County council accused of trying to 'destroy' tram extension

Trusted article source icon
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Profile image for This is Nottingham

This is Nottingham

CAMPAIGNERS have accused Notts County Council of holding up the extension to Nottingham's tram system by failing to give up a strip of land needed for the plans.

The county council owns land between Cator Lane and Bramcote Lane in Chilwell, which is needed to complete Phase Two of the project.

The land would have been given over to the tram project automatically when the county and city councils were working on it together as partners.

However, the county council withdrew its support ten months ago and has so far failed to reach an agreement with the city over the land transfer.

Nottingham City Council has now applied for a compulsory purchase order for the plot, which is likely to lead to a public inquiry which is estimated to cost to the taxpayer £200,000.

City officials say delays caused by the land deal could have added more than £5m to the project costs if they had waited any longer to take action.

The county council said negotiations over the land have taken a long time due to complex issues surrounding the land transfer but would not give any detail on what these issues were.

David Thornhill, chairman of Notts Campaign for Better Transport, said: "This is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the tram."

Broxtowe borough Councillor Steve Barber said: "They are just being awkward for some ideological purpose so they can say to the electorate they tried to stop it when it goes ahead."

During the county council election campaign last year, Tory leader Kay Cutts promised to withdraw the County Council's £28m support for the tram project unless the route was diverted from Beeston town centre and Chilwell and the cost was cut.

Deputy leader of the Labour run city council Graham Chapman then threatened they would begin legal action and try to claim £30m in damages if the county council tried to block the plan.

64
Tweet this article
Report

64 Comments

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by John, Carlton

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 11:28PM

    “Don't be silly David, Nottingham. I'm not accusing anybody of taking a bung or acting with impropriety.

    If a Labour Government select a person to inspect a scheme dear to their hearts that is backed by and powerfully lobbied for by both a Labour City Council and a then Labour County Council and also by numerous development agencies headed by political appointees, then no one should be surprised if they get the answer they wanted to hear.

    I am also not naive enough to think it will be any different under this government.

    When have you known an important public enquiry not coming out in favour of the sponsor - Gulf War spring to mind?”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by Neil, Beeston

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 6:08PM

    “As the comrades at the Council House and their foot soldiers continually bang on about job creation from trams, perhaps Mr Sensible or Cllr Barber could enlighten us with the figures that must surely exist for job creation from line 1 - their claims must be evidence based, right? So......

    How many jobs have been created in Hucknall & Bulwell as a direct result of line 1, and in which industrial sectors?

    How many new businesses have set up in Hucknall & Bulwell as a direct result of line 1, and in which industrial sectors?

    How many companies have relocated to Hucknall & Bulwell as a direct result of line 1?

    If these figures can't be produced, perhaps people should take any claims about lines 2 & 3 with a huge pinch of salt.

    And as all the discussion about this seems to be Beeston/Chilwell focussed, what about Clifton? How many jobs will be created there?

    Perhaps that Fairy Jobmother who's on TV at the moment helping the unemployed find work should just tell them to go where there's a tram because jobs just fall off trees there - nothing to do with them needing the right skills.”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by arthur, Not the City

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 4:50PM

    “Everytime the tax saving-service cutting County Council Tories make a decision, they seem to cost us more money.

    This is an expensive way of Cllr Cutts snubbing the City, and at the same time preventing important infrastructure improvements.

    As for William, being stuck in traffic. It's a no brainer Billy Boy, get out your car.”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by David, Nottingham

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 3:35PM

    “I do hope that the independent inspector gets to see the comments posted by John of Carlton and is able to take action on these comments.”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by James French, The Park, Nottingham

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 3:22PM

    “SuzieQ you have got your facts wrong. Line one has been an outstanding success and has exceeded all expectations. Please think before posting.”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by Pete, Chippenham

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 3:09PM

    “Public transport investment creates more jobs than doing nothing, or investment in road improvements. This is because in a car dependent city congestion reaches an equillibrium just short of total gridlock, at which point people stop travelling when they have a choice (leisure shopping etc). This in effect acts as a cap on the level of economic activity. If your city has invested in public transport supported by walking and cycling, economic activity can continue to grow while congestion remains constant.

    Modern tramways are the proven means in European cities to cater for this demand to travel that supports economic activity and thus prosperity. However in today's economic climate, with pressure on public spending similar results could be achieved in Nottingham by making buses more effective. A quick win is to just build the tram extensions as bus lanes. When patronage builds to a level that conventional buses cannot cope, upgrade it to Bus Rapid Transit operation (off-vehicle fare payment, articulated buses with multi-door boarding).

    See the link for what Paris has done - install bus lanes on all boulevards:

    http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-the-street-is-ours.html”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by SuzieQ, Nottingham

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:47PM

    “Here, here Scott, Notts”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by lee, nottingham

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:29PM

    “look at these two sites and read the reports

    http://www.tbus.org.uk/models.htm

    http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/07/trolleytrucks-trolleybuses-cargotrams.html”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by Mr. Sensible, The Real World

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:26PM

    “If you have any allegation to make questioning the integrity of the inspector it should be done through the proper channels, not here.

    And widening of the A453 is more deserving? I don't think so given the track record of road widening schemes across the country to spectacularly undershoot their benefit to cost targets.

    If that is seen as more of a priority than the tram, that speeks volumes for our environmental credencials.”

  • Profile image for This is Nottingham

    by lee, nottingham

    Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:24PM

    “have a look at these 2 reports

    http://www.tbus.org.uk/systems.htm

    http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/07/trolleytrucks-trolleybuses-cargotrams.html”

        Your comments awaiting moderation

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters