.joy-and-eric.org.uk]

2.3 Security degradation

Instead of our property backing on to the secured cul-de-sac parking area for the Arts Centre, with the advent of the proposed tram route it will be open for public access at both ends. Burglaries are frequent in this area – it has a high student population and they are easy targets. They have new equipment and are well insured. We would thus be much more open to breaches of security than at present.

I could find no reference in the 0.6 metre high pile of un-indexed documentation in Beeston Library referring to the height or quality of any security / visibility / acoustic barrier proposed for the bottom of our plot. A high barrier will be essential for noise and visibility reasons, and will not interfere with the sight-line of tram drivers at this position of the track. (It is amazing to have such an important computer-produced reference document made available without an index, and with the copying of sections prohibited.)

The house (like other properties on this side of Greenfield Street) stands on ground higher than the tram route. The land slopes down from the house to the bottom of the garden. The property is built well above road level. The tops of the trams need to be hidden from view.
We suggest that the top section of the high wall be constructed with glass bricks to reduce light blockage.

2.4 Summary of section 2

We have owned the property for the past 40 years and it has been adapted at considerable expense to our way of life and to our age (by the construction of a downstairs toilet, for example). The market value of our property has already dropped significantly since the initial NET proposals; we have been in discussion with local valuers and estate agents over the drop in value, and the cost of finding a similar property in the area. We would expect sufficient compensation to cover such a move. The Council Tax rating authority write that they cannot re-band the house until planning permission for the tram is complete.

3. Urban regeneration

One of that main purposes of NET is to encourage regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies.

The Dunkirk area has become dominated by student rental housing.

There is now a drop in the demand for student houses – a number of developments have recently taken place of e.g. a lace factory turned into a large student block, and providing its own shuttle bus, shops and other facilities for the students.

It would be a pity to bight a complete road of houses now that some houses in the neighbourhood a reverting to owner occupation.

4. The construction phase

Experience of the NET phase 1 line shows that the construction phase involves intolerable disturbance from noise and dirt to adjoining properties, extending over a long period of time with both day and night working. It has even been suggested by friends living near the Hucknall line that we should think seriously of vacating our house completely during the construction phase. The crumbs of comfort proposed by the available documentation are not convincing to any realist, especially in view of the deliberately misleading sound level figures mentioned earlier. We therefore expect the compensation to include the cost of hotel accommodation elsewhere for the duration of the construction phase.

We presume that the new wall will be built before the old one is knocked down.

We presume that if the noise levels during construction exceed the stated limits that arrangements for hotel accommodation will be made immediately.

We assume, of course, that all topsoil removed during any works will be re-used.

5. Requirements and Compensation

The land which the tram route requires is currently occupied by the university but was for most of last century a public lido operated by the City of Nottingham. It was protected from our view by a brick wall approximately 2.5 metres high. We would expect the new boundary wall to be equally substantial and considerably higher, and to be provided with appropriate acoustic absorbing surfaces. We would expect to re-stock that part of the garden with mature (and therefore expensive) planting.

The loss of value to our property is of the order of £100,000.

The actual costs involved in moving house (fees, tax, removals) are of the order of £40,000.

The cost of re-instating the garden is of the order of £22,000.

The cost of accommodation in a hotel for 6 weeks would need to be assessed.

6. Summary

We are seriously concerned and dismayed at the effect that the building of a tram line along the proposed route through our property will have on the quality of the rest of our lives.

We consider that, with the current choice of route the building of the tram line and its associated compulsory purchase of our land to be so detrimental that we would reluctantly have to consider a move elsewhere. We had originally hoped to spend the rest of our lives here, in the house that we have adapted to our needs over the last forty years. Apart from its convenience and location, it holds the memories of the best part of a lifetime, bringing up a family and working in the area; Mrs Foxley taught at Dunkirk Primary School, and Professor Foxley was on the senior staff of the University. Many ex-students from the UK and all parts of the world still visit us when they are in Nottingham; they are glad to find that we are still here.

Thank you for hearing this submission.