Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Official Report 499KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Aberdeen Harbour Revision Order 2016 [Draft]

Item 3 is evidence on the draft Aberdeen Harbour Revision Order 2016. I welcome Humza Yousaf, Minister for Transport and the Islands, and Scottish Government officials Chris Wilcock, who is head of ports and harbours, and Magdalene Boyd, who is a solicitor.

The instrument is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before its provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, under the next agenda item the committee will be invited to consider a motion to recommend approval of the instrument. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you, convener. The expansion of Aberdeen harbour is a nationally significant project, as is indicated by its inclusion in the third national planning framework. It will benefit the economy of the north-east and Scotland as a whole, as support for the oil and gas industry moves into a new phase in the North Sea. It will enable the harbour to expand out of its city centre constraints and provide state-of-the-art facilities to current and new market customers. Aberdeen Harbour Board plans to invest around £400 million in the project.

Our environmental advisers considered the proposal in detail and concluded that, with mitigation in place, there will not be a significant effect on the environment. I will approve the construction and environmental management document, which will ensure mitigation, prior to work commencing. I am aware that some local objections remain, but I am satisfied that the board is working with Aberdeen City Council to improve local amenities, to compensate for loss of green space in Nigg Bay, through the mitigation plan. The recently signed Aberdeen city deal will support infrastructure improvements around the new harbour, but the full cost of the harbour construction will be met by the harbour board.

I commend the draft order to the committee and I am ready to take questions from members.

Thank you.

Minister, I understand that planning permission has been granted for the landward-side works and that the revision order that we are considering is for the seaward-side works—to put it in layman’s terms. Is that correct?

Some work is commencing, but the main work that has to be conducted in the sea cannot commence until I, as the minister, approve the construction and environmental management document. That is correct.

What is your view on the level of scrutiny that is afforded to that work, compared with the other works?

The level of scrutiny over the work that will take place in the sea is great. The main objections, which came from Scottish Natural Heritage, the council, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, other environmental organisations and individual objectors, were about the environmental impacts on a number of species, from salmon to bottlenose dolphins, with many in between. Therefore, the level of scrutiny and mitigation work that is being done is vast. It is important that that is done, to give the necessary reassurance.

RSPB Scotland sent a letter, which also went to Marine Scotland and to Transport Scotland, which is in your remit, in which it talked about eider ducks, terns, kittiwakes and cetaceans—or dolphins, as you and I would call them—and the habitat management plan. On the environmental statement, it seems to me that engagement has worked quite well. Can you confirm that there has been good engagement?

Yes, I think that the engagement has been very positive. Organisations such as the RSPB put in objections, and colleagues in the Government worked closely with them to give the necessary reassurance that mitigation would be put in place to lessen the environmental impact. The objections were then withdrawn.

The real test will be the detail in the construction and environmental management document. Paragraph 2(d) of the schedule to article 29 sets out the 13 management plans that are required. They include a marine mammal protection plan, an otter protection plan, a fish species protection plan and a habitat management plan. There is a lot of detail going in, which I hope will reassure organisations such as the RSPB and SNH.

Clearly it has, because on the basis of those reassurances the RSPB withdrew its objection. As a general principle, would you commend this way of approaching major developments?

Yes, I would commend it. It is fair to say that we have learned from previous infrastructure projects in which the level of engagement was not as thorough. We are always learning. This is a good model, but that is not to say that everything has been ticked off. As I said, I am waiting to see some documents before the work can be signed off, but the level of engagement has been good and it should be replicated.

Finally, minister, you talked about the benefit to the economy and you specifically mentioned oil and gas. I appreciate that it might be outwith your remit, but can you comment on the potential of the project for securing jobs in the renewables sector and in decommissioning, which will become increasingly important?

You are absolutely right. That would be a decision for AHB, and is a conversation that it could more extensively have, but there is certainly potential.

We are all aware of the difficulties facing the North Sea oil and gas sector. AHB is looking to diversify, so servicing decommissioning is certainly part of its plans. AHB is also looking at other business opportunities such as cruise vessels—that is important. There is no reason why AHB should not be looking towards renewables; I am sure that they will be part of the plan, but I cannot say that they absolutely are. Oil and gas will continue to be important, but AHB will be looking closely at any opportunities to diversify business.

My question is about process; it would be useful to get the minister’s response on the record.

Can the minister confirm that, in the event that Parliament approves the order, various parts of Government and its officials will continue to oversee the project? For example, there are time constraints on certain operations and, in his contribution, the minister talked about documents that he is waiting to see and sign off. It would be helpful to know that this is not the end of the process as far as the Government is concerned and that it will continue to have oversight and, in extremis, could pull the plug on the project, although I am 99.9 per cent certain that we will not reach that point.

That is an important point, particularly when so many environmental factors have been questioned and considered. Although the project is being funded by AHB, not by the Government, and we know that it is a trust port that reinvests any profits in the harbour, the oversight that is mentioned in the environmental documentation will and should continue.

I should say that, from the outset, relationships have been very good and positive, as has the engagement. To go back to John Finnie’s point, the work has been a good model for others to look at for future projects.

I saw from the committee’s papers that 21 local residents are still objecting to the development. Minister, can you give me a flavour of those objections and the grounds on which they are made? You seem to have solved seven of the 28 objections but 21 remain.

Many of the objections overlap with the environmental concerns that were raised by SNH or the RSPB. I am satisfied, therefore, that the order should be laid because of the mitigation measures and reassurances that we have provided about the environment.

The other strong theme that runs through the objections is loss of amenity, meaning the green space at Nigg Bay. I know that AHB and Aberdeen City Council are discussing how other local amenities, such as St Fittick’s park, which is nearby, can be improved. That is separate to any conversation that the Government is involved in. Loss of amenity and green space are two of the main themes of the objections but there are also the environmental impacts and I think that we have gone as far as we can to give strong reassurances, which is why I hope that the order will be approved.

There have been a number of environmental objections. I just want to be sure that SNH, which is an important body, is content that the issues that it raised have been addressed and that the project should carry on.

Yes. SNH objected and then withdrew its objections, which is generally the process that we go through. Objections will be made to infrastructure projects and we try to have discussions with the organisations and learn from them what we can do to give them the reassurances that they need. For example, one of the main environmental issues was to do with the bottlenose dolphins and, as a result of the mitigation and the reassurances that we have given, rock armour will be put in place and any blasting will be done behind it, thereby mitigating the sound and the environmental impacts. That came out of conversations with the likes of SNH.

To answer your specific question, SNH has withdrawn its objection so I surmise that SNH is satisfied. We will wait to see what is in the construction and environmental management documents and I hope that they will give even more reassurance to organisations such as SNH.

I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence—although the officials did not say anything.

We move on to item 4, which is consideration of motion S5M-02398, which calls on the committee to recommend the approval of the draft order. I invite the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Aberdeen Harbour Revision Order [draft] be approved.—[Humza Yousaf.]

Motion agreed to.

That concludes consideration of the affirmative instrument and we will report the outcome of our consideration to Parliament. I thank the minister and his officials for giving evidence.

That concludes the public part of the meeting.

11:57 Meeting continued in private until 12:10.