glasgow airport rail link bill · web viewhearing held at . renfrewshire council . paisley....

GLASGOW AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL

Hearing held at Renfrewshire Council

Paisley

Tuesday, 5 September 2006

GROUP 6

CARLTON DIE CASTINGS/KENYART LTD

Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill

Hearing held on Tuesday, 5 September 2006

Group 6

Carlton Die Castings/Kenyart Ltd

Assessor: Professor Hugh Begg

For the Promoter: Mr Stuart Gale QCMs Lauren Sutherland

For the Objector: Mr Gil Wilson, Managing Director, Kenyart and Carlton Die CastingsMr Russell Munn, Gerald Eave, Chartered SurveyorsMr Colin Bruce, Bike It Motorcycle Training

Witnesses for the Promoter:Mr Ian Dudgeon, Regional Director, Faber MaunsellMr Dani Fiumicelli, Faber MaunsellMr David Gardner, Project Leader, SPTMr Paul Irving, Partner, John Kennedy & Co

[The Hearing commenced at 13.36 pm]

Assessor: Welcome to this second session today. We have to deal with Group 6, which has three Objectors: Carlton Die Castings Ltd (Objection 26), Joe Shirley (Tyres) (Objection 17), and Mr Colin K Bruce (Objection 3). Mr Wilson, you have sat through my introductory remarks, and so you have heard everything I need to say. We need go no further except to remind everybody that if there is a fire drill, the exits are clearly marked. Secondly, please switch off your mobile phones for the remainder of the proceedings.

We can move directly on to introduce the participants. Again, Mr Gale, you will be leading the case for the Promoter?

Mr Gale: Yes, Sir, I will.

Assessor: Thank you very much. As a preliminary matter then, are there any matters on which I should be updated?

Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 1

Mr Gale: Yes, Sir. Reference is made within both the response by the Promoter and the rebuttal statement by these Objectors to a space planning exercise. That has been the subject of ongoing discussions between the parties. What I would intend to do, rather than try to summarise it myself, would be to ask Mr Dudgeon, in particular, assisted by Mr Gardner, to explain where the Promoter is in relation to that space planning exercise before we go any further.

Beyond that, there is nothing to update, although I think it right that in relation to one matter, I make our position clear, although it is relatively clear from the response document. That is, first of all, that it is not the Promoter’s intention to use CPO powers to achieve the acquisition of alternative premises for affected parties, nor is it the intention of the Promoter to use conditional offers as requested by this particular Objector.

Finally, Sir, in relation to vibration, this is simply a reference – although I am sure you have it.

Assessor: Is this issue 6?

Mr Gale: This is issue 6. You will recall that the lead Objector is concerned that vibration will affect the machinery which operates within the premises. The response indicates that that has been specifically addressed, and the reference to that is again paragraph 13.5.2.2, the last paragraph of the environmental survey.

Beyond that, Sir, I have nothing further to add. The witnesses are again the panel of gentlemen you see before you.

Assessor: Thank you. I think it would be appropriate to deal with the space planning exercise.

Mr Gale: Yes, Sir. Sir, in this connection, I wonder if for ease of reference I could use a number of plans. They are together in a series of plans which we thought might be useful as things have transpired. These are plans from the environmental statement. They are simply put together in this package so that they are readily accessible.

Assessor: That is fine as long as there is no problem as a document. Do you have further copies?

Mr Gale: Yes, Sir, there is a copy here for Mr Wilson and one for yourself.

The plans that are of relevance in this bundle are as from the beginning, 1, 2, 3 and 4, to the extent that it identifies the Rentokil Ailsa premises. It may also be of general interest that you have regard to the three plans from the end – these are not paginated. The three plans from the end give a general layout of the Murray Business Area, and shows the land ownership and affected parties.


Assessor: I will just check this: Murray Business Area Land Ownership – Affected Parties, No. 39055. Yes, I have that. Thank you.

Mr Gale: Again, if it is to be of any relevance, there are plans within this bundle - I don’t think at this stage it is necessary for them to be looked at – dealing with the Clark Street bridge, general arrangement, and the Murray Street bridge, general arrangement. There are two plans: the Murray Business Area embankment general arrangement.

Working back in the bundle from the Murray Business Area, there are two plans relating to Central Station, and then one goes to these plans and they are sequential but going towards the beginning of the document.

Assessor: In fact we have three at Central Station: 39055 and KB/S280.

Space Planning Exercise

Mr Gale: That’s right. Gentlemen, first of all can I introduce you all for the purposes of this objection. Mr Irving, you are Paul Irving, Parliamentary Agent connected with this Bill and a partner in John Kennedy & Co. Is that correct?

Mr Irving: That’s right.

Mr Gale: Mr Gardner, you are David Gardner, and you are attached to the Promoter and representing the Promoter so far as this objection is concerned.

Mr Gardner: That’s correct.

Mr Gale: Mr Fiumicelli, you are a consultant with Faber Maunsell, and you are speaking to issues relating to noise and vibration.

Mr Fiumicelli: Yes, sir.

Mr Gale: Mr Dudgeon, I didn’t mean to ignore you as I was going along, but as I am coming to you, you are Ian Dudgeon. Your full title please?

Mr Dudgeon: I am regional director with Faber Maunsell.

Mr Gale: And your area of expertise?

Mr Dudgeon: Transportation planning, civil engineering studies.

Mr Gale: This is an objection by Carlton Die Castings/Kenyart Ltd in relation to an area at Murray Business Park. Reference has been made both in my introduction and in documents to a space planning exercise in relation to this particular objection. Under reference to the plans that I have passed to the Assessor and to Mr Wilson, I wonder if you could explain where we are currently, so far as the Promoter is concerned, with the suggested space planning exercise?


Mr Gardner: In terms of where we are, we had a meeting a few weeks ago to discuss with Mr Wilson and his tenants. Suffice it to say they had difficulties with the drawings, and we have subsequently written back to him with a draft minute of the meeting to be agreed, and to try to respond to some of the actions from the meeting. I think it is fair to say that there are still ongoing discussions with the issue.

Assessor: This was in connection with the space planning exercise? Is this the one that has been referred to as being received by the lead Objector on 3 August?

A. I believe so, yes.

Assessor: Just to get the few weeks into the timeframe. After they received that, you had a meeting?

A. We had a meeting on 16 August.

Assessor: There is a note of that meeting taken, but you have not been able to reach a negotiated settlement on the basis of that space planning exercise?

A. Yes.

Mr Gale: Gentlemen, can you explain under reference to these plans what is being suggested so far as the space planning exercise for these premises is concerned?

Mr Dudgeon: The space planning exercise that we have taken out is shown on the first three drawings in the pack which has been handed out. If I can refer you to the first drawing, which is Sheet 103. This shows the existing layouts of the various businesses and activities that take place on the Kenyart premises.

If I can take a little while to go through this and perhaps set the scene, that will perhaps aid your understanding when I move to the second and third sheets, explaining where the various pieces of the jigsaw go.

Sheet 1: the land parcels within the Kenyart area are shown, identified as discrete blocks with their square metreage shown within each block. To the righthand side of the master plan, there is a key which shows what each block refers to. For example, if you look at the Road Plate Hire area, which is the area of 1200m2 directly underneath the viaduct, the second pier from the top of the page underneath the viaduct. Working your way down through the Kenyart area, that is the first of the businesses that take place in there, which is affected by the routing of the viaduct.

Going further in a south-easterly direction towards the bottom of the page, you then have a 530 m2 area which is the Bike It Motorcycle Training area, again directly underneath the viaduct. Immediately to the south of that, you have a 60 m2 rectangular shape representing Joe Shirley (Tyres) business.

Assessor: Road Plate Hire are not Objectors here, is that correct?A. That’s correct.


Assessor: I have seen where their site is during my inspection.A. Just to finish off, going in that same orientation in a south-easterly direction,

you then have a larger rectangle, 510 m2, and that area is used as car-parking for Kenyart and Carlton Die Castings employees.

Coming back up into the site, you have a conglomeration of four rectangles, 170 m2, car parking. The two blocks, both 100 m2, adjacent to each other, the more northerly is the MCD Property Management offices, and to the south is the offices of Bike It.

Assessor: MCD Property Management are -? They are not Objectors, I understand that.

A. They are not here.

Assessor: Are they affected by your space planning exercise?A. We are not affecting them directly in that we are not looking to relocate them

at any time.

Assessor: The Bill Committee does not need to know what goes on within these buildings.

A. That’s correct. Then, immediately adjacent to those two are an 80m2

rectangle which is a storage area for the Bike It business. Then finally, moving down to the westerly boundary of the site, you have three blocks. From the top, a leased workshop, Kenyart workshop and then further on, Kenyart parking. These are the areas identified to the north of the Carlton Die Castings factory building which is in itself the very large irregular-shaped block in the centre of our plan, untitled, I’m afraid.

To the south of that, you have the large open yard belonging to Kenyart, and then to the bottom south west corner of the site, you have a 50 m2 site containing a mobile telephone network substation.

We have been able to understand all the activities that take place on the Kenyart site because of a number of meetings we have had with Mr Wilson, who has taken time to walk us through his operations and explain carefully who does what, where and when.

If I can turn to the second sheet, this shows the arrangements that we have proposed during construction of the railway, a temporary arrangement if you like. The dotted lines show the limits of deviation (LOD), the broken line, and then the broken and dotted line is the LLAU. The south west of the viaduct those two lines are coincident.

The first thing to note is that we have moved the 1200 m2 currently required for the Road Plate Hire business out from underneath the viaduct and located it to the south west of the viaduct at the top of the page. The second thing we have done is moved the car parking for Carlton Die Castings, again, from beneath the viaduct. We have shown that car parking wrapped around the MCD and Bike It office and Bike It store. That is the area which is shown in a slight hatched square car parking, 750 m2.


The third change we have made is to move the Bike It training area again from beneath the viaduct to the south yard, the rectangular 530m2

immediately to the south of the Carlton Die Casting factory foundry.

Q. Where is the door to the factory? Let us assume that north is the top of the page. The door to the factory is to the south-west of that? There is still access to that.

A. We have not changed the accesses from within the site to the factory.

Assessor: While I am interrupting you, the circulation pattern for the parking which you have wrapped round these three buildings, there may be enough space to get cars parked, but -.

A. You have reminded me. I have forgotten to describe in the existing arrangements access from Greenhill Road. The main access is between the Carlton Die Castings building and the 140 m2 of Kenyart parking. All access is from Greenhill Road into the yard, either to the parking or in the case of goods vehicles, the goods vehicles are able to circumnavigate within the site, and bring themselves back out to load or unload by the factory.

With the temporary arrangement as described, the car parking wrapped around the offices, again the cars will come in from the same access off Greenhill Road, and make their way to those car park areas. The access to the Road Plate Hire is shown on the broken line with the arrow heads, come right in along the north side of the factory, and then sweep north into the Road Plate Hire area.

The Bike It area I have described. The other relocated activity is Joe Shirley (Tyres), where we have shown as being relocated to the south-east corner of the south yard. The only difference between Option 1 on the lefthand side of the page compared with Option 2 on the righthand side of the page is an alternative location for Joe Shirley (Tyres). We have moved it away from one corner and put it over by the substation.

Assessor: I am taking this slowly. The car park 1, which was in at 510 m2. You are replacing that or moving it in Option 1 to provide 760 m2. Is that correct? Wrapped round these two buildings.

A. That is correct.

Assessor: I think my question was, I could see how the cars could get readily parked at the moment, having seen it for myself, but as a car driver, sometimes it is quite difficult to see how you are going to get the circulation pattern for cars to get in and out, particularly as cars may come in in sequence, but they won’t necessarily go out in sequence. Are you content – I am going to ask this of the Objector as well – that that additional space that you seem to have provided there is sufficient to allow that to happen, i.e. the circulation?

A. May be I can pre-empt a question of the Objector by mentioning that, at the meeting that we had on 16 August - although I was not present at that meeting, Mr Gardner was - that car parking arrangement as we have shown


was one of the areas where the Objector did not feel was a wholly workable arrangement, because of a number of other smaller activities, not shown on this plan, which take place in this area. There are some smaller portakabins and storage areas. What we have said in that meeting is that we have taken that away from the meeting, and we are looking at other options to facilitate the car parking.

Assessor: These are blue structures that I saw on site? [Yes] That is what I was driving at.

A. I think it is fair to say –

[Fire alarm – hearing suspended for a few minutes]

Assessor: You were in the middle of helping me!

Mr Dudgeon: Yes. From the discussions we had at that meeting, it was clear that what is shown there wasn’t an arrangement which the Objector was going to find satisfactory, and there were a number of other options that we said we would take away and consider.

Assessor: Thank you for that. I had asked you a question about the door adjacent to the relocation to Bike It Training, and you were going to take me on from there.

A. I mentioned the circulation pattern of the existing arrangement, which allows goods vehicles to come in and circumnavigate the yard and drop-off or pick up the goods.

What we have shown here is an amendment to the existing circulation which means that goods vehicles will come in from Greenhill Road, as they do at the moment, but instead of exiting at that same point, they will continue in a north-easterly direction (shown by the broken lines and arrowheads). If they going to Road Plate Hire, they would turn to the north. If they are simply exiting the site, having picked up or dropped off their goods, they will then make their way south along a new access road that we would form, which would take them back out on to Clark Street.

Assessor: In your opinion that would prevent these vehicles having to back out?A. That would prevent a reversing movement within a confined area.

The drawing as shown here shows the access road exiting that via the south yard before then going on to Clark Street. Again, another suggestion that was made at the meeting that we had, why not then just take it continuing on directly on to Clark Street, thereby avoiding the sinuous movement that I have shown here, and avoiding yet another activity within the yard. We believe that to be a very sensible amendment to this drawing.

I think I have covered everything under the temporary arrangements. Moving to the final arrangement, shown on the third drawing, can I ask you to look at Option 1 on the lefthand side of the page. This shows the final arrangement


once the viaduct has been constructed and the land not required for the maintenance of the viaduct returned.

It shows – again from the top – the Road Plate Hire business returning to that location where it was prior to the construction. It shows the Bike It Training yard returning to the location beneath the viaduct. It also shows as a secondary option for Bike It, it remaining within the south yard. That is Option 2.

The one activity that we have not been able to return back to its original location is the Joe Shirley (Tyre) business which remains in the south yard, again either to the south east corner in Option 1 or the south west corner in Option 2. That is relocated during the construction period, and then remains in that location.

We have shown the car parking for the Carlton Die Castings employees taking place within the new access road that I describe to you. The access road during the construction period is at its narrowest point, 6 metres. After construction is over, we have a greater width to play with, and we can give over some of that space to car parking.

Assessor: Will the cars be parked nose to tail, or diagonally?A. We would have to look at the precise detail of that once we see exactly how

much width we have, but obviously there are safety implications, nose to tail, people having to reverse out. That would have to be looked at very carefully, but again, if we have done without the ‘S’ curve into the yard in the construction period, we would continue with the revised arrangement in the final arrangement.

I think that is probably it, unless you have any questions.

Assessor: It is the first time I’ve seen these, and these are just my preliminary questions. I look forward to hearing what the Objector has to say when we reach that stage.

Mr Gale: Mr Dudgeon, you mentioned that the Objector had indicated at the meeting on 16th a concern regarding the car parking proposed, the wrap around the building shown in the drawings on page 2 of these indicative drawings. I think I have noted you saying that the position as it was at that time was that you would go away and look at other options. Have any other options been considered thus far?

A. There are a number of options. One might involve the space that we have allocated to the Road Plate Hire business. Observations on site would suggest that the Road Plate Hire business does not need the full 12 m 2 that we have allocated to it. It could be that that area could be used for both car parking and the Road Plate Hire business.

Q. I take it from the tone of what you have said that is not something that has as yet been firmed up as a proposal?

A. We have not yet firmed that up.


Assessor: To whom would you make that proposal? Would you make it to Kenyart, or would you make it to Road Plate Hire? Just for my own information.

A. We would negotiate with Kenyart.

Assessor: This would go to Kenyart. I have inspected the site, so I appreciate that it wasn’t fully used, certainly when I inspected it, although I don’t know what it has been used for and what it is being considered for in the future. Thank you for that.

Mr Gale: Again, talking about car parking, the proposal as I understand it in relation to the final arrangement is that a possibility for parking would be that the parking take place on the south side as it presents of the newly-created access road. Is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. You have indicated that because of the width of that road, post-construction, there would be the space to accommodate car parking there. One of the matters that has been raised is the question of whether that would be nose-to-kerb or whether it would be parallel parking along there. Presumably nose-to-kerb would accommodate more vehicles?

A. Indeed, yes, it would.

Q. Without any commitment, leaving aside for the moment any safety issues caused by reversing into the road, would the nose-to-kerb issue accommodate the number of vehicles that are anticipated would be necessary?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. You have indicated, Mr Dudgeon, the number of concerns the Objector has raised in relation to these proposals. Car parking is one of them. Are there are other issues that the Objector has raised that we can deal with at this stage or should we wait for others to be raised?

A. There were a number of areas that were raised at the meeting. I think perhaps it is only fair to ask Mr Gardner to respond to that as he was at the meeting and I was not.

Q. Mr Gardner, perhaps you could just list these issues, so that at least we have a context in which matters can be progressed today.

Mr Gardner: One of the areas was the relocated Motorcycle Training. Mr Wilson made it clear that in the yard space that we have shown, in the relocation, there are a number of activities in there that we need to consider. In his opinion, he felt it was unworkable that we put it there.

Q. Can I just stop you there? When you are talking about the relocated Motor Cycle Training area, is that in the context of its relocation during construction?

A. Yes, during construction.

Q. Perhaps you could flesh out the Objector’s concerns on that matter.


A. Yes, there are a number of activities, storage of waste products, water recycling activities. There are a number of activities in that yard area plus access for telephone masts and generally offloading storage of materials that come out of the factory. They get taken onto lorries to be taken away, so there are access requirements in that area.

Assessor: The mobile telephone masts – just tell me, is that the 60 m2 area?A. No. I think also just at the back of the main building, that’s correct, there is an

external access ladder. That is not exactly where we have shown the Motor Cycle Training facility, but the point that Mr Wilson is making, there are a number of activities.

Assessor: Of which this is one, and not necessarily one which would be hindered most.

A. Yes. From another point of view, Mr Bruce made it known that particularly on the back face of the area right against the wall, he needs perhaps a couple of feet from that wall in terms of the training facility. He has other concerns where fork-lifting manoeuvres, etc., other vehicles in the compound where his clients were being trained.

Mr Gale: In relation to the concern about the relocation of the Bike It Training area, have any further thoughts been given on behalf of the Promoter to alternative relocation for those premises?

A. Suffice it to say that we recognise the difficulties that have been highlighted to us, but we think there are potential areas within there that could be where relocation could be accommodated, but again, we must defer to Mr Wilson’s views on that.

Q. Notwithstanding Mr Wilson’s concerns at the meeting on the 16 th, does the Promoter and its advisers have a view, contrary to those concerns, on the workability of that area as a replacement area during the construction phase for the Bike It Training area?

A. I think we feel that there is still potential for that to be used. It is difficult because Mr Wilson and Mr Bruce know their businesses better than we do. In terms of space planning, we still think there is still potential space there to be used.

Q. Were there any other concerns expressed at the meeting on 16 th that we can at least highlight at this stage?

A. Yes. Mr Shirley highlighted that he wanted for us to consider that he could remain underneath the viaduct both during construction and after construction. Aside from the technicalities of where it was physically possible for the viaduct and/or his premises, I did go back to Network Rail, because obviously it will be right under the viaduct. They confirmed that they would not find that a suitable arrangement.

Q. Is that both in terms of the construction phase and the final arrangement?A. Yes.


Q. Were there any other matters of concern that we deal with again at this stage?

A. Again, Mr Shirley and Mr Wilson highlighted that Mr Shirley would need a number of spaces for cars, for customers waiting for tyres to be changed. They indicated four or five cars usually waiting. They felt that there wasn’t sufficient space for that.

Q. Does the Promoter or its advisor have a view as to whether or not that is the case?

A. Again, we feel technically that there is a possibility that those vehicles could be accommodated. Bear in mind some of the flexibilities that we see within the land area generally, that perhaps that may not be as big a problem as they foresee.

Assessor: Is that elsewhere on the site as has been described for me or is it just in this particular area to the south?

A. In that particular area to the south.

Assessor: So you believe these pieces of the jigsaw can be moved around to overcome the Objectors’ problems?

A. They could be, yes.

Mr Dudgeon: If I could just add to that, I feel that the situation of removing the ‘S’ curve of the access road from the south yard in itself would provide a little bit of extra flexibility. That is one less activity that will take place within the yard, one less thing to be accommodated. That in itself, as I say, will enable us to seek locations for some of these other areas such as the four car parking spaces for Joe Shirley (Tyres).

Mr Gale: Mr Dudgeon, in relation to this traffic movement schematic that is shown here, whether it involves the ‘S’ through the south-east corner of the site or not, is that intended to be a one-way or a two-way system?

A. At the moment it is intended to be a one-way system, one way from Greenhill Road in, and then out on to Clark Street.

Q. So far as vehicles travelling to the north, what would be the position in regard to those vehicles?

A. Having exited the site?

Q. No, sorry, having entered the site through the proposed access route and then turning left up to the north up to the Road Plate Hire premises, what would be the position of those vehicles exiting?

A. That section would be two-way, and the vehicles coming back from Road Plate Hire would have to come back a short section of two-way traffic road, and then exit via Clark Street.

Q. So far as the exit on to Clark Street is concerned, is it now the preferred position of you as advising the Promoter that egress should be direct on to Clark Street without taking the ‘S’ diversion through the bottom righthand corner of the site?


A. That is our preferred option.

Q. And that would remove the need for a fairly close additional egress access point on to Clark Street, I presume? That would avoid possibly two access/egresses on to Clark Street in or around that area, or does the ‘S’ alternative involve the stopping-up of the existing entrance?

A. The ‘S’ alternative does not involve the stopping-up – at the moment our plans are that the current access point into the south yard remains as is.

Q. Just one matter of detail, for vehicles entering the site from Greenhill Road and turning right on to the newly created access road, I take it that there is sufficient room there for articulated vehicles to manoeuvre, making whether it be a right or a left turn. Is that correct?

A. Yes, there is sufficient room.

Q. Presumably any parking arrangement on the south side of the newly created access road would not inhibit any turning movement. Would that be correct?

A. We would have to ensure that all parking arrangements were kept well clear of that corner of the building to ensure that we have a suitable swept path available at all times.

Q. Sir, that concludes what I would intend to ask in relation to the space planning exercise.

Assessor: Thank you, Mr Gale. It is appropriate then for us to move to Mr Wilson. It is open to you to question these witnesses on matters. I wonder whether you are about to give me some evidence rather than ask questions? You are more than welcome to refer to the plan to clarify what the questions are about. You know you will have a chance to give your own evidence later on.

Mr Gale: Sir, before this goes on, my learned junior reminds me that technically the drawings that I have put in should be attached and numbered for your process.

Assessor: Miss Sutherland has been extremely useful to both of us, Mr Gale! Why don’t you give me some numbers.

Mr Gale: In relation to the drawings we have looked at, effectively these are the only drawings that we need. If we perhaps call them Kenyart 1, 2 and 3. That would suffice for my purpose.

Assessor: We will have to introduce that as another document. How shall we proceed?

Mr Wilson: If I can go over the points which they have put forward as alternative sites for relocating the various businesses within there.

Assessor: I am going to call that Group 6, document 1 [aerial photograph]. I don’t think I can call that Kenyart 3.


Mr Wilson: Our main problem is that the options you have put forward for the relocation business within the site are not acceptable for a number of reasons. I would like to refer to the photograph, and point out the areas of concern.

[Refers to aerial photograph] The property takes up a yard referred to as the Clark Street yard. We have in this yard, as Mr Gardner has said, a water recirculation system, which is a permanent installation which is plumbed throughout the factory, and it recirculates water through our plant and machinery and it is a cooling tower. That is a permanent fixture in this corner.

Down the back wall, we have six waste containers. One of them is an extremely large one and these are filled with a variety of waste materials and a variety of recycling materials. For ease of access, particularly with the vehicles who have to drop these containers on and off, we line them up against this back wall.

Assessor: Does this back wall cover some of the 500 m2 area, which would be reallocated temporarily to Bike It Training?

Mr Wilson: Correct. Bike It Training in particular was allocated in the area of the water recirculation tower, and some of the containers. The Joe Shirley (Tyres) was going to be further down the same back wall where we also store containers.

Assessor: Yes, so although on a plan it might appear that that area is empty and has no permanent structures on it, there are structures which are permanent in the sense that they are integral to the operation of your Carlton Die Castings works.

Mr Wilson: That is correct, yes. We have the BT transformer, which has been referred to already in this corner, but we also have a tenant who has access to this end of our building, and he has two cars and can have plants coming in, possibly another two cars at any one time. Further along here on this side, we have an access door on to our first floor, and we are a letting company, so we have tenants and they have to park their cars somewhere in this yard.

Assessor: Why do they have to park them there?

Mr Wilson: There is nowhere else to put them. They want to park their cars fairly close to the door of their office. They park them there at the moment. We have a 3000 sq ft ground floor unit which is used for storage. There is a forklift truck going in and out of there the whole time. Further up, we have a goods elevator, which goes the full height of the building and is the only access we have to the first and second floors of this building. It is in the far corner, and is designed so that a lorry reverses in, offloads the goods to take them up to the top floor. Also in the corner is the ladder which is used by T-Mobile to get access on to the roof where they also have a transmission arrangement.

We don’t believe there is space, we don’t actually believe that anyone has particularly considered what we have and the effect of what we have on that


site. We cannot just simply remove it at a whim and relocate it, because there is very good reason why everything is where it is. The other aspect which Mr Bruce will talk about is that if he puts Motor Cycle Training school in there, he has obstacles like lorries or a forklift truck coming in and out. We have five forklift trucks, not all of which could be running in that one area at the one time, but certainly two or three could be.

Also in this yard is the place where we bring in our raw materials. These are ingots of aluminium and zinc. They come in in very large lorries, 40 foot juggernauts. They try to turn in there rather than reverse back out on to the road. So we bring in usually five tonnes/10 tonnes at a time.

There is a lot of movement in there. We also have the BOC lorry which comes with gas cylinders. We use oxygen, nitrogen, and these gas bottles come and out of one door. They are also stored in the yard. We have propane bottles, which we store in the yard too. There is a lot of activity and there are inflammables. The inflammables are obviously in a cage, but for insurance purposes they are not allowed to be in the factory.

Assessor: I have one question – it may be for a witness, but the 530 m2, you seem to be saying that Mr Shirley requires more than that to conduct his exercise. Is this because some of the motorbikes might inadvertently come off the 530 m2?

Mr Wilson: It is a risk. I know that Mr Bruce has the figures, but there is a certain space between the tarmac and the fixed obstacles like pillars and brick walls and things like that.

Assessor: I am trying to establish from the point of view of the plan, but what you are saying seems to be that the 530 m2 doesn’t actually cover what Mr Shirley needs. In fact, he is using more than the 530 m2 that is allocated to him on sheet 1.

Mr Wilson: He will be, because he needs access for storage for four to five cars. He also gets the airport buses, and they come in for their tyres as well. He has slightly large vehicles too.

Assessor: I am also thinking about Bike It. He needs more space too, you are saying?

Mr Wilson: The problem that he has with this suggested arrangement is that his business is going to more split into two.

Assessor: I don’t want to hear that just now. I am trying to fix in my mind the pieces of this jigsaw and whether we have the square metreage absolutely correct. I am sure technically we do, but you are talking about the way in which space is used. I am just interested in whether these spaces, insofar as they might be used, are incompatible one with another.


Mr Wilson: It would encroach on to our access with our goods vehicles, there is no doubt about that.

Coming to this area where you have a block a four buildings, and there is the suggestion of car parking around these buildings, there is a high tension transformer which I notice has not been shown. There is a 750 kVA transformer with a metal fence around it.

Assessor: Is that not marked ‘electricity substation’? I am alright with that.

Mr Wilson: Sorry. We have a portakabin which hasn’t been shown. In fairness, I have to say that since this portakabin has only been there for something like two months, you may not have been alerted to it, but it is part of MCD Maintenance, and they have extended their offices to this portakabin. It has pushed its way into the corner.

As you correctly said, Sir, you have noticed three blue containers round the back. These blue containers contain inflammables. They contain inflammable hydraulic oils which we are forced to store outside in separate containers. They have been put well away from any other dangers.

You have your motorcycle training area in here, and Joe Shirley (Tyres) which is shown on the photograph. What I want you see is the impact of what it means. [Refers to tracing] This is a tracing over the outline of the Kenyart property in relation to the photograph. We have the area which we have not yet discussed which is let to Ailsa. We have our main factory area, Joe Shirley (Tyres), and the Motorcycle Training School. The impact of the first tranche is to do this to our property. The red area indicates the area which is going to be taken over within the factory site. It obviously extends all the way from St James station, and that is subject to a CPO.

In the initial stages, this entire area which is part of our ground is going to be required. In the secondary stage when the building stage is complete, we get back part of the area, but we have still lost one part [ illustrated on drawing]. Because of that, that is our ground, and we are going to have restricted access on to our ground because we cannot access from there.

Assessor: This is currently being let?

Mr Wilson: It has been let to Ailsa for about 14 years.

Our problem is that the Bike It company is going to lose its training area, and we do not consider that the relocation area is acceptable for the reasons I have already explained. Joe Shirley (Tyres) is also going to be lost to us as a tenant, and we do not find that there is acceptable relocation for him either.

The other problem is car parking. The Motorcycle Training School obviously has pupils. We have our own employees, we have Joe Shirley with his vehicles, and these vehicles are all parked up in and around one area. Usually we have somewhere around 24 vehicles which are parked in the area


up to the end of our building. These 24 vehicles are all within the area of the CPO.

In addition to that, there are between six and eight vehicles parked between the door of McDowall’s and Bike It, and in the car parking area which is Carlton/Kenyart, there are between another six and eight cars. We do not feel that there is any serious consideration being taken as to where all these cars are going to be parked.

Assessor: Can I be clear about this? The 24 vehicles are the total number of vehicles? What is the total number of vehicles that you are speaking about?

Mr Wilson: At any time, it could possibly be 34-35 cars.

Assessor: We will have to establish whether 34-35 cars can actually be parked along the newly proposed access road. That is the alternative, isn’t it? We are taking evidence here. Mr Gale, are you content that the procedure is moving –

Mr Gale: Yes, I am content, sir. What I will do, subject to Mr Wilson wanting to ask any questions, is that I will come to these witnesses and ask them questions in relation to what Mr Wilson has said.

Assessor: That is a way forward, thank you very much. Since we are taking this as an approach, we are moving from a formal situation to a much more informal one. Could I ask Mr Dudgeon if he could help me here. We are talking about something over 30 vehicles. Is there enough space on your new road to park that number of vehicles?

Mr Dudgeon: I believe that there is enough space to accommodate that number, but can I make it clear that it is only 25 spaces that we are disrupting. The other spaces that Mr Wilson has described as being in other locations, we are not affecting those locations. We all need to be quite clear of the number that we would be seeking to reprovide. Whether it is 25 which I believe to be the case or a slightly higher number, I believe they can be accommodated in the permanent situation alongside the access road.

Mr Wilson: May I interject? Your proposal was that we put the car parking around that block of four buildings –

Assessor: This is during the construction phase.

Mr Wilson: Yes. The six to eight cars that are in there are there already. They don’t form part of the 24 cars which you were proposing to relocate.

Mr Dudgeon: We have already conceded that the temporary proposal to relocate the car parking around the MCD/Bike It office is not a workable solution as you have identified because of the additional portakabins and containers, but in the permanent situation, there is no reason why those six/seven cannot remain where they are.


Assessor: I am also interested in the proposition that the space planning exercise may be a give and take, that there may be room for rather more parking, perhaps in a more convenient configuration than is available at the moment, and that that might be quite beneficial to the company in its operations. That is not far from my mind. There could be 30-odd spaces provided where at the moment the Promoter is only taking away – it says – 24-odd.

Mr Wilson: The one thing that you have offered – which we do find acceptable – is the route for the transport to break out on to Clark Street. But, I would not want it breaking back into our yard. I would want it as a straight run, right out on to Clark Street. It would have to be fenced for security reasons. We are a company with non-ferrous metals, and we are very security-conscious. It would obviously be fenced between ourselves and your construction, but we would need to have a decent gate which can be locked at night. In principle, we can live with the one-way system.

Assessor: Since the procedure is breaking down just a little, can I be absolutely certain then – let’s leave the temporary construction phase for the moment. The real sticking points are the 530 m2 block for Bike It, which is not acceptable. I may have noted the reasons down wrong, but one of them may be safety implications for the operation of Bike It, because it is located up against a wall, and secondly it is not impossible for one of those persons being trained to come off the 530 m2 and to an area which is used for circulation. Is that correct?

Mr Wilson: That’s correct. Also, one of your suggestions shows the Motorcycle Training ground on either side of the Carlton car park. Because there are trainee cyclists, we cannot have them driving through the car park. Similarly, we do not want a car park on the far side of the Motorcycle Training ground. This is the proposal if it is moved to the north.

Assessor: Which sheet are you on - 633?

Mr Wilson: Yes. There is a proposal: you have the two wedge-shaped areas (Sheet 2).

Assessor: That is the construction phase. Can I keep you to the final phase. I am trying to leave the construction phase to one side. Can we go to the final arrangements so that I can be clear about that. The sticking points are the 530 m2 for Bike It, and the reasons for that are safety and a confusion of circulation patterns. There would also be a problem of Mr Joe Shirley who is located within that area. What are the sticking points from Kenyart/Carlton Die Castings’ point of view as far as that is concerned? I can see that it is disruptive to Mr Shirley’s business but from your point of view as Carlton Die Castings, what is the issue?

Mr Wilson: From Carlton Die Castings, not so much; from Kenyart, which is the property company, of course, these are all our tenants from whom we receive rental income.


Assessor: So it’s a commutation issue, is it?

Mr Wilson: Yes.

Assessor: But the parking for 24 vehicles – have I managed to establish that the parking for 24 vehicles is not a sticking point, but they are going to get rather more parking spaces?

Mr Wilson: Provided it doesn’t infringe on to the vehicle access –

Assessor: I think that has been conceded, hasn’t it, Mr Dudgeon? [Yes] Yes, that is finished. The proposal is that it be a one-way exit on to Clark Street with the vehicles able to turn left and right, and it would be to a swept path. They will be able to make the turn left or right.

Mr Wilson: Will it be a properly made-up road?

Mr Dudgeon: Yes.

Assessor: When we get to the operational stage, those are the two difficulties that are really at the heart of your complaints. Is that your objection?

Mr Wilson: Yes, but also long term is my access to the other side of the railway line.

Assessor: You are talking to the detriment for Ailsa?

Mr Wilson: Yes. The other question that we have, the car parking that we are going to be granted, is it going to be free of charge, or is it going to be leased?

Mr Dudgeon: My understanding – and it is not something we have discussed in detail at this stage – is that that land will become Kenyart’s.

Mr Gardner: I take your point. There will be a requirement to have an access road alongside the viaduct. I have asked them about the issue of car parking. There is space there for more than a road to go in. I have asked them about the issue of car parking. At first said, they were not too keen on car parking, however, under the circumstances of it not being members of the public but a business, and there would no other vehicles, they do not think it would be too big a problem, and they would grant rights to do that. They certainly never talked about any lease arrangements.

Assessor: They would not need exclusive use for it. Am I picking this up correctly?

Mr Gardner: I have indicated that to Mr Wilson. In fact they would want access from time to time, but they would do it under some sort of agreement and they would give notice, unless it was an emergency situation.

Mr Wilson: If they required access, would it mean that we would be denied access and car parking at that particular time.


Mr Gardner: I think there is enough width in there. Perhaps Ian could clarify?

Mr Gudgeon: The width is 12 metres.

Mr Gardner: We only need five metres, so there is more than enough room.

Mr Wilson: So it would not disturb us.

Assessor: If I could put words into your mouth, Mr Wilson, you have to get your vehicles in and out. You have a real issue over the articulated vehicles being able to come in and out. At the moment they can turn, but unless the new road is put in, they cannot do that, and the thing would be stultified at some stage.

Mr Wilson: They would have reverse back out on to a very busy main road.

Assessor: We are getting to a stage of saying that is not a likelihood. [No]

I am just trying to establish exactly where the problems lie with this space planning. Could you go back to the construction phase.

Mr Wilson: Our problem is that there are two businesses which will be forced to move. Bike It cannot have the training ground and the training school separated. They must be together.

Assessor: Surely they are separate already?

Mr Wilson: They are on private ground.

Assessor: I am sorry, I am still not clear.

Mr Wilson: You cannot take a motorbike on to the road to even a plot of ground on the other side of the road in training stages. The two must be close together.

Assessor: The point I am trying to get at is that, as I saw it, the office block wasn’t actually immediately adjacent, but it was within reach of –

Mr Wilson: Twenty-five yards perhaps.

Assessor: But this is different because you have the factory in the way, is that right? [Yes] I see, if the ‘S’ bend is taken out, then you have to take the motorcycle out on to Clark Street and back in again. Is that the issue?

Mr Wilson: Mr Bruce will be better qualified than me to give you the problems.

Assessor: I understood you to be saying that you didn’t want – or it couldn’t be – that the motorcycles would go out on the public highway. I have just seen a route on this plan where they wouldn’t have to. They would simply go down the newly constructed road. I don’t know what the difficulty is. You now have


a secure fence and you have to get out on to Clark Street and back in again through your entrance. Is that correct?

Mr Wilson: We have a secure fence, but you also have a one-way road which is now going to carry any visitors coming into our factory, any lorries coming in and the cyclists are going to have to get from the technical training bit to the practical training bit on a road which, albeit is private, but it has moving vehicles on it which they do not have at the moment.

Assessor: Do they have to ride the bike down there?

Mr Wilson: I am told they are extremely heavy to push.

Assessor: Mr Dudgeon, can you help me?

Mr Dudgeon: It was our intention that the Bike It training office and the Bike It training ground, if you like, access between the two would be via this new access road. However, it was not our intention that bikes would have to come out on to Clark Street, and back in again because whilst the north-east face of the Bike It training area would be secure, there is no reason why a locked gate facility could not be provided to allow the access directly from the access road straight into the Bike It area without having to come into the yard or even on to Clark Street.

Assessor: I will stop impeding the process, but just one more question. How long will this construction phase take place in this particular area? I am not sure to whom I should address this, Mr Gardner or Mr Dudgeon.

Mr Dudgeon: Approximately 18 months.

Assessor: Thank you. Mr Wilson, I don’t think I’ll be interrupting you again. Do you have questions for these gentlemen, now.

Mr Wilson: Mr Dudgeon, you are still talking about bringing the Motorcycle Training School down into our yard in Clark Street, which I have said is not acceptable. We have permanent installations in there which cannot be moved. Your suggestion that Joe Shirley can be moved down to the bottom of the courtyard along with his four vehicles awaiting tyres, we are also ignoring the fact that he stores used tyres. You have already indicated that used tyres must be stored in a steel container, and that is something else that is going to take up space. We don’t believe that there is suitable space for the relocation of these two businesses within this yard.

Assessor: I am sorry to keep interrupting you, but are you saying that the 60 m2 is not a piece of the jigsaw? In other words, he needs more than 60 m2 if he is to have the space storing tyres adjacent to it. The 60 m2 understates the piece that we are trying to fit in.

Mr Wilson: I don’t think it is sufficient space.


Assessor: To be clear, is it the amount of space you have rented to that business at this time?

Mr Wilson: He possibly has more than that.

Assessor: So there is a dispute about the size of the pieces of the jigsaw.

Mr Gardner: I said earlier that we recognise the comments that Mr Wilson and his tenants made the other week in terms of that being an option, where the cycle trade and Joe Shirley could go, but it is fair to say that there are potentially other areas during the construction period. For example, at the top of the site where Road Plate Hire currently have the full 12 m2, there is potential there to put the Motorcycle Training area. There is potential there to put the Motor Cycle area on top of that, and use less of that area for road play and storage. That in itself would free up the compound area of Clark Street in terms of accommodating Joe Shirley (Tyres).

Mr Wilson: That doesn’t solve the problem with Joe Shirley (Tyres), does it?

Mr Gardner: It does from the point of view that you are saying it is difficult to accommodate him in that area.

Mr Wilson: It is difficult to know just how much space Joe Shirley (Tyres) has here. Remember that he has the airport buses, which certainly are not full-sized buses, but they are quite decent sized buses which will come in for their road tyres. They would have to be able to park there and turn. Also, if you put any of the Motorcycle Training ground there, then whichever way you go, they are going to have to negotiate past vehicles, lorries, buses. It does not matter which way you go. They are either going to have to drive through them to get to the training area, or the vehicles are going to have to drive past the training school if you put Joe Shirley at the top end.

Mr Dudgeon: The suggestion that Mr Gardner has just made of perhaps looking at the Road Plate Hire land or the land that we have currently allocated to Road Plate Hire for the Bike It training area could possibly produce an outcome which would mean that the motorcyclists would not necessarily be travelling that much further to get to the training area than they currently do, and perhaps not passing significantly different forms of passing parked vehicles than they currently do.

Mr Wilson: If you are able to give us a layout and a proposal, please.

My other great concern is the fact that this is cutting my ground in two.

Assessor: You are moving on to Ailsa. We have been discussing how to handle that. I recognise that the two are linked, but they are not seamless.

Mr Wilson: I think Mr Munn is going to have some comments on that.


Assessor: It is the same panel who would be up, and if we can take Ailsa today, it might be convenient for all concerned. However, we want to get home at a reasonable hour. Mr Gale, do you have any thoughts about this?

Mr Gale: I have no difficulty with Ailsa being taken if we can accommodate that. I know certain of my colleagues would do this, but I do not intend to do this, but because it is a separate objector, some would say there should be no interplay between the two objections and they should be considered entirely separately. That seems an entirely artificial distinction. If Ailsa can be dealt with even in the course of this objection, I have no difficulty with that.

Assessor: I am very grateful to you for that. I think it is an indication of the manner in which the proceedings have been run here, and it is looking for the outcome rather than the process.

Mr Wilson, please carry on. If you want to talk about Ailsa, it would save us when we move on to that group, then do so.

Mr Wilson: [Refers to photograph] The area of ground, half an acre, is leased to Ailsa, and has been for about 12-14 years. If there is limited or no access through this area – this is after construction – then this area of land becomes landlocked. That is a problem. There is no way of getting to it from our point of view.

Assessor: As a question, could you ask the witnesses if they would agree with you that it has become landlocked?

Mr Gardner: This has been a concern Mr Wilson has articulated to us from the very first meeting we had with him. It is fair to say that at the meeting we had recently I took an action to go back to Network Rail. I am not sure if you have received my letter yet but Network Rail have confirmed with us that subject to a land use, we have indicated in previous correspondence to the Objector in certain and general terms the certain types of land use that Network Rail would be concerned with.

It very much depends on what the use would be. In general terms, if it was being used for storage, they would not have a problem with granting some sort of access rights so that it would not be landlocked. In fact, if you go back to the early consultation phase of the project, we looked to putting a viaduct on an embankment through the industrial state. Mr Wilson made it very clear that he would prefer a viaduct, not only for aesthetic purposes, but also because it was a better opportunity for him to get access to this area of land which he lets out currently to Rentokil Ailsa.

We have listened and we have a viaduct as a solution. We have spoken to Network Rail and we are hopeful that they would grant rights depending on the land use.

Assessor: The answer to the question is that it may be landlocked.


Mr Gardner: There is a potential for it to be landlocked.

Assessor: In terms of the space planning exercise, which we are still on, there is not much room for manoeuvre on that one.

Mr Gardner: We have not taken a view on that in terms of this part of the exercise.

Assessor: For my note, Network Rail would be quite happy for its use as storage, but not for other things.

Mr Gardner: It depends on the land use. I believe they were talking about the inflammable nature of the business not being acceptable to them.

Assessor: What is Ailsa Rentokil rented out for now?

Mr Wilson: It is for storage of heavy goods vehicles.

Assessor: Despite the name ‘Rentokil, they are not using inflammables there, at the moment?

Mr Wilson: I don’t think so, no. It is used for heavy goods vehicles, so unless we have the right to keep them under the viaduct, which I would have thought is unlikely, then the use of that bit of ground becomes very limited. You have indicated at previous meetings that Network Rail would not like me to run heavy goods vehicles underneath the viaduct. You talk about limited access, limited use, storage and such like, which is completely different from putting heavy goods vehicles underneath the viaduct and into that which is used as a parking space.

Mr Gardner: We talked about wanting the piers to be protected from the heavy vehicles with regards to potential damage. The indication I had was along the lines that that meant they were prepared to consider heavy goods vehicles moving –

Mr Wilson: Why were you talking about storage, if I may ask, a minute ago?

Mr Gardner: What they were referring to, in the area of land that you have leased out to Rentokil, if you use that for storage of inflammables, then you could be running petrol lorries, for example, under the viaduct and I don’t think they would be too keen on that, but in terms of large articulated lorries with goods, the indication is that they would allow that, and they would grant you rights over that.

Assessor: You have had this rented to Rentokil Ailsa for the last 14 years. To your knowledge, they haven’t been storing inflammables there in large quantities in any event over that 14 years. Accordingly, there would be no detriment to you if the only proviso was that they would not be inflammables or materials that might be unsafe from the point of view of the viaduct.


Mr Wilson: That is correct, but I have been given the feeling that there would be limited access allowed –

Assessor: Can you take that as an undertaking from the Promoter. First of all, is the Promoter prepared to give an undertaking insofar as you have information from Network Rail at the moment?

Mr Gardner: Is that sufficient for you today? We can’t go much further.

Mr Wilson: No, that’s alright. Would that access be free of charge?

Mr Gardner: Again, I would need to confirm, but I don’t think that is something they would charge for, but I would need to come back and confirm.

Assessor: It would still be your land, wouldn’t it? Again, I am not legally qualified, and I am having a bit of difficulty as to what is meant by the access here. As far as I can see, it is just a question of getting in and out.

Mr Irving: The land would presumably owned by Network Rail, but they would grant rights of access through it. As for payments or not, I assume that that would all form part of the compensation payment that would be payable in the sense that as you would be expecting a compensation payment, there would be little point in making a charge for the use of that access. That all form part of the compensation.

Assessor: That is very helpful, Mr Irving. I am allowing this to go forward, Mr Wilson. It is almost like a negotiation that is being undertaken here. I am trying to get clarification as to whether this space planning exercise has a hope of reaching a conclusion. I think we are perhaps moving towards areas where we are establishing exactly what the crucial difficulties are.

At the construction phase, are there any other matters that are bothering you?

Mr Wilson: At the construction stage, at the moment we are not going from one plot of ground through to the other. It is access by Ailsa and it has been separated from us for security reasons with a fence, but my concern is that long term if Ailsa at any time move or change their structure and they don’t want that ground any more, then I would take that fence down and it would be integrated into part of the Kenyart property.

Assessor: Are you content that that would be a probability? I haven’t heard of any impediment at the moment to that happening.

Mr Wilson: I hope that Ailsa have no intention –

Assessor: I am not asking about Ailsa, I am asking about your objection, Mr Wilson, to this Bill as it stands. Your problem seems to be as far as that concerned, you have stated very clearly that that piece of ground would be landlocked, either during the construction phase or during the operational phase. I think we have had a statement – and you can correct me if I am wrong, Mr Gardner


– that this appears not to be so, and that the land would not be landlocked, but it does depend a bit on the land use. If it was exactly the same as you are renting out for now, there would be no difficulty. Have I summarised that correctly?

Mr Gardner: That seems correct to me.

Mr Wilson: Obviously of course my other comment is the aesthetic view through my land. We have it split in two, a very large area of land which is split in two with a viaduct. To me, it represents a massive loss in the property value.

Assessor: There is a Code of Compensation, isn’t there? Are you familiar with that? Has it been drawn to your attention by the Promoter?

Mr Wilson: Whether it falls in line with what I think the ground is worth!

Assessor: I cannot comment on that, it is for the Lands Tribunal! Are there matters that you can take forward from your own point of view? I know that what we have been doing here is giving you an opportunity to question these witnesses. We have had a lot of background material as well. Are there any further questions that you would like to address?

Mr Wilson: We had covered a lot of ground prior to this meeting. We both know where each other is coming from in fairness. My objection is that we have not in my mind been offered a solution to all of the problems.

Assessor: Indeed I have noted that, and I have managed to establish where your sticking points are. Given that you have had the opportunity to question these witnesses, the next step is for me to ask Mr Gale if he would like to clear up any matters.

Mr Gale: Just so that I understand the position of the space planning exercise in relation to the Bike It Training area, gentlemen, in the course of construction what is proposed is that the Bike It Training area be relocated to the southern part of the site. The period of disruption of that would be an estimated 18 months or thereby.

Mr Dudgeon: The construction phase is estimated to take 18 months, yes.

Mr Gale: Certain concerns have been expressed first of all about the adequacy, as I understand it, of that proposed area to accommodate the sort of activities that go on on the Motorcycle Training area. First of all, am I right in thinking that the area of 530 m2 as shown on page 2 of the plans that we are looking at, will be against a wall, or at least some solid structure which would be the boundary of that area and the newly created access road.

Mr Dudgeon: It would not be directly against the wall. We would provide a safety strip as per the driving standards requirements.


Mr Gardner: The current training area is out slightly from a wall, with a fence mounted on top of it, so it would be something similar to the existing one.

Mr Gale: So far as the area is the concerned – and I am talking now about the simple area – that is a like-for-like replacement in terms of square metreage.

Mr Wilson has mentioned a number of potential impediments to the use of the area shown on Plan 2 – Bike It yard, including the current use of that area for storage by his own company. Is my understanding correct on that? [Yes]

Do you see a solution possible to that, first of all?

Mr Gardner: It is something that we would need to ask Ian [Dudgeon] to go back and have a look in terms of this particular area, but there are also, as I indicated earlier, other areas within the land which could potentially accommodate the Motorcycle Training.

Mr Gale: Again – obviously I am not questioning Mr Wilson at the moment, so I have to ask you in relation to this – is this an area in which the waste is either containerised or skipped?

Mr Gardner: Yes, it is.

Mr Gale: On that basis – and other areas may have to be identified – they are not permanent structures on the ground. Is that correct?

Mr Gardner: Most of the items that Mr Wilson mentioned I believe are of that nature. Some are fixed.

Mr Gale: There also seemed to be some interaction between the proposed Bike It yard and the circulation or equipment that Mr Wilson made reference to. Again, to what extent, so far as you are aware does that in fact impact on the proposal for that location?

Mr Gardner: The location shown there would need to be moved to avoid any conflict.

Mr Gale: So there is an acceptance therefore that that area would need to be moved.

Mr Gardner: It would need to be shifted, yes.

Mr Gale: When you say ‘need to be shifted’, are you talking about a complete reappraisal of where it goes or an adjustment of the area in which it is located within that general area?

Mr Gardner: It is a shift. We would need to check the distances involved to see what was possible.


Mr Gale: I think the remainder of the matters will have to be addressed to Mr Wilson. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Assessor: That completes that part of the proceedings. Now it is a question of taking the case for the Objector. How do you want to deal with this? [Details of seating of witnesses]

Noise and Vibration

Mr Gale: Before we go any further, there is another two chapters of objection. I wasn’t intending to ask any further questions of my witnesses in relation to these areas, but of course there is noise and vibration. Mr Fiumicelli is here in respect of that.

Assessor: I must apologise. I thought we had reached the end of Mr Wilson’s case, but if I am wrong about that –

Mr Gale: I am not going to ask any further questions, Sir, in relation to our position on those matters, but obviously Mr Wilson may want to ask questions of my witnesses in relation to these matters.

Assessor: I am grateful to you. I think perhaps if that is the case, you might want to tell me whether you have questions, Mr Wilson, on noise and vibration. This is in connection with the sensitive machinery which you have at the Carlton Die Castings factory?

Mr Wilson: There are two areas. One is vibration. Unfortunately our machine manufacturers have not been asked this sort of question before, which does not make life very easy, but you are putting in pylons or auger pipes very close to that part of the building, possibly not much more than about 30 yards away. I would like to know how you are going to be putting these things in, if you dig a hole, using an auger or some big great thumping mechanism that drives your foundation into the ground.

Mr Gardner: The preliminary design is not based on driven piles.

Mr Wilson: Are you saying that we will not feel the vibration?

Mr Gardner: I would hate to say that. An auger doesn’t give any disturbance but certainly in comparison to a driven pile, it is a magnitude of difference. Perhaps Dani has experience of that.

Mr Fiumicelli: It is. There is a difference between feeling vibration in a factory environment and feeling vibration in a residential environment in terms of the human response, i.e. affects the person. The standard used to assess this, B6472 has an appropriate multiplication factor. It gives guidelines values, the impact of vibration on persons at home in a residence, and in a commercial workplace like a factory, it advises that you should increase those guidelines by a factor of 10.


In actual fact, our predictions show that with rotary board piling, auger pipe, the resulting vibration levels would be well below the limits of human noise, and of structural damage to the building. We have also looked at this in the context of the impact upon the machinery within the Carlton Die Castings’ building. We have investigated – as far as we can – manufacturers of those bits of equipment, what are their vibration limits? The information we had back was from Matsuura regarding a CNC milling machine. This came up with a vibration tolerance of 4.9mm/second.

Elsewhere along the existing railway route, we have measured vibration as a reference. The closest point on our baseline assessment, we measured vibration in the order of 0.86mm/second. That was a distance approximately twice as far as we see it from the potential distance from the GARL route to you at your premises. However, taking into account the likely increase in vibration by shortening the separation distance, we are not predicted to get anywhere near 4.9mm/second.

Our assessment as we have demonstrated in the environmental statement is that, as you would expect, less vibration would be generated by elements of the construction phase and also by the operation of the GARL, but the resulting vibration at your premises should be well below levels of significant intrusion on the use of the premises in terms of affecting people, damaging the buildings, and as far as we can establish, affecting the operation of equipment that may be vibration sensitive.

Assessor: Is that information to be found in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement, paragraph 13.5.1.3.

Mr Fiumicelli: Yes, and again it is covered in 13.5.2.2 as well, the construction vibration and the operation of the railway. It is fundamentally the same answer, predicting to be significantly below established limits, and also to say what we know to be the vibration threshold for the type of equipment that is within the building.

Assessor: There is no reason to suppose that the technical approach that you are going to adopt if the Bill is enacted is in any way different from what has appeared in the Environmental Statement?

Mr Fiumicelli: No, Sir.

Assessor: Does that satisfy you on that, Mr Wilson?

Mr Wilson: Yes, it does. Thank you.

May I ask you about noise. Overlooking the railway we have offices on the first floor. They will possibly be about 60 metres away from the structure. What level of noise do you expect?

Mr Fiumicelli: In general, the level of noise from the existing railway varies between 65 and 70. We are predicting an increase of approximately 2 decibels, this


sort of direction. We could have a level of between 67 and 72. The actual predicted increase, which is what is quite important, is very modest. It is 2 decibels, and that falls within the range of 3 decibels which is generally seen as a limit of noticeability. Whilst there is an increase, the environmental assessment comes to the conclusion that it is an increase that is not likely to have any significant negative impact.

Q. We are not really affected at the moment. It is our gable end which looks on to the railway track. Its view of the GARL track is going to go from our gable end and run parallel with the line of our building.

A. Again, the likely noise levels that you would get from the branch line, as well as the main line – the branch line is the one that you would see at the windows – are relatively modest. They are in the order of 65 per cent of decibels. The kind of noise levels that you would expect to find in an office type environment range from 35 to 45, depending on whether it is a single occupation executive office, or through to a multi-use, occupied by several people.

The likely attenuation you are going to get from your existing façades, even with single glazing, is going to be the order of 25-30 dBLs, so the predicted internal railway noise levels are going to fall in that range of 35-45 dBLs.

Q. Is there a continuous welded track without joints?A. The proposal is to use continuously welded track to avoid that issue of the

clackety-clack type railway noise, which is not only qualitatively different, it is also significantly noisier than relatively smooth running, continuously welded track.

Mr Wilson: Thank you.

Assessor: I think Mr Gale was hinting that you might have further questions to ask on other matters. If that is not the case, then that’s fine.

Code of Compensation

Mr Gale: I am just looking at the nature of matters that Mr Wilson has highlighted. There were matters in relation to both the Compensation Code and matters that perhaps might have been dealt with by Mr Irving, if he is still here. I don’t know if Mr Wilson does have questions, but if he does, this is the opportunity for him to ask them.

Assessor: Are you familiar with the Code of Compensation, Mr Wilson, and you recognise that that is available to you? If you felt that there was a problem for your business, or any part of your businesses? Mr Gale is helpfully suggesting you have Mr Irving here if you want to clarify any matters.

Mr Wilson: To be honest, I am not familiar with the Code of Compensation. I only know that everybody says you are supposed to be no better off and no worse off.


Assessor: I think that is the essence of it. There are legally qualified people here who may be able to assist us in that. As a lay person that is my understanding.

Mr Wilson: As small businesses, looking at it from my tenants’ point of view, it is something which provides a livelihood. Their accounts won’t show huge profit. You can do a multiplication factor and come up with some magic figure. These people are small, self-employed chaps who eke out a meagre livelihood out of the business that they do. Obviously we are concerned that they get adequate compensation, particularly those who have to move from the site.

From the point of view of Kenyart which is the property company, we are losing not only a tenant, but we are also losing property, so we come from two different angles.

Mr Irving: I appreciate that. The Compensation Code ought to address where there are losses in both those cases. Without considering the details of their circumstances, it is a bit difficult to be more precise.

Mr Wilson: What is the timescale for compensation when this happens?

Mr Irving: You mean for payment of compensation. The entitlement to claim compensation will arise from entry on the property, because at that point, although compensation isn’t finally paid until it’s finally agreed or settled by the Land Tribunal, there is scope for your requesting an advance payment of compensation. That is then triggered by entering on the property in the first place to carry out the works.

Mr Wilson: Is that advanced payment going to be sufficient to allow the people to relocate their businesses?

Mr Irving: One would hope so. Again, without going into the details of the particular circumstances of those businesses, it is difficult to be definitive about any particular case. That certainly is the intention.

Assessor: Does that help you, Mr Wilson? One of the things we cannot do here is to enter into the evidence which you might or might not put as far as a claim is concerned. It is merely to ensure that it has been drawn to your attention by the Promoter, and I understand that it has been, that there is a Code of Compensation. This applies across Scotland; it is not an unusual thing related to this Bill. As Mr Gale has kindly pointed out, we do have in Mr Irving somebody who could offer you further information for a few minutes which might assist you to clear up any uncertainties about the Code.

Mr Wilson: No, I don’t have any particular questions at the moment. Thank you.

Mr Munn: May I ask a question?

Assessor: Yes, we seem to be into an informal situation, so please carry on.


Mr Munn: If I can just carry on from where Mr Wilson left off. His main concern obviously is his own business and his factory. This is an evolving situation, and certain problems have been raised and all the problems have been addressed today. It is impossible to look at values in certain ways because this situation is moving.

He is concerned that his business will be able to operate. In terms of compensation, he is more concerned about his tenants and how they will be able to operate. As we have seen from today, it is considered that some of the alternative sites proposed for them may not be appropriate in either the short or the long term. He is looking for reassurance that they will be allowed to seek alternative sites if required and claim compensation for that process, and also loss of business and disturbance through that. Could you reassure us that that would be the case?

Mr Irving: Yes, in principle that ought to be covered by the Compensation Code.

Mr Munn: Would that include their seeking professional assistance?

Mr Irving: Yes, that’s right. All the costs resulting from their need to relocate. It is the connection with that relocation.

Mr Munn: As you mentioned earlier, they would be able to seek interim payments prior to the matter reaching a conclusion.

Mr Irving: That’s right.

Mr Munn: If I could also ask, in terms of valuation – which is really what I am interested in – as we said, the matter is obviously moving on, and it is moving on week by week, day by day, more clarifications are being reached. In terms of valuation, that is the problem: lack of clarification on my client’s part as to what will be the final picture when everything is finished, how his property stands, and how its value will be affected. We have talked about car parking earlier and I don’t want to go over that again. The area that you propose as the final scheme, my understanding is that area will be in the ownership of Network Rail. Is that correct?

Mr Gardner: The area within the limits of deviation?

Mr Munn: The area that will be used for car parking adjacent to the exit road.

Assessor: Just for my benefit, was that the road that we were talking about earlier on?

Mr Gardner: Yes. On these plans, Sheet 3, the lines shown running parallel to the viaduct, the solid line, that was envisaged as being the location of the final limit of Network Rail’s land, which I believe is five metres from the viaduct.

Mr Munn: Right. Will that area be used for car parking long term?


Mr Gardner: As one of the potential solutions, yes.

Mr Munn: It was just to emphasise that if that is the case, my clients could secure a long term lease of that area at a minimal cost.

Mr Gardner: As we indicated earlier, I am not sure whether it would be leased, or as Paul suggested, through the compensation matters, that it would be a right that would be granted for parking.

Mr Munn: It is just to highlight that as that potentially it might affect the value of my client’s property if you cannot accommodate parking, or else he has to make additional payments which he has not catered for.

Assessor: Insofar as this is be related to the space planning exercise, that’s fine. If it goes much further than that, it is the amount of compensation that your client is looking for. I quite understand that what he is looking for certainty here, that he can conduct all of the businesses which he has, including Carlton Die Castings and Kenyart. Related to that, he is also concerned about the tenants that he has.

Mr Munn: Can I ask a last question with regards to the Rentokil site of the proposed rail link? You said that it was hoped that access could be accommodated for that once the construction was finished. Do you think that access would be viable during the construction period if the construction took place in a staged manner so that access could be allowed during the construction period, or would that not be viable?

Mr Gardner: It is difficult to say because the final programme of how the works are constructed, they won’t know until the contractor is engaged, but it could be something we could seek from the contractor although I am not quite sure why.

Mr Munn: Obviously in terms of Ailsa’s point of view, if they don’t access for 18 months that site will become redundant to them, I imagine.

Mr Gardner: At some point, it is likely that obviously in the short term in the 18 months as they construct that part of the line, that ability would not be there for a short period of time until the construction reaches that point, and then once it is finished and past that point, you would have an ability. Obviously whether they are constructing at that point – if I take a scenario where obviously you do need to go into the other area of land at that point, then it would be a situation where the bridge decks would be dropped down by crane, and there could be a potential to work round that and obtain some sort of access with overnight or certain days, weekends, or whatever. That is just a scenario that you are asking about. There is latitude there.

Mr Munn: As a tenant, if they can’t access it for a certain time, their position is untenable.


Mr Gardner: You are talking about your client’s ability to take access to it.

Mr Munn: No, his tenant. He lets the site out to Rentokil.

Mr Gardner: Rentokil will still be able to get access through the whole period. They would come in via Allen Street.

Assessor: Would that be your final question? I am allowing this to run because it will assist the outcome. I would have to say that it is only because the Objector has not been able to look at the space planning exercise until 3 August that I am adopting this particular route forward. I think at this stage, I would like to move ahead if at all possible, subject to any further advice.

Mr Bruce: I wonder if it would be appropriate – I have sat through this for two days now.

Assessor: You will get your say at the appropriate time. If you are desperate to ask a question now –. Nobody is trying to rush off. The position is quite simple. A lead objector asks a question. You are quite right in saying that I have allowed things to become more relaxed. I should include you within that relaxation. If you would care to present your question.

Mr Bruce: I don’t want to go over the whole ground. I understand that one of the points of today is that I can add to my original objection, is that correct?

Assessor: If you just ask questions of the Panel here, that’s fine.

Mr Bruce: I understood that today was to enhance the original objection. Obviously my original objection was primarily we have talked a lot about noise, we have talked a lot about car parking and vibration, but my main concern is people with the potential loss of a dozen or so jobs.

Assessor: I think that is part of your written evidence.

Mr Bruce: That was my original objection. The enhancement I thought I was being given the opportunity to raise today was with regard to the final solution. When we had the meeting last week with Mr Gardner, it transpired for the first time that were the final solution to go ahead with the training area, looking at Option 1 of the final arrangement, I understood for the first time on that day, that my landlord would no longer be Kenyart, it would be Network Rail. Is that correct? My additional objection would be that I would be with two landlords, and I should not imagine that dealing with SPT would be as easy as with Mr Wilson and Kenyart. I wanted to know the answer to Mr Wilson’s question about car parking being free of charge or leased to him because if my landlord became SPT under the final option, would that be rent free or would I be charged rent for it?

Mr Gardner: It wouldn’t be SPT, it would be Network Rail. I can’t say that you would not get charged rent for it.


Mr Bruce: So, touching on the compensation side of things, is there any increase in rent apart from any compensation package?

Mr Gardner: Mr Irving can correct me, but the situation would be that you would be charged a fair rent. If that rent was more than you pay at the moment, then you would seek the difference in compensation.

Mr Irving: Yes, that must be more or less the position.

Mr Bruce: Finally, I was at last week’s meeting where there were an amount of things going back to the drawing board so to speak, with regards to some official original report. I want assurance that somewhere in all the reports, both going through the Promoter and upwards through to the Parliament, that the human situation, the loss of people’s jobs and livelihoods here, was the most important. You can talk about noise and the rest of it until the cow’s come home, but at the end of the day, it is people’s livelihood and jobs at risk. Is there any further documentation from Network Rail or SPT or GARL, whoever I am dealing with, that the unemployment situation has been considered and will be considered all the way along, with that timetable showing exactly how I am going to deal with the staff situation?

Mr Gardner: I think that was indicated to the meeting the other week. We outlined the potential timetable for events with the project with major milestones such as the earliest possible start date for construction, to give you an indication of timescales and when relocation would be required, whether it is within Mr Wilson’s land or an alternative site. One of the issues that you indicated was you weren’t happy with the fact that you felt you were doing all the running, if you like. We indicate to you that the tenants and businesses in general – you know the businesses better than we do and are in a better position to seek alternative premises. But it has to be done within those timescales.

Mr Bruce: That is my biggest problem. I do not have a timescale for when I am to tell the staff that they are out of a job, or this is when we are moving. There is nothing written down to give me an element of this project that I can find. I have not seen mentioned anywhere that there is potential unemployment here, other than in my objection. I feel it is something that the Promoter has may be not given enough weight to. Would that be right or wrong?

Mr Gardner: I don’t think that’s right. We have indicated to you the dates to give you a framework to work around. Obviously, it is a framework, it is not cast iron dates that this is when certain things are going to happen, but we are giving you a heads up so that you know. We are taking a property consultant on board to look at the valuation matters, etc. I indicated to you that the earliest possible construction would happen, albeit that it may not be at this particular location, but within almost a year construction period. As Mr Dudgeon pointed out, 18 months within that three-year window.

Assessor: I think I know what you are trying to get at here. You had a specific answer from the Promoter. You may disagree with it, but the Promoter believes that the employment consequences have been taken into account


and the Code of Compensation does become relevant for certain of the matters that you are bringing forward. Be in no doubt that your written submissions are extremely clear, and are before the Parliament, and they will take these into account as well along with the Promoter’s answer.

Do we need to take this much further? I realise that you want to have your say, but I am now approaching 4pm and I think we have done rather well in allowing this group to have their say.

Is there one more question you would like to address?

Mr Bruce: Just a final point. It is quite important to realise – and I don’t want to take anything away from the meeting that we had last week, and I don’t want to step on Mr Wilson’s toes either – but I feel the important point has been forgotten about the space planning exercise. It was done from a plan with no buildings on it, like the photograph which has been very helpful. There was no consultation, and certainly Mr Wilson and I have not any conversation about relocations. It was just presented as a solution without any consultation. Along the process, a lot of things have happened without may be as much consultation as should happen. I would just ask that from now on, certainly as far as I am concerned because I am trying to look after my players, that we get involved in every step along the way as what is going to happen next. I just seek that assurance from them.

Mr Gardner: I apologise if that is the way it was taken by yourself. Part of the meeting –

Assessor: Can you give the reassurance, Mr Gardner?

Mr Gardner: Yes.

Assessor: That’s all that is required. Thank you very much. I need some time to order my papers and my thoughts. Mr Gale, you want to say something.

Mr Gale: To complete the Promoter’s case, can I briefly just re-examine on one matter? Mr Irving and Mr Gardner, this is a matter that I can deal with with you, and indeed it follows some the questions that you have been asked by both Mr Munn and also by Mr Bruce.

Paragraph 7 of the Promoter’s response, we make reference there, and I quote:

“With the Bill now having successfully negotiated the Preliminary Stage of the Parliamentary process, the Promoter will shortly be appointing property surveyors to assess with the potential compensation negotiations. The Promoter is keen, on a practical level, to co-operate with the Lead Objector in a space planning exercise”, etc.

At what stage has the appointment of property surveyors to assist in the potential compensation negotiations reached?


Mr Gardner: I believe they have been appointed in the last three days, but I can confirm. It is a bit difficult as I have not been in the office, but I believe that is the case.

Mr Gale: Thank you, Sir.

Assessor: We will now have a break. The next step, Mr Wilson, is that if you have questions, then we will take this further on a formal manner, and it will be open to you to make a case, and to be questioned.

Mr Wilson: I don’t believe I have any more questions.

Assessor: Nothing more at all?

Mr Wilson: I think we have covered everything.

Assessor: You have covered it in the way that I have done it, albeit it has been slightly unusual. We will take a break because it is customary in these matters to have closing statements. This will give you an opportunity just to say exactly what your position is now. I understand you and your colleagues are not happy about the way in which things have gone. However, if there is any amendment to the Bill that you would like to have, then this would be the time to say, in lay terms, how you would like things to go. Please take a few minutes for that.

Mr Gale: I might like to ask a few questions of Mr Wilson, and indeed the other gentlemen who were here if that is possible. I won’t be very long.

Assessor: I have no difficulty with that. I would like to take a break.

[The Hearing adjourns at 15.57 pm]

[The Hearing reconvenes at 16.05 pm]

Examination of Objectors’ witnesses

Assessor: As I understand it, the Objectors have given up their right to make a statement, and accordingly, we are now in a position where it is open to Mr Gale to cross-examine the witnesses. Could I ask you first of all to introduce yourselves?

Mr Munn: I am Russell Munn of Gerald Eave, Chartered Surveyors. I am one of the valuation practitioners. I have been advising Mr Wilson on the potential evaluation issues with regards to the scheme.

Mr Wilson: I am the Managing Director of Kenyart Ltd and Carlton Die Castings.

Mr Bruce: I am Colin Bruce, the proprietor of Bike It Motorcycle Training.


Assessor: Thank you. Mr Gale, would you care to examine these witnesses. They are acting as a Panel as I understand it.

Mr Gale: Gentlemen, thank you very much. I am not going to detain you very long, but there is some clarification I would like to obtain from you.

Mr Wilson, first of all, in relation to the area currently leased to Joe Shirley (Tyres), can you tell me how large that area is, currently?

Mr Wilson: The building itself is an area of some 700-800 sq feet.

Mr Gale: Perhaps Mr Munn can convert that into metres for me!

Mr Munn: Roughly just over 60 metres.

Mr Wilson: Then there is the area of parking for four vehicles, plus an area at the back of his unit for the storage of tyres which will again be about another 400 sq feet.

Mr Gale: Am I correct in thinking that all those areas are in fact leased to him, there is not an informal arrangement in relation to the parking and the storage of tyres?

Mr Wilson: There is an informal arrangement.

Mr Gale: Strictly speaking, the leased premises are the 60 m2 – or thereby – of premises.

Mr Wilson: Except he has car parking granted as part of the lease.

Mr Gale: I think, if I may say, gentlemen, the objection has been very clearly presented so we all understand where you had difficulties with the space planning suggestion. One of the critical areas of the space planning suggestion as currently put to you is the removal of Mr Bruce’s Bike It training area from his current location to the location shown in page 2 of the plans. I take it Mr Bruce, and indeed, Mr Wilson, that you have no difficulty with the return of that area to its pre-existing area or its current area after constructions?

Mr Bruce: Subject to my comments earlier about having a different landlord.

Q. Leaving that aside, I have no difficulty with that. A. I am not too sure I would get approval either. At the end of the day, you and I

can agree to get the area resited, but the ultimate say so falls to the Driving Standards Agency.

Q. You require approval from the DSA for not merely your own competence to train motorcyclists but also from the point of view of the area to train motorcyclists. Is that correct?


A. Yes.

Q. Do you foresee any difficulty in obtaining, as it were, reapproval for the area that you are currently occupying?

A. There may be difficulties, as I understand it, with the construction of the viaduct, the actual pillars that I am assuming will be there are all things to be crashed into, I’m afraid. Obviously the noise when you are trying to talk to people. If you have a train going over the top of you, it may be difficult to be understood.

Q. You have somebody with a motorcycle crash helmet on, Mr Bruce. Talking tends to be fairly difficult in those circumstances, doesn’t it?

A. It makes it worse, because my pupils will be sitting with their crash helmets on, there will be train going over the top of them, their engine might be idling, and I have to raise my voice to talk over that. As you can imagine, the amount of information I have to give them on the compulsory training courses is quite extensive.

Q. Can we just go through a number of points. First of all, the indicative plan does not show any stanchions or supports of the viaduct on the area, so if there were no stanchions or supports for the viaduct on that area, then effectively you have nothing to crash into, have you?

A. Other than when you run off out of control.

Q. There will presumably be some sort of area of comfort around the site.A. We would hope so, yes.

Q. As I understand it, the way in which this operates, generally you set out particular areas within your training ground for riders to ride around with the intention that they keep well within the extremity of the site, and disputes that are reached in CPT training tend to be fairly limited, possibly the engagement only as far as the third year?

A. In that size of area, yes, probably. However, within the context of the basic training course, you have to practise what you and I would call an emergency stop, therefore you have to exceed the speed. We also have the European regulations just round the corner, whereby we have off-road train people to avoid a stationary object whilst travelling at 50 kilometres/hour, subject to some discussion at the moment because we don’t use kilometres/hour, but that is coming out next year, so we will have to use the yard for these speeds once the new European regulations come in.

Q. Generally when somebody gets to that stage of training – I don’t necessarily want to get into this level of detail, perhaps – they are not in the nursery stage of not knowing which pedal to press or which lever to pull on the handle bars, are they?

A. I take your point, but I have been a professional instructor for 10 years, and I will have difficulty as will some of the driving examiners, as I understand it, in carrying out this exercise successfully.


Q. Very well. Leaving aside the possible interaction with other items on the site of the proposed relocation of your Bike It yard, one of the other concerns is that there will be then a physical distance between your offices and your yard. Is that a particular difficulty?

A. It is a difficulty, it is a large inconvenience. The yard is used for four vehicles maximum, so we are talking about pushing 500 cc motorcycles – I would be guessing at the weight, but it is not an easy job to do. They will not be able to drive them there because they are not qualified to ride, plus the surface conditions, if we are allowed to let people on, has to smooth tarmac. At the moment, you are pushing across tarmac at the moment, it has to be pushed across because of the rest of the surface. Safety is paramount.

Q. First of all, is the general set-up more usually that motorcycles are left on the training ground – I appreciate not over night – for people to walk to from the offices?

A. They are, yes.

Q. Are not the usual motorcycles that are used for the CBT 125s rather than 500s?

A. Yes, but the CBT can be done on any sized bike providing you are over 21. Generally speaking, if you are a novice, we will use smaller bikes, which still weigh enough. If you want to push one across, please come down and have a shot and see how you like it.

Q. The reason I have this interest, Mr Munn, I am one of those sad people who is a born again biker! That at present would provide an inconvenience to you.

A. It’s an inconvenience, it is not an insurmountable problem.

Q. Mr Wilson, if I may return to you, if I may. I take it from your responses to the evidence that you heard from Mr Fiumicelli in relation to noise and vibration?

Mr Wilson: We have had a report, yes.

Q. I take it that that offers you a degree of comfort as to the likely predicted effect of both noise and vibration upon your business.

A. Yes.

Q. I am obliged to you. Finally, Mr Wilson, in relation to the Rentokil Ailsa subjects, is there any anticipatory change so far as the leaseholder of those subjects is concerned?

A. Not as far as we know, but they are already losing one of their buildings on the bit of ground. They are presumably going to have to redesign their landscaping of their yard, because you are knocking down that building at the end of our ground and going right through there. I haven’t heard from them, but at any time, it is only a lease, it can be broken at any time.

Q. You indicated that it had been leased for the last 14 years. What is the currency of the current lease?

A. It has been renewed at 10 years, so it will have another four years to run.

Q. Presumably there is a break option in it?


A. Yes.

Q. Exercisable on what notice?A. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember, I’m afraid.

Q. Are you aware of any likely change in the corporate structure of the lessee?A. No.

Q. Are you sure that hasn’t been brought to your attention?A. Unless you know something I don’t know.

Q. Very well. In relation to the subjects of let to Rentokil Ailsa, in that we are dealing with it at the moment, you heard the evidence and we discussed with Mr Gardner the question of the position of Network Rail which may not have a difficulty with access depending upon land use. In general terms, what was being suggested as I understand it, is that so long as land use did not involve, for example, hazardous material or inflammable material which could obviously have an impact were it to ignite on the viaduct, that in general terms would not have a difficulty with that. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. You indicated that it is currently used for storage of HGVs. Is that correct?A. Yes.

Q. Do the HGVs refuel there?A. I’m sure they have a pump somewhere on the site but not on our ground.

Q. You see, albeit it is not a document that we have looked at thus far, if you have the volume of plans which we were looking at earlier, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 as far as you are concerned, if you would look at the fourth plan within that bundle – perhaps we could entitle this Kenyart 4 albeit it refers to the land to the north - it does intersect. In the darker green triangle of land, do you see the legendary fuelling tank?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is that land which you currently lease to Rentokil?A. That is our bit of ground, yes.

Q. Did you know they were there?A. No.

Q. You didn’t?A. No.

Q. That may obviously be an issue were they to remain there.A. As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t bother me, but it is obviously going to

bother Network Rail, isn’t it?


Q. Mr Bruce, if I can return to you. Just to ask you a question on the level of employment. I think you indicated that there were 12 people dependent upon your organisation. Is that right?

Mr Bruce: There are 13 at the moment.

Q. Is that entirely in a training context, or do you have other activities?A. Other than the office person, it is all instructors, yes.

Q. You don’t operate a dealership or repair works?A. Not on a formal basis, no. People will come into us and ask, but the principal

activity of the business is training. Too many people diversify, but we consider ourselves specialists. If you were to ask the DSA, they would say it is the leading specialist.

Q. That is very comforting. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I am obliged to you all.

Assessor: Thank you, Mr Gale. Mr Wilson, as you know from the guidance which has been provided to you from the Bills Unit, it is open to you now to tidy up any of the matters on which you have been examined.

Mr Wilson: I understand the benefit of this rail link, and I have nothing to add to the Bill to oppose it, but my level of interest is simply to look after the interests of my tenants, the employment of the people that they have, and also our own interests which obviously are the loss of rental income, loss of ground, and loss of land value. These are the areas which we want to address. I think we need to have another meeting with Network Rail to try and put an answer to some of the problems that we have discussed today.

Assessor: You don’t want to ask any questions of your other witnesses. That is in the nature of a statement. I can understand it. The position as you will recall is that you have the opportunity at this stage in the proceedings to ask questions or ‘tidy up’ any matters.

Mr Wilson: No. I don’t think I have any more questions.

Assessor: In which case, we are at a stage where we can go to the closing statements. The Bills Unit have suggested in the advice that you have had that Mr Gale will have the opportunity to go first, and that you as the Objector will have the opportunity to have the last word. Mr Gale is kindly nodding that that is satisfactory. We will follow the procedure that the Bills Unit have set out for us. It may be that you have to repeat yourself, but what I am after now is a statement for the record of precisely what it is that you are seeking from the Bill Committee which is set out in lay terms so that they can understand it when they go to the evidence of precisely where we stand having heard all the evidence this afternoon, and how you would invite them to proceed.

You have already suggested, without telling me any more, that you don’t look to amend the Bill, but there may be other matters that you would like the Committee to consider. Would you care to set out where you stand?


Closing Submissions

Mr Wilson: As I said, we want to ensure the relocation of the three business which are under threat. We have not as yet had a satisfactory answer in that respect. From the point of view of our property company, Kenyart, we would be seeking adequate recompense for the loss of use, loss of amenity and loss of land value.

Assessor: Thank you, Mr Wilson.

Mr Gale: Again, on behalf of the Promoter, the specific instructions to thank Mr Wilson for the cooperation which he has shown in relation to the GARL proposals towards SPT, and also to thank Mr Wilson and his witnesses for the clear way in which they have given their evidence.

The position of the Promoter is that so far as this objection is concerned, while the impact that this proposal has upon the landholdings of the holding company, Kenyart, is thoroughly understand and appreciated, there is no proposal before you, Sir, or the committee on behalf of this Objector that the Bill should be amended. Therefore, there are certain matters that the Committee may wish to be advised of insofar as the discussions between the Promoter and the Objector are concerned.

As the evidence has made clear, there is a continuing process of discussion involving a space planning project in relation to this site. There are certain matters where there have been difficulties in relation to the current proposal as shown in Diagrams 2 and 3 of Kenyart documents. They concern mainly the matter of the car parking and the relocation of Mr Bruce’s and Mr Shirley’s businesses.

What I can indicate, Sir, is that so far as the car parking is concerned, we will take on board those concerns and suggestions and clearly consideration is being given to the eventual solution, post-construction phase, of parking on the to-be-created access road, where as Mr Dudgeon made clear, it is anticipated there will be sufficient car parking spaces to accommodate the car parking that will otherwise be displaced.

Mr Bruce’s business will on Option A, post-construction, be relocated to its existing position. The concern regarding the proximity of supports for the viaduct is taken into account and can hopefully be engineered around without any difficulty. Certainly, the indicative plan indicates no interaction between the stanchions and the supports of the viaduct, and the area.

Mr Bruce’s concern regarding approval from DSA is also noted.

The concern from Mr Bruce’s business is in the context of its temporary removal to the site shown on Sheet 2, and shown for clarification as Option B, which is clearly will not be a preferred option in relation to the post-construction phase.


Mr Gardner has indicated that effectively this will have to be reconsidered in light of not merely the concerns expressed by Mr Bruce about the physical divorce between his office premises and the training yard, but more particularly through the interaction between other activities that are carried on in that area, and in particular siting waste skips and containers, and the water circulation machinery.

Finally, so far as Mr Shirley’s premises are concerned, again the need to afford a greater area than the 60 metres that are shown on the plans is taken into account and hopefully that area can be extended so as to provide an adequate alternative site.

Were these options not to prove viable so far as the Objectors are concerned – and I appreciate that this is not what they would necessarily wish to hear – but as an endstop of comfort to them, there is the Compensation Code available in relation to the loss sustained by them, and their businesses.

So far as vibration and noise are concerned, Mr Fiumicelli has given evidence in relation to that. That has afforded some degree of comfort to Mr Wilson, who is particularly concerned about the vibration effect upon machinery operating within his premises. I would say, Sir, that that was a particular concern to the Promoter and therefore the matter was specifically addressed and has been addressed even to the extent of ascertaining tolerance levels from manufacturers, as Mr Fiumicelli indicated.

Other matters, Sir, that are raised within this objection are effectively matters relating to compensation, the adequacy thereof, and the Code, and as has been made clear on a number of occasions, are not matters which are properly before you. If that is to be pursued, then it is in another forum.

I should say, Sir, having omitted it from my summary of the evidence concerning the space planning exercise, what is accepted and indeed, I think is seen as an improvement to the current situation, is that the road circulation within the site, taking direct egress from the to-be-created access road on to Clark Street, is seen as a benefit, and certainly even from a lay perspective, it would seem preferable to take direct egress on to Clark Street from the access road, rather than take it through the site, therefore occupying part of the site, and of necessity creating another break in the road.

These are all matters that it would seem, if I may say, with the very reasonable attitude that has been displayed by the lead Objector as the landlord, are I hope, speaking for my clients, capable of eventual resolution without the need for the closure or long term relocation of the businesses. Certainly it would be my clients’ aim to achieve that in both the short term and the long term.

With that, Sir, as I have indicated, I have no proposal to make in relation to the Bill in respect to this objection.


Assessor: Thank you, very much, Mr Gale. That concludes the proceedings here today. I would like to thank everybody for the manner in which matters have been taken. We have done it in a relatively informal way; on occasions it has been slight out of tune with the manner in which the Private Bills Unit has suggested evidence would be taken. I hope that on this occasion it has been fruitful and that the parties are closer together than when they came into the room.

I would like to thank you all for your attendance. We will take Ailsa tomorrow morning.

[The Hearing concludes at 16.36 pm]


glasgow airport rail link bill · web viewhearing held at . renfrewshire council . paisley....

Documents