Leeds Trolleybus Public
Enquiry
Day 40
Here are the links for Day 40 of the Leeds Trolleybus
Enquiry, 24 July 2014. This was the last day of the Enquiry before the
summer holiday break, it will resume on 2nd September 2014.
I should apologise for the late appearance of the
listing for the audios of the day's sessions as I was on my way to my holiday
destination when this was taking place and I didn't get to process the
recordings until I came back to Leeds the following week. Here are the links to the pages where they
are hosted, and my commentary follows below them.
In the first morning session of Day 40 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Public Enquiry, after admin and timetable matters have been dealt
with, Mr Stuart Natkus, acting for his clients, Statutory Objectors, examines
Professor Jeremy Purseglove on ecological issues around Headingley Hill.
In the late morning session of Day 40 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Public Enquiry Gregory Jones QC completes his cross examination of
Mr Neil Chadwick on the business case for NGT and is followed by Neil Cameron
QC who carries out the re-examination of the witness.
The Inspector then gives his decision on the matter
of whether he will accept the Heritage technical appendix and this is followed
by some brief discussion of the coming timetable.
The Enquiry is now
adjourned for the summer break and will resume at 10am on Tuesday 2nd
September 2014.
*
The 40 days of the Enquiry so far has been gruelling
for all parties concerned, it sounds like some Biblical trial which has to be
endured!
There is still a great deal of business before the
Enquiry to be examined in the coming weeks, not least the vexed matter of the newly submitted
Document B-13 (Heritage).
Readers will probably know by now that he decided to
allow it to be included, but listening to his statement at the end of today's
business you will find it is not entirely unconditional in its
acceptance. It is worth noting that it will not replace the existing
Heritage Statement and objectors are invited to draw attention to
inconsistencies between the two.
I haven't had a great deal of discussion with other
objectors since returning from my holiday, but one opinion which has come up
and which I have some leaning towards is that this is not an entirely unmixed
blessing for NGT.
The Inspector probably felt that he might come in for
some criticism if he refused to accept technical data which was available. NGT
might have some case for appeal if this were the case and so it would appear
that Mr Whitehead has erred on the side of caution in this matter.
However, noting that it will not replace but only add to the existing
document could be a poisoned chalice for NGT as I know that there are indeed
some discrepancies between the two documents, either those which relate to my
own examinations on Rose Court mansion, and others which have been pointed out
to me by fellow objectors. Doubtless First West Yorkshire have had a team
of eagle eyed examiners trawling through the 370 pages to find as many as they
can. One may imagine that the greater the number and severity of these
inconsistencies the greater will be the risks of displeasure which might be
incurred by NGT in the Inspector's final assessment of this matter.
The promoter must have felt that they had something to gain by making this late submission, but in view of the way the cross examination of the evidence has gone so far, I am inclined to think that they may have made a rod for their own back, or to mix my metaphors, perhaps the Inspector has decided to see whether if he gives them a long enough rope they end up hanging themselves with it.
This is all somewhat up in the air at present and
until it is put under examination.
Clearly the Applicant thought that they had something to gain with this,
but what exactly is something I am struggling to grasp to some extent given the
already identified problem that Mr Jones identified some while back, that being
whether the document is an admission of the original’s inadequacy (especially
in view of Mr Ward’s cross examination).
Clearly there will be some re-examination of
witnesses before this is properly behind us and we have to hope that this will
not cause the timetable to creep into November. A further full 40 days would test the stamina and patience of
even Job!
