Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Developer told to pay £500k towards trams

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 December 2008
DEVELOPERS hoping to open the first new hotel on Princes Street for more than 50 years have been told to pay almost half-a-million pounds towards Edinburgh's tram scheme.
Belfast-based firm Deramore, which has run into opposition from heritage groups over its proposals, has been warned it will not receive planning permission unless it agrees the "tram levy".

The news has emerged as council leaders insist funding is
in place for the first phase of the tram scheme, despite fears about the impact of the economic downturn and a series of delays hitting major works.

The city council is relying on developer contributions to make up the bulk of the £45 million it has pledged to commit to the tram scheme.

Although it has only received £3 million, some form of agreement has already been reached over another £9 million.

Deramore is thought to be the first to be asked to contribute to the £512 million trams project for any development on Princes Street. But other developers bringing forward proposals under the city council's "string of pearls" plan to revitalise Princes Street face having to pay similar contributions.

Negotiations are taking place with Henderson, the company planning an £850 million revamp of the St James shopping centre and the neighbouring former Scottish Office.

A £2 million contribution has been agreed with the developers of a £200 million hotel development in the Haymarket area.

City council officials yesterday insisted the authority and its tram firm TIE were not concerned about the level of developer contributions confirmed to date.

The Scottish Government has capped its contribution at £500 million and the council has to come up with any additional funding above that.

Tens of millions are expected to be generated by developments along the city's waterfront, with Forth Ports expected to have to pay some £30 million for the regeneration of Leith docks.

One senior property industry insider warned the amount of money being asked for developments in the city centre risked turning away potential investors, particularly during the credit crunch.

Roy Durie, a director at planning agents Ryden, said: "This does seem quite a lot for a development on Princes Street. The council's demands for a tram tax will put people off and I would imagine the council is going to face a number of legal challenges over the next couple of years."

However, Councillor Phil Wheeler, the capital's transport leader, said: "Developers are well aware of the benefits that being located on a tram line bring and despite economic downturn, sites are still actively being pursued along the route.

"When any new development comes to fruition, a contribution to the transport network is sought, but given the economic impact associated with being adjacent to the tram it's reasonable to expect developers to contribute more."

The last hotel to be built on Princes Street was the Mount Royal in 1955.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Conan the Librarian™,

09/12/2008 00:26:35
A Tram tax.

Will they get a stop?
2

M.T.,

09/12/2008 00:36:13
Anyone paying a tram tax is off their trolley.
3

drunken proffet,

Tassy 09/12/2008 01:09:02
I reckon not only a stop but a wee shed with a roof, seats and a view of the Castle. A bargain at half the price.
4

marko87,

Dundee 09/12/2008 01:11:40
Is there any other country in the world that would 1)Take 3+ years to complete a relatively simple infrastructure project and 2) scare off developers with a tram tax instead of using the trams to attract investment and rejuvinate the city?!
5

,

09/12/2008 01:12:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Guga II,

Rockall 09/12/2008 02:02:36
This all sounds like out and out blackmail to me. I reckon that developers will be giving serious consideration to moving to Glasgow to avoid such blackmail.
7

Edward,

09/12/2008 02:29:10
For that kind of money the developers should be insisting on having a sheltered tram stop, with built in heaters (they are actually available and being trialed in Chicago this winter)
8

Pilrig.,

Livingston 09/12/2008 05:43:39
TIE's running oot of money.......
9

Anonym,

09/12/2008 05:43:59
Surely the tram project is on budget!
10

Mallory,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 05:44:40
No Guga - the developers will agree and then claim that the economic situation means that they can only make payments in stages - dependent on whatever conditions they decide.

It has already been done by developers - ask the Duke of Westminster.
11

Goggsie #,

Fife 09/12/2008 05:56:07
While you hypocrites (#1-#6)are now plugged in to your REM sleep, I ask myself, who on earth do you lot want to pay for the tram project? For months now you've been whining on about how the Edinburgh residents are going to foot the bill, and when we now learn that some of the cash is to be borne by developers (a breed of folk you mostly despise), you go all protective on them.

Well done Councillor Phil Wheeler, screw as much as you can out of those developers.

12

calum,

09/12/2008 06:23:31
Can someone please explain the logic behind the tram going along Princes Straat at all? Photogenic it might be, but this is supposed to be a transport solution, not a postcard opportunity. When Edinburgh holds its Festivals, Calvacades, Hogmanay Party, parades, demos etc. etc., the very solution to its transport problem will have its main artery severed because Princes Street will be closed! Madness.
13

roadstohell,

09/12/2008 07:16:06
"stand & deliver!"
14

Euan,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 07:23:29
Ha!

This is exactly what I pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the prospect of these new hotels was first mentioned in The Evening News.

The article was all 'woo hoo, aren't the trams great, they're bringing loads of investment to central Edinburgh'

What utter nonsense.

What the article did not mention at all was the massive contributions the developers would be forced to make to the ridiculous tram project.

The muppets who are forcing this tram LINE upon us all really are clutching at straws here. If you're going to drive away potential investment from Princes St, then this is the way to do it..
15

,

09/12/2008 07:39:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Grumpy,

09/12/2008 08:02:51
Deramore should stick two fingers up at the council and walk away
17

eric,

lothian 09/12/2008 08:10:02
Edinburgh is closed go away.
18

Goggsie #,

09/12/2008 08:13:16
#12
That's a very good point. Ask Phil, he's in charge.

#14
If it took 50 years to get the developers to build a new hotel, you can't blame it all on the present or previous city administration, that kind of decay goes way back to the Tory admin. With such a low frequency of investment the developers have to be shafted so that local government can provide all its useful services, trams etc....

19

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/12/2008 08:15:58
Do you get your name on a tram for £500,000? Deramore Princess sounds OKfinoky. We'll be tramming from the Heights of Wester Hailes to the beaches of Sportobollokie. There's no limit to the extension when the funds are in place.
20

Boy Wonder,

09/12/2008 09:14:36
The trams will be the ruination of Edinburgh ... and it started about a year ago.
21

Dragonlord,

09/12/2008 09:25:34
Quote:
has been warned it will not receive planning permission unless it agrees the "tram levy".

This IS blackmail. No way would anyone else get away with this.
As for making developers pay it may look good on the outside but when you think about it developers ( in the present climate) don't need extra expence on top of everything else. This is just stupidity, they will simply go elsewhere.
22

Leila,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 09:38:31
So if the developer pays up, does that mean planning permission is guaranteed? This stinks of corruption.
23

KWC,

Edinburgh (but not on a tram line) 09/12/2008 09:48:43
The developers might realise the benefits of being on a tram line, but I bet the retailers don't. They have been truly shafted.
24

11+failed,

the pans 09/12/2008 09:54:51
The developer should refuse to be blackmailed,if they walk away I expect Lidl or Aldi could be persuaded to take over the site if the council relaxed its parking restrictions!
25

Justy,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 10:52:13
#24. Should the developer walk away tney are simply saying that they had no real interest in the first place.
Justy.
26

Luke Skywalker,

Tram land 09/12/2008 11:06:14
23 If the retailers do not realise the ultimate benefit of being on the tram line (please please upgrade to a proper system) then their business acumen is not astute. When the upheaval of construction is over they will reap the rewards. I used the Manchester tram line recently from out of town hotel to city centre and is was excellent. The retailers on that tram line are doing well. I support the tram.
27

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 11:06:38
This is a dead duck. Scrap it now. It is outrageous that businesses should be expected to foot the bill for this daft train set.

I have a feeling that the council really does want to kill Edinburgh.

More importantly, why was this "tram tax" not spelled out and made clear BEFORE they started the project?
28

ddmc,

09/12/2008 11:10:29
no planning permission unless you contribute to the trams, seems an illegal form of coercion, but possibly more legal than the old broon envelope :)
29

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 11:14:47
Luke,

The roads along which the Manchester trams run are on the whole, a great deal wider than the roads in Edinburgh.

You can get from an out-of town hotel into the city centre in edinburgh at the moment using a No 100 bus. If you want to get there quicker, you take the car and if you want to get there really fast, you ride a motorbike.

There is no need for this wildly expensive white elephant. Edinburgh has far more important things to spend money on than a glorified train set.
30

gggrumpy,

09/12/2008 11:18:20
I wish to build a complete monstrocity on Princes Street.
The cooncil say, " No way".
I say here is half a million towards the trams.
The cooncil say, " on you go".

Is this legal?????????????????????
31

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 11:36:02
#30:

Probably not but since when has the small matter of things being legal got in the way of stupid labour (and SNP) policy?
32

Arfur,

09/12/2008 11:44:27
Well thats one way of bringing investment to Edinburgh.

Next they will be charging the pipe player for a couple of bob.
33

Destroy the Planet,

09/12/2008 11:46:32
Its because the snp in edinburgh are all ex labour turncoats, corruption and racketeering is in there blood.
34

Arfur,

09/12/2008 12:17:08
33 Destroy the Planet - everything re the trams is due to Labour you tool. Now go away and let the adults who actually know things discuss the topics of the day.
35

11+failed,

the pans 09/12/2008 13:17:46
There seem to be a few deluded souls on here who think that the clientele of a decent hotel are going to arrive on a tram carrying half a dozen suitcases. Even the airport bus is better equipped to accommodate luggage
36

Rap,

09/12/2008 13:28:43
Paying a tram tax may guarentee planning approval (just like Tiger Towers at Haymarket, which I sure was meant to be £4m not £2m). But because of that tax, and the fact the Council sold the land to the developers, it has now been called in for a public inquiry by the Government. So, Planning Dept, your blackmail is not always successful!
37

williamx,

Vancouver, Canada 09/12/2008 13:30:48
Are you guys off your nuts? All of Vancouver is served by electric trolly busses as well as regular busses. We don't dig up streets, relocate services etc. The electric trolly busses do not tie up traffic as they pull into the sidewalk (pavement) to let off passengers. I think you need to investigate who got paid off or the mental and business capacity of whoever dreamed this up.
38

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 13:43:14
#38:

No williamx, most of us are not off our nuts. The people who are "off their nuts" are the ones who think that installing a light railway in an already congested city, along roads that are barely wide enough to take them is a good idea.

That is of course notwithstanding the fact that a large proportion of small businesses will be made to suffer greatly during the process of installation.

The ones who are off their nuts in the UK are in fact the stupid labour party. Although I must admit that in Scotland however, the SNP (mostly ex-labour) are not much better.
39

Rap,

09/12/2008 13:43:17
A survey of the mass transit methods for Edinburgh Edinburgh was carried out by the Waterfront developers, and their conclusion was a tram because they wanted a tram. They wanted a tram and said they wouldn't develop there without a tram, so we get a tram and not a trolley bus.
40

Martin_edinburgh,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 14:52:48
If I was asked to invest 500,000K in a project, I'd expect a share of the profits. Doubt the incompetent, avaricious Council have offered them that.
41

Council Insider,

Council HQ 09/12/2008 15:56:13
#14. Euan could you tell me what the lottery numbers will be tomorrow night. It's a Rollover.
42

Fraz 0810,

Dunfermline 09/12/2008 16:25:06
#22 - Planning contributions are not corruption, but a well understood and commonly used tool in driving through planning consents. In essence, the developer signs a section 75 legal agreement, which ties to the land and the planning consent is released, once it is engrossed - a very normal process. I cannot take issue with the councils request, as the issue of developer contributions had been highlighted within planning guidance/policy, at the outset of the project and it would be unlikely in the extreme that the developer was not aware of the contribution levels and in any event, would certainly have been made aware at the initial pre-application discussions.
However, what is disturbing is the council's willingness to ask for contributions that are unrelated to the development. In strict legal terms, a developer is required to mitigate the impact of their development on local services - which is why we see community centres, schools, road improvements etc. However, how can the council reasonably claim that the creation of a tram line is in any way related to the decision to develop/build houses/flats/hotels/shops etc. in the city centre - the two exist entirely separately. Even allowing for the economic benefit of locating next to a tram line, there is no legal basis for asking for these contributions.
That said, you should understand that the developer does not actually pay these contributions, as the level of contribution would have been deducted from the value of the development site, thus, the landowner pays. Unless the developer is totally ignorant of the situation, I would imagine any legal deal would be suspensive on receiveing a satisfactory planning consent, which appears not to be the case - result: another dead project! Well done ECC!
43

Rap,

09/12/2008 16:37:38
Fraz, this issue of tram tax is very different from planning gain. As you say, planning gain is used to improve the local area, pay for adjustments to traffic, lighting etc. This is clearly a separate cost. And I don't think it's as easy as payment during land purchase, as the official tram go ahead was given after somewhere like Haymarket was sold.

However, I'm sure the retail properties along the tram route will no doubt benefit from the proximity, so if they are a successful business they will make the money back. The issue, for me, is not that the Council request the tax at all, it's that it is in any way connected to a planning application. No wonder people assume there is dodgy dealing. It should be an entirely separate issue and then there can be no accusations of planners only approving developments to get the tram tax.
44

Fraz 0810,

Dunfermline 09/12/2008 17:28:05
Rap#44 - I think we are both saying exactly the same thing. The problem is that ECC (as well as a number of other LA's) seem to think they can tag on any contribution they please and the development industry has to pay. You say that the tram tax and planning gain are entirely separate, but they are not! If the council seek a planning gain, whether it be as a physical project or through a negotiated contribution, in order to release a planning consent, then it is something else, in name only. The tram tax is, by definition, a planning gain, because it is being tied inextricably to the relase of a planning consent, through the s.75 process. The fact that one is called a tax and one a gain is irrelevant, because all planning gains are, in effect, a tax on development.

In this instance, I think the developer would be best placed to go for a deemed refusal, and bring the matter to the scottish govt for determination - that would be an interesting test case.
45

Seb,

09/12/2008 23:26:31
The tram contributions are old news, where on earth have you all been the past few years??? Developers have been paying them, the rate depending on your proximity to the tram line.
46

Seb,

09/12/2008 23:28:10
Here's a link to the guidance ya numpties.

http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/DQ_Guidelines/Tram_Developer_Contr.pdf
47

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 09/12/2008 23:42:28
Seb (47) - Developers have agreed to pay contributions but have not actually paid them yet, with only £3m having been banked to date. I don't think they are required to pay the contributions until their development has been built.

Given that the Council were expecting, I believe £29m to have been collected from developers as part of its £45m share of construction costs, and that other sources of funds, such as sale of Council land, have dropped in value, this leaves the Council with something of a headache and a £42m hole to fill.


48

Goggsie #,

10/12/2008 00:53:44
#34
My hypocrisy comment was directed towards the first 6 contributors, and as you can see, you are not amongst them.

As regards the tram, I am in favour of it. I'm in favour of it because it's a clean green energy solution and can be expanded fairly cheaply, as has been the case in every city it's been installed. I realise intially there will be a great deal of disruption to traffic flows, but thereafter very little. I'm disappointed with the proposed routes, but accept that they can be expanded as demand is identified. You obviously feel strongly against the trams, but it's a done and dusted issue which will not be cancelled no matter how much you write comments to the Hootsman.
49

Papa? Nicole! Papa?,

10/12/2008 11:05:15
#50

Clean green? I think not - what powers them? It's just pushing the pollution to somewhere outside the city.

Expanded cheaply? Have you seen the costs of the first line? Are you including the costs to local businesses, and the time increase in commutes round the roadworks?

The only thing that will stop the trams is if we hang the swine that forced them upon us from a lamppost using piano wire. Too long have the people of Edinburgh accepted this sort of nonsense from the council. They work for us, and need to be reminded of that.
50

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 10/12/2008 15:54:18
This payment request is a sham and makes a mockery of the budgeted cost of trams. Presumably the council could ask for money for whatever reason for new businesses movin in. To allocate it to the tram overspend is just masking the true cost of the tram fiasco, when the money could have been better used elsewhere.

Where are SNP in this - times have changed since the SNP rubber stamped this, they must take their role seriously and do something about this white elephant.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 

Today's Vote

Should TIE be spending time Twittering and using social networking sites?
Yes, many people communicate this way now
No, it’s just another form of spin
No, it should focus on getting the work done on time


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.