Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, 14 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Official Report 88KB pdf

---

Late Objections (Consideration)

Good morning. I remind members to switch off mobile phones and pagers. We have received no apologies.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of late objections. The committee is required to consider four late objections to the bill and decide whether each objector has shown good reason for not lodging their objection within the specified objection period, in which case the objection will be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage.

I invite comments from members on each of the four objections. First, do members agree that the objection from Nigel Miller should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Yes.

Yes, that is fair.

Secondly, do members agree that the objection from Ms Rosie Wild should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

We have said in the past that it is not appropriate to object to the whole bill, and Ms Wild falls into the same category as others who have objected in that way. Is that not the case?

We must decide whether she has a good reason for lodging a late objection. If we agree that she has, we will consider the objection under the next agenda item.

I follow.

I think that Ms Wild's reasons, including the second one, which is a personal family reason, make a good case for our allowing the objection through to preliminary consideration.

I agree.

I agree.

Thirdly, do members agree that the objection from Youngace Ltd should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

I argue that it should not. It seems to me that Youngace made a valid commercial decision to withdraw its initial objection and the committee is not to be used to deal with a sudden change of mind on a purely local planning issue, which is what the objection seems to be about.

That makes sense.

Are we agreed that the objection from Youngace Ltd should not be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Lastly, do members agree that the objection from Peregrine Edinburgh Ltd and Lansdowne Holdings Ltd should be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

My view is that it should not, because the organisation had ample time to consider what adverse effects there might be on its business on the basis of the plan as it was published originally. I do not see why the objection should be considered. The organisation had ample opportunity to object previously.

I agree. Sensible landowners examine proposals that might affect their landholdings. A multimodal study—which, in this case, suddenly mentions Straiton—should not be needed to draw to someone's attention the fact that a major development is proposed close to where they have landholdings.

Are we agreed that the objection from Peregrine Ltd and Lansdowne Ltd should not be allowed to proceed to the preliminary consideration stage?

Members indicated agreement.