![]() |
||||||||||||
| Environmentally friendly? | ||||||||||||
|
The tram is promoted as 'environmentally friendly'. This is not true for the CW Route. It will completely destroy one Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and have serious impact on a second SINC and an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest). The alternative CQD Route does none of these things. The CW route is opposed by the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and English Nature (see More information: Letters of Objection to CW). NWT state that this route 'would result in irreparable damage to a significant wildlife resource in the area'. They consider that this route is inconsistent with the Nottingham City Local Plan, the Rushcliffe Local Plan, the Nature Conservation Strategy for the City of Nottingham (2000-2005) and the statutory protection provided to SSSIs and SINCs. |
||||||||||||
| Which environmental bodies support the CW route? | ||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Trams are 'as quiet as a milk float' |
||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||
| The proposed route is an old railway alignment so it's OK for a tram isn't it? | ||||||||||||