My name is Paul Sladen, I was present at the public inquiry in 2010.
I am supportive of the tram and hub developments overall.

Owing to this committee's record of due-diligance from 2010, the
report this time is more substantial.  While it is thicker, it remains
incomplete.  The maps we are asked to consult contain distortions,
inaccurate scales, and inconsistent route alignments.

Whilst mention of the most ideal and frequently discussed variation
from the public inquiry and consultation meetings is omitted entirely.

Instead the report asks to steer this committee into authorising a
minimal variant, one that effectively absolves the landowner of the
financial responsibility to either restore the footpath following
construction work, or to provide dedicated infrastucture for a
diversion.

The diversion you asked to authorise uses a an estate road footway and
a temporary ramp built in 2011.  The platform widening, likewise is
ancillary and will happen regardlessly.

Councillors will note that the report contains a section on legal
advice; one which I would not wish to professionally discredit at such
short notice.

It is though very similiar to the optimistic legal advice regarding
statutory tests being met, that was presented to this committee three
years ago.  The advice resulted in a quite unnecessary public inquiry,
several temporary prohibition orders, two periods of unlawful
obstruction of the highway, and the deprivation from public use for a
long period of time.

Up until 74 hours ago I had been anticipating an email invitation to
the next consultation meeting.  One which would review and hopefully
decide on exact details for the scheme of diversion that would be
promoted.  My shock and surprise on Monday came from the sudden
esculation straight to this committee for authorisation, for something
that does not have clear support among the existing objectors.

If yourselves, as councillors wish to authorise this juncture as-is,
you have the option of minuting that you have been made aware of
discrepancies in the report.  You may wish to describe any discomfort
you have at being put in a similiar situation to 2010-2011, and the
very same right-of-way.

Alternatively, you may wish to defer the decision until your next
meeting.  This would match the precedent of your due-diligence in
2010.  When the related stopping-up order was presented for
authorisation, you requested more information in order to have a
fuller overview.

Your initial discomfort over the merits of the stopping up order
authorisation request were ultimately bourne out: culminating in a
large number of objections, the non-confirmation by the public
inquiry, and the substantial wait since.

I would concur with the conclusion of no financial impact for this
committee's budget.  The 2010 authorisation did have a cost for the
council as a whole: the expenditure in resources from pursuing a
public inquiry which was ultimately lost.  In hindsight, had the LAF
and/or this committee stood by their minuted reservations, and not
authorised the 2010 request, the council would have been financially
better off and the landowner would have been forced to integrate a
workable solution earlier.


To recap: all of the consultees and prior objectors have been pushing
for a safe and suitable diversion.  What is presented, allegedly, as
the preferred option from a subset of only four, does not match my
recollection of the reality of those many consultation meetings.

None of us here in this room can predict what will happen if this
order is allowed to be advertised in its present state, though we can
collectively learn with experience of what may happen, from the last
occasion.

If it helps this committee, there are eleven prior objectors/consultees.

Should the chair allow it, I would be open to questions.