Tuesday 30 September 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 53



Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry

Day 53


Tuesday 30th September 2014

Links to audio recordings are here at the top, my commentary on today's proceedings follows below.

In the first morning session of Day 53 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Tuesday 30th September 2014, Mr Doug Kemp presents evidence on behalf of the North West Leeds Transport Forum, West Park Residents and himself against the NGT proposals.  There is some examination by Neil Cameron QC on behalf of the Applicant and then by the Inspector.

In the late morning session of Day 53 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Tuesday 30th September 2014, Emeritus Professor of Transport Planning Studies Peter Bonsall goes through his evidence in chief against the NGT scheme, drawing attention to many flaws in the planning.

In the early afternoon session of Day 53 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Tuesday 30th September 2014, Emeritus Professor of Transport Planning Studies Peter Bonsall is cross examined on his evidence by Neil Cameron QC on behalf of the Applicant NGT.

In the late afternoon session of Day 53 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Tuesday 30th September 2014 Neil Cameron QC on behalf of the Applicant NGT continues to cross examine Emeritus Professor of Transport Planning Studies Peter Bonsall on his evidence against the trolleybus scheme.





Today the enquiry split into two parts.  The morning sessions in which evidence was given by Doug Kemp and Professor Peter Bonsall on behalf of the West Park Residents and North West Leeds Transport Forum, which was very clear and easy to understand.

In the afternoon, when Mr Cameron set to cross examining Professor Bonsall things got immensely complicated, to the extent that the Inspector by the final session was asking to have something in writing about the formulae behind calculations for funding as he was finding it too complicated to follow.

The tale of how we got from the lucidity of the morning’s evidence to a morass of complexity which barely more than one or two people in the room could follow was one that I had to stand back from for a while to make any sense of.

The local issues around north west Leeds were dealt by Mr Kemp at first, and while there was some hostile examination from NGT’s counsel it was at least comprehensible.

The second session was lucidity itself.  It can be a labour and a chore sometimes listening to more droning on from one side or the other, but Peter Bonsall demonstrated today why he had achieved his position as a Professor of Transport Planning at the University of Leeds. 

It was not just that he had such a long list of failings that NGT is subject to, but the fact that he got it all over in such a clear and simple manner that enabled him to achieve his end.  If you look at the text of the document I published here on my blog yesterday you could see a similarity in content which might suggest his influence.  I couldn’t possibly comment, but I’ll just give a list of some of the points he drew attention to today which go against NGT

Errors in the modelling and judgements inflate the viability of the scheme.  Greenhouse gas emissions would be increased.  The Leeds Traffic Model predicts increase in accidents against the WebTAG guidance that changes should have predictions of fewer accidents.  That it would lead to a reduction in cycling and walking.  That while there were lower times in vehicle for some journeys, this was not broadly enough the case and it instead reduced connectivity such that average door to door times for journeys would be increased.


And so it went on.  The more that Prof Bonsall looked at the case, the more concerned he had became.  New evidence in the enquiry has reinforced his concern.

Today he had measured the lifts in the Regus building and told us that the passenger density of NGT at full capacity would have the lift of just over two square meters carrying 17 people.  Clearly this is absurd.  Or at least to some of us it is.

He cited that the lack of seating was the single most important issue and then this led into the whole business of models, predictions, traffic flows and so forth.  Dry stuff, but it was easily followed, succinct and gave a good overview while at the same time cramming in quite a large amount of hard detailed data.  If you only listen to one of today’s sessions I would highly recommend today’s from the late morning.

The afternoon sessions flow out of it, so you have to have that under your belt anyway, but I can’t tell you the afternoon is easy listening.  I lost the thread on it numerous times, and this was the part where the Inspector admitted that he found it rather complicated.

There was a lot of talk about the people at the DfT and what their position was on all the evidence they had been given of the business case, whether they properly understood what had been put to them by Metro, a concern raised by Peter Bonsall, or whether as Mr Cameron suggested, they fully understood it and thought it fine.  He had begun his cross examination by asking the Professor if he had ever made a business case, to which he had to reply in the negative, but we have to ask if Mr Cameron has spent a lifetime studying transport and the planning that is necessary for it.  Barristers such as he and Mr Jones are extremely sharp and able people, proficient in taking instructions on data that they have to digest and present as an argument on very short notice, but they are of necessity generalists, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to ply their trade.

It may be the case that he bogged the Enquiry down with quibbles about government funding procedures and statistical models that only a competent mathematician could grasp, but this was all to take us away from the clear evidence which Peter Bonsall had given in his evidence.

I would suggest that to quibble over the percentage points of mathematical formulae is a distraction when you have overriding matters such as that the passenger demand estimates were clearly being exaggerated, the fact that most people like to have a seat, that prioritising traffic lights would cause congestion for other road users and the like and so on and so forth.  Much as I love the heritage and mature trees in Headingley I don’t think I heard them mentioned once, demonstrating that this is so much more than the condescending ‘nimbyism’ we are too often accused of.  Frankly, this is a bad scheme, badly conceived, on the wrong route, with massively disproportionate overheads (if you will pardon the dreadful pun).

There seemed to be a lot of critical examination from Mr Cameron, but it was not clear what any of it achieved, although I imagine it was designed to trick or catch out the Professor into betraying himself with some huge clanger.  The Inspector actually said something about how he was probably the only person in the room who actually understood a particular point.  And he could well have been correct.

The opinion amongst several of the objectors afterwards that this was mostly a filibuster by Mr Cameron having to spend some time earning his keep.  Perhaps there is some great master plan which will become clear, or perhaps he is clutching at straws.  If we are left down to who understands the detail better, I would lay my own money on the man who has not only spent his life studying this stuff, but has also carried out many research studies and been consultant to government transport committees and so forth.  For NGT’s counsel to try to discredit him as in some way, inexperienced, or out of his depth, or not in full grasp of the modelling, the procedures, the targets etc etc is a risky strategy as it could quite possibly just demonstrate the solidity and sense of Peter Bonsall’s position, like a furious wave crashing down to break on a lighthouse rock, only to fade away into nothingness.

Monday 29 September 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 52


Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry

Day 52



Friday 26th September 2014 

Audio recordings of today's sessions are linked here, and below I am pleased to present a document I have been given permission to publish.




In the first morning session of Day 52 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Friday 26th September 2014, Neil Cameron QC continues his cross examination of Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus on behalf of the Applicant for the TWO, NGT.




In the late morning session of Day 52 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Friday 26th September 2014, Neil Cameron QC concludes his cross examination of Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus on behalf of the Applicant for the TWO, NGT.  The Inspector then has some questions of his own.




In the afternoon session of Day 52 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Friday 26th September 2014, Gregory Jones QC re-examines Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus.


                                                     *

The following document has come into my view and I have been given permission to quote in full here on my blog.  It is a formal reply put to Leeds City Councillors in response to the report given by Dave Haskins, Project Director of NGT, to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (formerly Metro) a few days ago.  In that document Mr Haskins seems to suggest to the WYCA that all is going smoothly with the trolleybus at the Public Enquiry.

This is definitely not the case, as anyone who has spent any time at the enquiry or listening to the examinations on the audio recordings should know.

A group of professionals amongst the objectors and residents associations along the northern route has entered the following statement as a rebuttal of Mr Haskins attempt to soft soap Leeds CC into continuing to give it their support.  Since almost no Councillors except Barry Anderson (and hopefully John Illingworth in due course) have actually attended the enquiry one may guess that either they are listening to the recordings privately and cringeing with embarrassment, or else they remain ignorant of what they have got us into.  The likes of the Councillors Lewis, Keith Wakefield or Tom Riordan have not dared to show their faces on the fifth floor of the Regus Building off Wellington Street, and if one is up to date with the evidence, one might understand why, although such cowardice is shameful.
 So, without further ado I will quote this document in its entirety so that what has been put to the Council can be in the public domain and no-one can pretend that they are not aware of the state of the evidence as it has been presented to the Inspector.


Comments on paper by Dave Haskins on NGT

To be presented at the West Yorkshire Transport Authority meeting on 26th September 2014.


Clause 2.8 refers to "previous consultations having shown support for NGT" but this "consultation" was for a very different scheme at a very different time. The current plans have minimal support from residents and small businesses along both the northern and southern sectors of the route. In fact several surveys have revealed overwhelming opposition to the current proposals.



Clause 2.13 indicates that the Promoters’ witnesses have claimed that the scheme meets its objectives and that there is a strong Policy fit. It does not mention that these claims have been very strongly disputed by objectorswho have pointed out that the proposers’ own analysis indicates that introduction of NGT would bring increases in greenhouse gas emissions, road casualties, average waiting times, car miles driven and car journey times, together with reductions in use of active modes and of rail.



Clause 2.13 also states that the Proposers’ witnesses have claimed that the business case is strong. However, it does not alert you to the fact that the revenue forecasts have been shown to be dependent on an assumption that people will be willing to pay more to travel on a trolleybus than to travel on a conventional bus or on a train. This assumption has been made despite the fact that surveys in Leeds in 2009 showed that there was no willingness to pay more to travel on a trolleybus.



If the revenue forecasts do not materialise, there is likely to be an ongoing call on funds from Leeds and/or the Combined Authority.



Appendix 1 states that typical journey times will be faster by NGT but does not point out that this relates only to the in-vehicle part of the journey; given the expected increases in average walking and waiting times, many journeys will take longer (door-to-door) if NGT is introduced.



Appendix 1 states that improved ride comfort will result from the scheme for its users. However during the Public Inquiry it has become clear that of the 160 passenger capacity being planned only 48 passengers will be seated and 110 passengers will be standing. Lack of seating has been found to be a major concern of public transport passengers.



Appendix 1 states that up to 4000 new jobs may be created if NGT is introduced but does not point out that this forecast was based on a model which took no regard of the increased car journey times caused by NGT and treated the supposed willingness to pay to travel on trolleybus vehicles as a fact.



Appendix 1 states that property and land prices will increase in value along the corridor. However, a very recent report by a leading Estate Agent in north west Leeds , issued into public domain, states totally the opposite impact -- a reduction in property values is to be expected.



It is no secret that DfT encouraged Metro to develop a high quality state of the art bus alternative after the demise of Supertram.  The choice of a trolley bus was Metro's decision not DfT's. The Inquiry has heard very strong criticism of the decision to choose an inflexible system which, given the speed of technological innovation in the bus industry, is likely to become obsolete within a few years.



                   **********************************

These are all very serious matters of which Mr Haskins seems almost oblivious.  The enquiry has been a litany of disasterous revelations for NGT, but neither they nor the Council seem willing to admit the truth that has been elicited over the last few months, and they persist in their delusionary attempt to impose this catastrophe upon Leeds.

When this is all buried, the people of Leeds need to be able to examine in close detail who has been responsible, over the last two decades and more, for the profligate expenditure of some £40m on both the failed 'Super' tram and its sequel, the even less viable trolleybus.

I think we shall see that certain people feature prominently and we shall all want to know why they have played so loose with the financial resources of our city.  If I know one or two of them as well as I think I do, I think we can probably expect a condescending lecture on how trolleybus was the answer to all our problems and they were doing the best for us, despite ignoring our wishes, even when it has been finally seen off as a nightmare scenario and a financial disaster waiting to happen.   


Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 51


Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry

Day 51


 Thursday 25th Sept 2014
 Here are the links to the audio recordings.

In the first morning session of Day 51 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thursday 25 September 2014, Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus is taken through his evidence in chief by Gregory Jones QC.


In the late morning session of Day 51 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thursday 25 September 2014, Gregory Jones QC continues to take Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus through his evidence in chief.

In the early afternoon session of Day 51 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thursday 25 September 2014, Gregory Jones QC concludes taking Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus through his evidence in chief and then Neil Cameron QC begins his cross examination on behalf of the Applicant for the TWO, NGT.


In the late afternoon session of Day 51 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thursday 25 September 2014, Neil Cameron QC continues his cross examination of Mr David Alexander, Regional Managing Director for First Bus on behalf of the Applicant for the TWO, NGT.

Thursday 25 September 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 50


Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry

Day 50


Wednesday 24 September 2014 

Links to audio recordings of today's sessions are linked here, and an extended blog follows to make up for some of the days I have missed giving commentary on recently.
In the first morning session of Day 50 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Wednesday 24 September 2014, Louise Howard Long and Chris Sheard for the Meanwood Valley Partnership present their cases of objection to the NGT scheme and there is some examination by Neil Cameron QC and the Inspector.

In the late morning session of Day 50 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Wednesday 24 September 2014, Mr Stephen Hammond and then Mr Stuart Archbold, private objectors, give their cases of objection to the NGT scheme and there is some examination by Neil Cameron QC and the Inspector.


In the early afternoon session of Day 50 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Wednesday 24 September 2014, Mr Malcolm Bell and then Mr Martin Fitzsimons give their cases of objection to the NGT scheme and there is some examination by Neil Cameron QC and the Inspector.

In the late afternoon session of Day 50 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Wednesday 24 September 2014 Claire Randall first represents the cases for four others and then delivers her own case and is questioned on some points by the Inspector.


I should apologise to my readers for getting behind with these blogs and missing a few.  It is quite challenging at times to try to keep up with the relentless and gruelling pace of the schedule even if one is only reviewing audio recordings in one’s own time.  This would not be possible should those objectors who assist me with this project did not help so faithfully, for which I have immense gratitude.

We have moved on to the objectors and their evidence now that all the witnesses for NGT have been cross examined, a process which at times seemed never ending.

I am truly impressed with the quality of the presentations of virtually all those objectors I have heard so far, and that is not just because they are objectors and on my side, but because when I hear them speak I always learn something new and which gives a deeper insight into how this would affect people if it was allowed to proceed.

Yesterday we had Deborah Fahey speaking for the Whitfields community who would suffer a major, indeed catastrophic, impact on their community space, and Professor Christopher Todd giving a superb presentation with slides about the effects on local environments of trolleybuses in cities where they still exist and comparing these with how such a project could affect our own local mature heritage environments here in north west Leeds.

Among the other cases yesterday were two from West Park from residents adjacent to Weetwood Court whose representatives were the first private objectors to give their cases before the last break.  The people behind these objections stand to lose parts of the places they call home and have their lives entirely disrupted. 

I was told today that measurements of distances between the houses and boundary walls which had been discussed yesterday had been checked by the Inspector yesterday evening.  The NGT survey map which had indicated a distance of 10m was now I understand shown to be incorrect and that the distance was closer to the 7m held by the objector, thus the loss of nearly two meters from the garden would have had a much more major effect.

This is a theme which I would like to develop a bit more ~ the simple incompetence of the people at NGT trying to promote the trolleybus scheme. 

But first I will comment on a powerful witness who spoke today.  I was not surprised to hear the evidence of Mr Stuart Archbold today when he averred there had been machinations behind the scenes based on political motives of Metro (now WYCA) wishing to increase its power and not for any good reasons of improving transport, but I was impressed with the vehemence in his delivery.

‘This has to stop, and it has to stop NOW!’ he said, I believe more than once.

The passion, and indeed anger, with which he spoke demonstrated to me that he had gone through some kind of awakening process with regard to understanding what was going on and which could surely be the only reason behind his evisceration of the whole scheme from start to finish.  He said ‘A lot has happened since January’.  And while he did not deny to Mr Cameron’s question that he had indeed supported Supertram once, he was quite clear that he had entirely changed his position on this admitting freely that he had been ‘politically correct’ in toeing the line which had been expected of him seven or eight years ago.  I was glad to hear this not only to see a whistleblower on this case, but also because political correctness has infiltrated its Orwellian tentacles into the very fabric or our society and is ripe for denunciation and rejection.  Toe the party line, conform…  No thankyou, we’ll consider the evidence and make up our own minds if you don’t mind.

Rather than seeing a U-turn as a sign of weakness as the mainstream so often seek to do, I admire the courage of someone who has the courage to step out of line when they realise that the imposed consensus is not workable.  And if you have an unworkable system, such as existed in the old Soviet Union, then people within it have to squeeze their minds into ever more maladaptive channels which in themselves are unworkable.

If you have been following this in any detail you will know that the trolleybus scheme reads like something from bizarro-land.  And I am encouraged to understand from my contacts that our friends at Skyscraper City forum, whom I am led to believe are a collection of local property developers and the like, have been quiet and been in abeyance from their former sniping.  Not one of them has yet dared to make a comment on this blog despite their former gossip about me on their own forum pages.  It must be a position in which one feels severe cognitive dissonance, having the truth put in front of you every day with the recordings of the evidence that this is a scheme from an Idiocracy but firmly trying to cling to the flimsy justifications for their own profiteering agenda.

I am indeed massively biased.  Massively biased against incompetence, waste, deception, destruction and all the other unnecessary evils which Leeds CC and Metro/ WYCA is trying to impose on Leeds.

Nigh on every level at which you encounter or examine this beast, you find slipshod work and unprepared positions.  From the first consultation event I went to in December nearly two years ago where the maps all had north pointing to five o’clock and were jumbled up in order along the wall like a scrambled jigsaw so that viewers couldn’t get a coherent picture of the route or the impact, to the little episode I had today when I was giving my evidence.

The promoters have known since the before the beginning of the Enquiry that I had some audio visual evidence I wanted to present and that I would need not only a projector, such as has been used by other objectors, but also an audio device attached. 

I was going to say ‘incredibly the NGT technician couldn’t even open my files in a media player on the laptop’ but then, it isn’t incredible with these people to find that they were ignorant of something they should have prepared weeks ago. 

And there is a somewhat ironic parallel with some of the evidence which I gave today.  Forgive me for expanding on my own case in the blog, but this is the one chance I have for this.

Much of the force of my case was focussed on the, what to me at least, seems an almost transparent case of deliberately trying to keep information in the dark in an attempt to prevent people from finding it out and, one assumes, acting on it.

From the attempted refusal of Freedom of Information requests to see the consultation feedback to the refusal of Leeds City Council/ Metro/ WYCA/ NGT to provide any recording of the proceedings in any format, digital or analogue, written, audio or visual.

I was reading about the Public Enquiry after the Titanic disaster the other day.  A verbatim transcript was made of every question and every answer over the entire proceedings.  That was a century ago with none of the technology we have at our disposal today.  And yet, the drivers behind this scheme are prepared to use neither Pitman shorthand, a stenographer, nor digital recording devices.  Actions speak louder than words, and it is clear how the ruling class of Leeds see this Enquiry ~ they would like to see it disappear without trace and be utterly forgotten, whether they win or lose.  And this is because, if they were to win, they would not want to have the evidence hanging around demonstrating what a disaster-waiting-to-happen the trolleybus was, when it became that disaster.  And if they lose they will just want everyone to forget that they wasted £40m in planning and development costs for a project on the A660 route over twenty years or so.  That’s £30m on the Supertram and the £10m that has been spent on the trolleybus along a functionally identical route and which is basically a scaled down tram.

They will just want it to go away and not have some awkward internet archive of the fiasco being replayed to them by an irate public demanding why they have got our city deep into debt with a project that could be seen to be a failure well in advance, while having destroyed some of the best parts of our city.

When I began the recordings it was because I believed that it was an important principle of democracy that people should know what was being said about such an important issue to our city.  It could have all gone wrong for the objectors.  The evidence for the trolleybus could have all been tip top sparkling convincing stuff which made the Inspector smile, while Mr Jones and the objectors tried in vain to assail the impregnable heights of the noble and majestic Castle NGT.  If that had been the truth, then so be it that nimbys such as myself and my luddite co-objectors be crushed like bugs beneath the wheels of progress and the trolleybus.  Our determination to have transparent coverage of the proceedings would have been our downfall.

But this is so far from the case that has unfolded before us, or perhaps I should say, unravelled.  An endless series of items which apparently don’t need to be calculated at this stage but which the Promoter is utterly confident can be nicely fitted into the planning, development and construction budget, an endless series of judgements, views, taking it in the round and looking at the big picture and an endless series of pieces of evidence which are presented in such a way as to deviate from the official guidance for best practice in these matters.

No wonder the powers that have driven this wish that it would all just sink like the Titanic, and not be remembered as that poor vessel was, as the most famous maritime disaster in the world, or in this case public transport disaster.

And so the core focus of my evidence today was on the egregious and unconscionable withholding of these proceedings from being recorded and archived in the public domain.  If important information is withheld which would affect people, it is an immoral act to participate in that action, especially if by doing so one gains personal advantage at the other’s expense.

So it would appear that the Promoters are both conspirators and incompetent at the same time.  No false choice needs to be posed between alternatives when both are true.

The promoters of this scheme are attempting the basic propaganda technique of control of information supply.  But in seeking to exclude the people from awareness of what is going on, they have abdicated any moral authority that they may claim to have once had and demonstrated that they are not ethically competent for the tasks they seek to carry out.  It is their intention to control and dominate the population by information control and then do as they wish.  This is actually a war on the citizens of our fair city, their minds and their sense of reality, psychological warfare.  But it is good to find that a sense of awareness and justice is alive in the spirit of our citizens which is determined not to allow this travesty to proceed.
                                      ******************8
Here are the two videos which the NGT team had known were due to be played in evidence at the Enquiry but which they were incapable of showing.


This is Document 3 in my supporting documents list for my statement of case in my objection to the proposed NGT Leeds Trolleybus System at the Public Enquiry starting on 29 April 2014.

Subject: New Generation Transport in Leeds
Ref no. TWA/13/APP/04/OBJ/998

This video recording was taken on the 12 May 2013 at Leeds Civic Hall where a Public Meeting to discuss the proposed NGT trolleybus scheme was held.

Here Cllr James Lewis says:

'The bulk of the cost of this scheme is going on building the park and ride sites, building depots and building the physical infrastructure. The actual poles and wires and buses are in the order of 10 per cent of the scheme, and 90 per cent is doing the other things to make the buses flow freely and make them segregated from traffic'



This is Document 3a in my supporting documents list for my statement of case in my objection to the proposed NGT Leeds Trolleybus System at the Public Enquiry starting on 29 April 2014.

Subject: New Generation Transport in Leeds
Ref no. TWA/13/APP/04/OBJ/998.

This video recording was taken on the 5 June 2013 at the Headingley Heart Centre, where a Public Meeting to discuss the proposed NGT trolleybus scheme was held, hosted by Cllrs Richard Lewis and James Lewis.

Cllr Richard Lewis says that 'the whole NGT scheme is actually far more of a highways scheme than a scheme about a method of public transport'

This is an applicable document for my Statement of Case in the Public Enquiry to be held starting 29 April 2014
http://www.persona.uk.com/LTVS/OPs/RE...
(This link seems to have gone down, so I shall have to look into that)
I have posted this video document here on YouTube as the pdf file referenced above does not have a live link to this important evidence for the Public Enquiry.

Wednesday 24 September 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 49


Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry

Day 49




Tuesday 23 September 2014


Here are the links to the audio recordings for Day 49 of the Trolleybus Enquiry.  We are now getting into the Objectors and the pace is changing up a gear somewhat after the slow wearing away of the examination of the NGT witnesses over the last 48 days.

In the first morning session of Day 49 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, 23rd Sept 2014, Deborah Fahey of the Whitfields Against The Trolleybus group gives her evidence against the NGT scheme and is examined by Mr Walton for the Applicant and the Inspector, Mr Martin Whitehead.

In the late morning session of Day 49 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, 23rd Sept 2014, Professor Christopher Todd gives his statement of case in objection to the proposed NGT scheme and is examined by Mr Walton for the Applicant and then by the Inspector Mr Martin Whitehead.  Ms Elizabeth Reather for Leeds Cycle Action begins but is deferred to after the lunch break for circulation of documents.

In the early afternoon session of Day 49 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, 23rd Sept 2014, Ms Elizabeth Reather, on behalf of Leeds Cycle Action, gives their case for objection to the NGT scheme and is then examined by Neil Cameron QC and the Inspector, Mr Martin Whitehead. Following this Mrs Christine Perry gives evidence on behalf of Mrs Betty Claughton, a resident of West Park who would stand to lose part of her front garden to the road widening proposed by the scheme.  Questions follow from Mr Walton and the Inspector.


In the late afternoon session of Day 49 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, 23rd Sept 2014, evidence is given by Mr Doug Kemp on behalf of Mrs Bell, a resident of West Park whose property would be affected by the required works for the scheme, Ms Emma Stewart who amongst other concerns addresses disable access issues and Mr Ken Torode, a local resident who addresses discrimination against elderly passengers’ access to the scheme.  There is some cross examination by counsel for the Applicant.