Page 17 NET says that “a footway will be provided….between Wilford Lane and Vernon Avenue”. This could be good news from an environmental point-of-view, but would you also like to see a cycle path provided?

Pages 17 and 18 NET says that “the tramway would….run on the alignment of the old railway line, ramping up gradually to approximately 4m high (LOWER THAN THE EXISTING FULL HEIGHT*) for approximately 450 metres.” What is the reason for this? Surely it would be cheaper and provide better sound barriers to the properties on Main Road, Bader Road and Vernon Avenue if the tramway were to continue BEHIND the railway embankment for its full length to Coronation Avenue? Does it have anything to do with maximising the development area for housing on the site of The Château? Could Rushcliffe Council and the City Council be proposing a road from the new development to Bader Road?

Page 17 NET says that it “would be possible to remove the embankment between Wilford Lane and Vernon Avenue”. Are you in favour of doing that, or is it just a red-herring from NET to justify reducing the height of the embankment between Wilford Lane and Vernon Avenue?

Page 17 What is a “Maintenance Access Area”? Note the “sidings” - is this an area where maintenance and repairs will be carried out on failed trams? How much noise and disturbance will there be to neighbouring properties? At what times of the day will maintenance be carried out?

Page 18 Do you think that having one stop on Wilford Lane and a second by the Rugby Club actually means that most of Wilford Village is really being denied access to the tram? If the route were to continue at the lower level for the full length of the embankment, a stop could be provided at the end of Bader Road, enabling all Wilford residents, especially the elderly who are suffering from a woeful public transport provision in the Village, to make use of the tram. NET says (on page 23) that this has been investigated but that “the location would be isolated with no general surveillance and as such would be unsafe at night”. Every other stop proposed will have CCTV and passenger help buttons - why not this one?

Page 18 NET says that “replacement tree and scrub planting would be provided on both sides of the embankment, providing SOME* visual screening”. What does “some visual screening” mean?

Page 19 NET says that the “embankment then becomes the barrier between the tramway and residential properties on Vernon Avenue”. This is undoubtedly true for the properties that back on to the embankment, but what about the properties between 2 and 28 Vernon Avenue - if you live at one of these addresses, do you think that your privacy will be compromised by the tramway “ramping up” to a height of 4 metres? Or, to put it another way, do you think that your privacy will be compromised by the embankment being reduced to a height of 4 metres?

Page 20 NET says that “some landtake is required from the Nottingham Emmanuel school playing fields”. Does your child attend this school? Do you want to know how much land will be taken?

Page 22 How safe will the crossing over the Nottingham Emmanuel School access road be for the students? Why is there not a stop here instead of on Main Road?

Page 22 The floodbank along the north side of Coronation Avenue will be removed and replaced with a “new hedgerow” that will form “an INFORMAL* barrier between [the] tram and footpath”. Why can the existing floodbank not be used as part of the sound and visual barrier between the tram and the houses on Coronation Avenue?

Pages 22 and 23 Why can the tramway not be routed around the back of Iremonger Pond and across the Toll Bridge? Could the money saved by not running the tramway along the reduced-height embankment be used route the tram this way, avoiding most of the impact on Coronation Avenue? This would also remove the need for the car park at the junction of Coronation Avenue and Main Road (see below) and would restore parking for the Rugby Club.

Page 23 NET says that a “new pedestrian route links the [Wilford Village] tram stop and Nottingham Emmanuel School without having to cross the tramway”. But surely this route exists already - along the top of the current embankment?

Page 23 Who would actually use the “Wilford Village” tramstop? Apart from houses on Vernon Avenue, Coronation Avenue and the northern-most addresses on Main Road, the stop is located AWAY from most residents of Wilford.

Page 23 NET says that a “new car park will be created to replace parking lost along Main Road. This would be available for school journeys, the Rugby Club and recreational visits”. Or, it will be used as a park-and-ride site for journeys into the city???? What do you think?

ONE BIG OMISSION? Trams need electricity. The proposals do not include any information about what the power supply stations will look like or where they will be placed. Some people have said that the power supply stations “are the size of a bungalow”. Wilford Community Group cannot say whether this is true or not. But why has NET excluded these from the consultation document?

After reading this newsletter, if you are happy with NET’s proposals as they stand, write to NET and let them know. If you are NOT happy, what are YOU going to do about it? Turn back to page 1 and decide which Community Group meeting you will attend - but you must still write to NET and let them know why you are not happy - even if you do attend one of the meetings. * WCG capitalisation