Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 4th July 2009 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

High time to deliver on promise of tram chaos compensation



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: 20 March 2008
Traders are overdue a reduction in their rates, maintains Graham Russell.
PROMISES were made at the end of 2006 that all businesses – especially the many small business – on the route of the tram works, would be granted temporary business rate reductions of between 20-80 per cent for the entire period of the disruption in
any one street.

These pledges were to help offset the inevitable major reductions in traders' turnovers and profits and help them survive. But we are now faced with the completely unacceptable situation whereby the promises made to Edinburgh's business community have been shattered.

Eighteen months on, the organisations that created the scheme can't even agree amongst themselves the fine detail of what was agreed. There's even a denial that a business rates reduction scheme was agreed at all. On October 31 2006, TIE said in a press release: "A groundbreaking support package has been announced today between TIE, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and Edinburgh City Council," it said. "The standard reduction will be 20 per cent. Greater reductions may be applied in the cases of most severe disturbance."

In October 2007 the Lothian Assessors Department told me to my horror that "the tram works are simply normal roadworks and therefore do not merit a business rate reduction". In November 2007 at meetings organised by the FSB and jointly attended by Edinburgh Chambers, TIE, the city council finance department and the assessors' department, the failure to implement the previous year's rates agreement was discussed. The Chamber of Commerce and the council both agreed all retail properties on the tram route should be receiving business rate reductions of between 20-80 per cent for the whole period of the works in any one street.

TIE's understanding of the same agreement was that the assessor would only grant a fixed 20 per cent reduction, and then only while there were holes directly in front of the individual businesses. The assessors' department said it had not made any agreement tto guarantee a reduction in business rates. After significant persuasion by the FSB, Edinburgh Chambers and the council, the Lothian assessor agreed to grant 20 per cent business rate cuts in Leith Walk, but only while there were holes directly in front of the premises.

From our survey of Leith Walk, most businesses have suffered reductions in their turnover in excess of 50 per cent every week for the past nine months. If these are not "cases of most severe disturbance" meriting the agreed rates reduction of up to 80 per cent, then what is?

In December 2006, I stated in this newspaper that the savings from the temporary business rates reduction scheme would not buy a "prawn sandwich". I wish now I had suggested stale cheese as the filling.

Graham Russell is chairman of the FSB Edinburgh branch





The full article contains 480 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Arfur,

20/03/2008 11:43:45
Typical hootsman -

'Eighteen months on, the organisations that created the scheme can't even agree amongst themselves the fine detail of what was agreed'

Not one mention of it being Labour that concucted this waste of time and money.

Had this been an SNP idea, their name would have been all over this and in the title.
2

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 20/03/2008 12:11:28
Would it be too late to cancel this white elephant?
What a pointless waste of money!

I remain convinced that this was pushed through by the opposition parties to spend the huge sum of £500M for the SNP Government, further reducing their financial freedom on top of the pathetically small settlement from London.

The lyrics Proclaimers song "Cap in Hand" spring to mind.
3

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 20/03/2008 12:16:33
As I've said previously, I have no problem with rate reductions while the work is going on, as long as the same people are willing to pay higher rates when trams bring more people to their businesses.
4

Kieron,

Stirling / Edinburgh 20/03/2008 13:25:28
Probably the biggest farce ever to hit Edinburgh. It's going to be a long and tiring road and for what? A pathetic little tram line leading practically nowhere!

A black disgrace!
5

MacHibee,

20/03/2008 14:34:57
By my calculations, £500mil divided by the residents of Edinburgh would be about £1000 each. Can i have £1000 please?
6

calum,

20/03/2008 15:52:12
Nurse! Nurse! Harrington at #3 is oot o' his bed again!
7

Merouane,

Edinburgh 20/03/2008 16:28:10
#12. At national level, I can only see the SNP's lead over Labour widening.

Unless we see a big turnaround from the Lib Dem/SNP group, I can see Labour doing better in the next council elections though. Perhaps forming a coalition with the Tories.
8

Top Floor,

20/03/2008 17:05:23
To all SNP hacks - your government have now endorsed and backed this project. Indeed, they have gone further by proposing a new rail station at Gogar to link Edinburgh Airport with the rest of Scotlands rail network via the tram link.

I also strongly suspect that the SNP locally will soften their stance in the next few months to join ALL the other parties, locally and nationally, that support this scheme.

I know you won't like it but thems the facts !



9

John Knox furr First Meenister,

High St, Embra 20/03/2008 19:09:31
What a load of heads in the sand tosh here. Aye. No me, though. I can see the future and its not buses and cars, believe me. Aye. Petrol will be way too expensive. Biofuels are naewhere cos we'll need the food.
Building a network of trams and railways is the only way, so why not start now, even with one rubbish wee line. You'd think we were the only city in the world to be investing in transport.
10

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 20/03/2008 22:40:20
Strangest thing about this story is the suggestion that ANYBODY actually believed a lying word TIE ever said. They're still making their plans up as they go along, 'managing' the project by spin and press releases. Despite their assurances of small, controlled sections, we now have Haymarket to the Foot of Leith Walk looking like the Battle of the Somme. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in their Boardroom, but it will all come out in time.
11

,

21/03/2008 00:19:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

desparate,

EDINBURGH 21/03/2008 10:20:20
#8
Could not bear another labour government in Scotland
think i will slit my wrists if that happens.
And I dont vote SNP by the way
13

Euan,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 15:43:02
I tell you what, I wouldn't be surprised if there are not already several law suits being drawn-up against TIE regarding their diabolical and shambolic handling of the compensation due local businesses for the huge losses they are taking during the construction of this idiotic tram line.

PEOPLES LIVLIHOODS are at stake here and it would appear no-one gives two hoots about them.

A total disgrace..


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is the £100,000 expenses bill racked up by trams chiefs justifiable?
Yes, most of the claims look reasonable
No, they’ve got their noses in the trough
No, the whole project should be scrapped

Featured Advertising



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.