Official Report 470KB pdf
Item 2 is the hearing of further evidence on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill. We start today's evidence hearing with group 10 which, unfortunately, we were not able to get to last week. The witnesses for the promoter for this group are Stuart Coventry and Alf Maneylaws, who will give evidence on environmental matters; David Reid, who will give evidence on existing railway processes; Tara Whitworth, who will give evidence on engineering and other matters; and Alison Gorlov, who will give evidence on compensation. Before we commence, I invite Tara Whitworth to stand and make a solemn affirmation.
I remind the other witnesses for the promoter that they are still under oath from the meeting on 8 March.
Yes. Thank you, sir, and good morning to the committee. I have one question to ask of Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws.
Proceed.
The issue has been raised of the noise that will be created at the level-crossing at Ladysneuk Road. Could Mr Coventry or Mr Maneylaws explain what elements of the possible creation of noise by the predicted use of the crossing have been taken into account?
There are two points in relation to the crossing: first, the noise made by the alarm at the crossing and, secondly, the fact that there will inevitably be a gap in the noise barrier at the crossing. Mr Maneylaws will show how we have taken that into account.
The calculation of noise levels from trains passing in the area is based on the method given in "Calculation of Railway Noise". The barriers as defined in the area are on either side of the level-crossing, but not across the crossing itself, so the level-crossing is modelled as is.
May we take it that those matters were addressed in the environmental statement?
Yes, the level-crossing is addressed in the environmental statement. The method for assessing noise from level-crossing alarms is not included in "Calculation of Railway Noise". Subsequent calculations have shown that the level-crossing alarm can be tailored to the existing ambient noise level in the area. Also, the level-crossing alarm is very directional, so it can be directed to warn pedestrians and so on who are near the level-crossing without unduly affecting properties in the area.
I have no further questions. The precognitions by the four witnesses who are before you, which the committee may appreciate, are in document SAK/S2/04/4/30, which is in last week's bundle of papers because the meeting finished before we reached this stage.
Mr Brewerton, do you have any questions for Mr Coventry or Mr Maneylaws?
Yes. I am aware that the proceedings are time sensitive, so I will try to design questions that, I hope, will enable Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws to give responses that will put my and my wife's minds at rest and that will not be particularly lengthy.
You are correct that PAN 56 and PPG 24 make the application of the guidance clear. The passage that you read out explains why the guidance should be interpreted in that way. However, the noise exposure categories have been used in a number of inquiries into major rail and road projects to give an indication of the noise levels that should be taken into account in the circumstances that we are talking about. Although the guidance does not enable the application of planning conditions, we still believe that it is appropriate to use the guidance on the thresholds to set when considering the level of community annoyance and appropriate noise levels at properties.
Am I correct in saying that the noise exposure categories should not be used?
No, I do not think so. We feel that it is appropriate to use them, given the absence of other guidance that defines absolute noise levels. The guidance follows the World Health Organisation guidance and the noise insulation grants threshold between groups C and D, which is set to reflect the level of noise at which noise insulation grants for railway schemes would be applied. Of course, noise insulation grants are applied in relation to the development of infrastructure, which is exactly the circumstance that we are talking about. Although the noise exposure categories do not apply specifically, they follow guidance that sets the thresholds.
Okay. I have a question about the calculation of the LAeq at our house. As there is no existing noise, I presume that a model was designed, to which paragraph 30 of volume 2 of the preliminary stage report relates. Paragraph 30 refers to six-car and three-car—six-car at peak times, three-car at off-peak times—class 170 Turbostar diesel multiple unit passenger trains and to class 66 diesel locomotives with type HTA wagons. I understand that those types of trains would be operating over a 17-hour period. Is that a correct interpretation?
That is our understanding.
Good. Am I correct in understanding that the calculations of all the noise that those vehicles would be creating at our house were based on a 17-hour period that ran from 06:00 to 23:00 and that the figure was then averaged out? Is that a correct understanding of the LAeq?
No, but you are nearly right. The LAeq period runs from 7 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night, so a 16-hour period was used. Only the trains running in that 16-hour period contributed to the LAeq; the trains that ran outside that period did not contribute to the noise level for that period.
Would trains operating outwith that period increase the LAeq?
They would not increase the LAeq over that period, because there would be a longer period over which to average the noise.
So the noise level would be pretty much the same.
It would be broadly the same.
Good. Is it the case that, when the line becomes operational, the levels of 57.1dB and 60.4dB that you have quoted will not vary much, for an operating period from 06:00 to 23:00?
Those are the levels that we have calculated on the current information and assumptions about the operations. In effect, those are the average levels that will apply over that period.
I was going to ask a question about paragraph 8 on page 3 of SAK/S2/04/4/26—our written evidence—but I have changed my mind.
In the calculations, it had not been assumed that the horn would be used. It is fair to say that if the horn were used, there would be a marginal increase in the LAeq, although it might not be noticeable. We have not done that calculation. Our understanding is that it is not guaranteed that the horn will be used.
I understand that; I was just concerned about how much the use of the horn would alter the LAeq. It could again raise the level. I wondered whether that had been included in the calculation because, to me, it is part of a worst-case scenario.
It was not part of our assumptions.
What noise would an air horn create?
I do not have a level for that, at present. Although the level might be relatively high, the duration would be quite short, so I think that its contribution to the average noise level over a day or an evening would be quite small.
But it would increase the noise level.
Marginally.
Would it be possible for that information to be forwarded to the committee?
Certainly.
As the figures refer to two different sizes of DMU—a six-car train and a three-car train—does the frequency at which they pass by alter the LAeq noise levels at all? For example, if there were many more six-car DMUs passing than three-car DMUs, would that raise the LAeq?
It would raise the average noise level over the day. In terms of the mix of passenger and freight trains on the line, however, the contribution of the passenger trains is fairly negligible. The freight trains make the major contribution to noise levels on the line.
That is good to know. Just out of interest, I have managed to find information in the environmental statement on the noise that a two-car DMU would generate, which has been quoted as 70 to 72dB LAmax, fast. What would the levels be for a three-car DMU and a six-car DMU—at 20m distance, because that is where our house lies?
I think that the maximum level would not be very different from that for a two or three-car DMU.
Would any levels be different then? You imply that there would be a level that might be louder. Forgive me, but my mind tells me that a bigger vehicle must produce a bigger noise. You are saying that the bigger vehicle will not produce a bigger noise.
For vehicles of similar type, such as DMUs, the maximum noise level is likely to be similar whether they are two-car, four-car or six-car DMUs. Over a period of time, the average LAeq level for the six-car DMU is likely to be slightly noisier, but the LAmax levels will be very similar.
The principal reason for that is that the duration of the event for a six-car train is longer, rather than the peak noise being higher.
That is what I reasoned. I was not able to find much information at all about the class 66 locomotives pulling 19 HTA wagons. I found something in table 6.7-1 of the environmental statement that referred to the Eggborough statements—I hope that that is right—but there were lots of different figures that all seemed to vary. Do you happen to have a figure for the noise that a class 66 locomotive pulling 19 HTAs would create?
Can you give us the reference for that table?
I do apologise, but I have not written down the page number. I am referring to table 6.7-1 and table 6.7-2, and to the two big tables on page 178 of volume 3 of the environmental statement. I have a photocopy here. There are two big tables there and I did not quite understand everything in them clearly. There are lots of LAmax, fast figures and there is mention of "Loco" and of "Wagons", and a variety of different noise levels, but I want to know the combined noise level of a type 66 diesel locomotive pulling 19 HTA wagons. What is the maximum noise that I can expect to impact on my house?
Measurements to date on class 66 locomotives have indicated that they are quieter than older locomotives such as class 60 locomotives, in terms of both engine noise and rolling noise. In the calculation of railway noise, which is the accepted method for calculating noise levels from railways, no robust data are currently available on class 66 locomotives, so we cannot include class 66 locomotives in the calculation of railway noise. Our assessment is based on class 60 locomotives, for which there are robust data. That is a worst-case scenario, because the measurement data that are available indicate that class 66 locomotives are quieter than class 60 locomotives.
Do you have data for class 60 locomotives pulling 19 HTA wagons?
The data for class 60 are based on extensive measurements that have been done in the past. Those data are included in "Calculation of Railway Noise".
What are those data?
I cannot provide them off the top of my head.
Is it possible to supply the data for consideration by the committee?
I can do that.
That would be helpful.
Is Mr Brewerton asking us what the pass-by LAmax would be for a class 60 or class 66 locomotive?
Basically, yes. What is the peak noise level?
We have done some calculations of the peak noise of this configuration of train, speed and distance from the track that have not been presented in evidence.
It would be helpful if we could hear that evidence.
At a distance of 20m from the track, for a speed of 60mph, or 96kph, and with a barrier as has been shown, the LAmax is likely to be of the order of 80 to 83dB.
That information is very useful. Is it correct that a barrier takes off 10dB?
Not exactly. The figure is of the order of 10dB, but it depends on a number of parameters, such as the distance of the barrier from the receptor, its distance from the source and its height. Barriers can provide a reduction in excess of 10dB.
I am still a little confused. I refer you to SAK/02/04/4/26, which contains evidence that we have submitted. I refer you to figures 1 and 2 on pages 4 and 5. I downloaded this information, which is provided by Network Rail, from the internet. The figures appear to be higher than those that you have provided. In figure 1, the noise level is close to 100dB. I apologise for the quality of the reproduction. Figure 2 indicates that at 20m the peak value is more than 90dB. Do you agree that those values are reasonable for what we are discussing? You say that the noise level will be 80 to 83dB, with mitigation. Without mitigation, the level will be well over 90dB.
The figure to which you refer shows that. With the attenuation that we are suggesting, that translates to a level of 80 to 83dB.
The lounge and front bedrooms of our house have an unbroken view of the level-crossing. As you said earlier, there can obviously be no mitigation at a level-crossing. Therefore, that noise is going to impact on our lounge. We are talking about 90dB-plus hitting our lounge. If the window was open, would I be able to hold a conversation?
A very detailed assessment would need to be undertaken to determine precisely what the noise level would be at the front façade of your property and what that would translate into inside your property. To date, we have not undertaken an assessment to that level of detail. You are right to say that, with the break in the barrier, there would be some increase in the maximum noise level from what it would be otherwise. However, it is not a simple matter of saying that, because there is no barrier, the noise level will go up by that much.
I agree with you. I understand that it is not a simple matter. Nevertheless, I am concerned that even in a best-case scenario in which the noise was reduced, as you said, to between 80dB and 83dB—let us take the noise level to be 83dB for ease of calculation—and I was inside my house, which would reduce it by 13dB, with my window open the noise would still be 70dB. Would I be able to hold a conversation during the minute to two minutes when the train was going by, and would I be able to hear my television? I am concerned.
Certainly. I can give you an indication of an answer, but I cannot give you a precise figure for your property. It is likely that there would be some interference with holding a conversation or listening to the television inside your front room. However, it would not be for the 90-second or two-minute duration of which you speak, as the peak noise applies only to part of the train. There is more noise from the engine than from the rest of the train.
So, what would the duration of the peak noise be?
We cannot be entirely accurate in our understanding at the moment.
An approximation would be helpful, though.
As I recall, it may be 15 to 20 seconds. We might be able to come back with a more considered answer on that point.
That would be helpful.
Mr Coventry, I am still not entirely convinced. I contacted Sound Research Laboratories Ltd and briefly outlined what was going to happen. A consultant there wrote back to me, and I have a copy of his e-mail with me. He categorically states that the increase in sound will be something between 85dB and 90dB in my garden and 70dB in my house with the windows open. He then says:
Before Mr Coventry answers, I advise Mr Brewerton that it would be helpful if he could, in due course, supply us with a copy of the document to which he refers.
I just agreed that there would be a disturbance to holding a conversation and listening to the television. The point that I disagreed about was the duration of that event. The advice that you have been given is likely to be appropriate.
Oh dear—that does not encourage me at all.
What was the reference to absolute noise limits?
I apologise—I am not used to this, so please bear with me. In PPG 24, to which you have referred, section 1 of annex 5 is on "Type of limit". The annex refers to "absolute" and "relative" limits and says:
No absolute limit has been set.
I realise that we are talking about a model and that a model must be used in this case because there is nothing else to which we can refer. Am I correct in saying that any vehicle could use the railway line, provided that it fitted in with the weight and speed limits, and that there would be no limit to the amount of noise that it could produce?
I am not sure whether that is entirely correct. In evidence that we gave previously, we showed the assumptions on which the noise assessment was undertaken. Perhaps the question on how use of the track might be varied from those assumptions is for Mr Reid to answer. The only point that I would make is that you talk about any vehicle creating any noise level, but there will obviously be limits on what noise can be produced, given the physical circumstances.
I appreciate that, but my concern is that other vehicles could use the line that would not be of the quality that you referred to in respect of a class 66 vehicle and HTA wagons, which I believe are of high quality. The other vehicles could be of lower quality and there would be no limit on the volume of noise that they could produce. Is that correct? I was concerned that LAeq values would rise.
Obviously, the LAeq is a function of the use of the line. Given the period that we used in the assessment, we are satisfied that the assumptions that we have made are reasonable in defining what would broadly be an upper limit for the daytime case. We have taken a number of worst-case assumptions into account—for example, the number of freight trains that was assumed is substantially more than the number that is likely to use the line during that period. Perhaps they have been overestimated by a factor of three, certainly for the time of opening—pessimism is built into the model. We have also considered operation at higher speed—at design speed rather than actual speed—through the section, but more detailed work would certainly need to be done to define more precisely the noise levels that would be experienced. However, I think that your question on the limitation of use would be better answered by Mr Reid.
Okay. Thank you.
The comparison is the LAeq averaged out over 16 hours against what is broadly the background noise that has been measured for the area. Obviously, there were constraints on the amount of measurement that was undertaken, so the figure is an indication rather than an absolute definition. I think that you accept that point.
Is it fair to assume that in fact, in the evening—when the ambient background noise levels drop—the increase will be a lot higher than 10dB to 15dB?
The noise contour plots show the increases above the evening ambient levels that will result from the operation of the railway. The plots were done in that way because the evening is the quietest part of the day.
Right. I was concerned that the situation could be worse than the plots show, but you are saying that that is the worst scenario.
Yes.
As you can see, from our house, there is a direct line of sight to the railway track from three sides. As the line would be clearly visible from the first floor even with a 2m fence, am I correct to assume that the fence that is to be used for mitigation would really afford no noise protection at the first floor? At present, I have a hedge that is slightly higher than 2m and I can see clearly over the top of it straight to the mine. I assume that the fence will be a waste.
That is not strictly true. Although it seems to be against the laws of physics, there will be noise attenuation even though the line of sight is above the top of the fence. Obviously, attenuation will be reduced in that case, but there will be a certain amount of attenuation.
What will the reduction be?
If the line of sight grazes the top of the noise barrier, one can expect a noise reduction of about 5dB. As the line of sight goes higher above the top of the noise barrier, that figure will reduce.
So at best we are talking about a mitigation of 5dB at first-floor level.
Yes—that is the inference from the scale in that table.
Thank you. To move on to table 6.1-4, as the ground floor level falls within the category "55<60" and="" the="" increase="" in="" laeq="" is="" greater="" than="" 10db,="" am="" i="" correct="" to="" say="" that="" there="" will="" be="" a="" moderate="" increase="" in="" impact="" on="" our="">
Again, that is the inference from that table.
At first floor level, the figure is 60.4dB LAeq, so the increase in impact will be substantial.
Yes.
Can we please talk about the fence again, which will be our only defence against noise? Will the fence along our perimeter reflect sound from the railway away from the house? Is the fence likely to deflect sound straight back onto the train and will that noise then be deflected over the fence?
Yes, that is correct. The calculations that we did to produce the results in the environmental statement assume a reflective noise barrier. Again, that is a worst-case scenario. It takes into account the effect of reflections between the fence and the train.
I am awfully sorry, Mr Maneylaws, but I am finding it difficult to hear you. Could you speak more directly into the microphone? That would be helpful to everyone.
I beg your pardon.
You have pre-empted my next question. I was about to ask whether it is possible to put absorbent material onto the fence to reduce the effect. Would doing so reduce the LAeq levels?
That is possible. As I said, the detailed barrier specification will be worked up in the detailed design. Each location along the line will be treated separately and the benefits or otherwise of using absorbent barriers will be investigated.
Thank you. My research has shown that, in the case of wooden fences, if the panels are not fitted together tightly and there are small gaps, the effectiveness of the fence is greatly reduced. Is that accurate?
That is the case.
Will the fences be of very high quality with no gaps?
It is the intention of the promoter to provide noise barriers that meet the latest standards.
I have reached my last few questions—I am sure that you will be relieved about that. I have tried to understand the vibration issues but, to be quite honest, I do not. I am not an engineer. Have any calculations been done to predict the ground-borne noise levels that will impact on our house? I have read about ground-borne noise and rumble—I believe that that is the technical term. I am concerned that that, as well as exterior noise, will affect the house.
Let me be quite specific on the difference between vibration and ground-borne noise—you mentioned them in the same question. Ground-borne noise would be experienced in the house as a result of vibration as the property reradiates the noise. Ground-borne noise is not considered to be a significant issue where the source of the noise—in this case the train—is creating airborne noise, because the ground-borne noise is effectively masked by the airborne noise. Ground-borne noise becomes an issue in tunnels or deep cuttings where the airborne noise is suppressed by mitigation measures; people cannot hear the airborne noise, but the vibration through the ground is heard as a rumble. However, I do not think that that will happen in this case.
Thank you—that is helpful.
That is about right. There would be internal effects of vibration, which would be noticeable to the extent that people would consider making a complaint. You have to understand that table 11.5, of which your table 1 is a copy, is a representation of a community response; it is not a guarantee of what will happen to an individual, because people's responses to vibration vary. In a community that was affected at that level, it is likely that adverse comments would arise from the vibration. The phenomena that you described might occur.
Will you reassure us that our floors will not bounce up and down and that ornaments will not bounce around on mantelpieces and walls?
The approach to dealing with vibration that is set out in the environmental statement has been to measure the levels of vibration on another line. Obviously we could not do that in this situation because of the lack of sufficient data. Vibration is a function of the geology, topography and other conditions at the site. The environmental statement pointed out that in situ calculations will be undertaken to design vibration levels such that they will be below the level at which adverse comment would be possible. I cannot guarantee that, in relation to your property, there will not be an unforeseen circumstance that means that mitigation measures do not work. The intention is that mitigation measures will be provided such that those phenomena do not occur. At 20m from the track, we consider that mitigation can be provided so that those phenomena do not occur, but that is not a guarantee on my part.
That is one of my worries: there are no guarantees. I thank Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws and I appreciate their answers.
Thank you. You will have a chance to question other witnesses.
Sir, the crown sheet to which we refer is an integral part of the HTA wagon—it is not a sheet that is pulled across the top of the wagon to cover a gap. It is the term that is given to the metal enclosure at the top of the wagon, but there is a gap through which the wagons are filled.
The crown sheet is part of the wagon.
Yes.
You gave a figure of 80dB to 83dB for noise from a class 60 locomotive at 20m from the track when it is moving at 96kph. What is the equivalent LAeq level?
Sir, that question cannot be answered because the level depends on the duration of the event. The LAeq levels that we have calculated are based on those events. They are calculated over a 16-hour day, taking into account a defined number of events.
I am grateful for that answer because it shows clearly that the question was not easy to answer.
It is a question of definition of terms.
Okay. Thank you for that.
On that matter, Mr Coventry, is that LAmax level, when it occurs, a measurement of an actual level of noise reached?
Broadly, that is the LAmax. There are some complexities, but that is broadly the case.
On the other hand, is an LAeq measurement a calculation of the amount of noise energy that is produced over a given period?
Yes—it is an average.
I am putting these matters very broadly and I am sure that Mr Coventry can assist the committee if that is necessary. I will not take that any further.
That is right. You must also know the number of LAmax events.
Am I correct that the LAmax of 80dB to 83dB that you gave to Mr Brewerton was the level for a train being pulled by a class 60 locomotive?
That is the case.
You explained that the research information is not presently available to do the equivalent calculation for a class 66 locomotive, but if a class 66 locomotive creates less noise than a class 60 locomotive, what is that likely to do to a level of 80 to 83dB?
The level is likely to be reduced. The caveat to that is that the detailed information on the class 66 locomotive is not available, which is why we used the information on the class 60. It follows that a quieter engine would reduce the LAmax.
So far as the type of fencing is concerned, to what extent is it possible to mitigate noise at a specified location in the detailed design and construction of an acoustic fence?
Are you asking about levels of reduction—
No, I am asking a general question. Perhaps I should put the question another way. To what extent is it possible to mitigate noise levels through the detailed design of the fence, by which I mean the close-boarding, sound absorption or sound-reflection avoidance of the fence? To what extent is it possible to mitigate predicted noise levels through the detailed design of an acoustic barrier?
The detailed design can reduce the noise by up to 15dB, depending on the situation and the type of fence. The provision of a fence would reduce noise levels.
To what extent can the effects of vibration be reduced in designing the track, the ballasting and various other things like that?
The level of attenuation of vibration is not as straightforward as noise mitigation. Noise mitigation is very straightforward: with a barrier in place, it is possible to do the calculation, which is not site specific in the same way that applies to vibration mitigation. Vibration mitigation is a newer art, which is why we cannot guarantee the level of mitigation. However, vibration mitigation can still be effective—indeed, it is effective. In the environmental statement, we suggest a number of types of mitigation that could be considered under the circumstances, taking into account the particular situation of each property. Vibration mitigation is effective.
There being no further questions for them, I thank Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws for their evidence. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mr Reid?
I have no questions for Mr Reid, thank you.
Mr Brewerton, do you have any questions for Mr Reid?
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr Reid. I have exactly the same questions to ask you as I asked Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws. I will try to make them succinct. With regard to the design capacity that has been referred to previously, am I correct in understanding that the maximum permissible number of pass-bys by our property at Causewayhead is 64? Will the level of 64 pass-bys not be exceeded?
The question relates to the number of actual train movements, which is 64. As we explained previously, the numbers that we have used refer to the use that will be made of the line in due course. In fact, when the line opens, if it does open, the number will not reach 64 initially: as we foresee it, all the paths will not be taken up. However, as we have outlined in the railway processes paper, I cannot guarantee that the number will not extend beyond that level should the hours of operation be extended in the fullness of time.
So the figure of 64 is really almost arbitrary.
No, it is certainly not an arbitrary figure. The capacity of the line, as things stand, will be to provide for one passenger train per hour and one freight train per hour in each direction. The capacity will not permit much more than that, if anything. I was referring to the hours of operation, which, as we have said previously, we cannot control once the railway is open. However, I can give the reassurance, or at least partial reassurance, that we have based the capacity of the line on its design, on what we have done in the way of mitigation and so on, and on what we view as being the practical worst case.
In reality, however, the number of pass-bys could be a lot higher.
In reality, it could be higher, but only in terms of hours a day as opposed to the number of trains per hour.
I am sorry—I did not catch that.
It could be higher in terms of the time of day, rather than the number of trains per hour. The line has a specific capacity.
We are talking about the time between 06:00 and 23:00, and the line cannot take more than 64 trains in that period.
Essentially.
But if that time was exceeded, the 64 pass-bys would be exceeded.
That would depend on whether all the capacity during the hours of operation that we have discussed was filled.
But a worse-case scenario would be having that number of trains per hour and the line operating 24 hours, which would amount to 96 pass-bys.
The scenario of every path on the line that could be used being used for 24 hours would be worse than the worst case, if that is possible. Our considered worst case at the moment is what we genuinely consider will be the worst case, but you are correct that if trains were to run 24 hours a day and every path was used, the number would be exceeded.
Is that likely?
As I have tried to portray, I consider that not to be likely. At present, there are a number of constraints, not just the capacity of the line. For example, currently the Longannet signal box does not function during the evening, so trains could not be run during the evening period to which we have referred. Also, examination of the traffic that we consider will use the line, which is the basis of the need for the railway, does not highlight any trains that would use the railway during the night-time hours. We have tried to be quite up front about the numbers of trains, even though initially not all the paths will be used by Longannet traffic.
Is not 06:00 to 07:00 part of the night time when talking about noise levels?
I am afraid that I will have to pass that over to my colleagues. I do not deal with noise.
No, the question is about the times to which you referred. You said that it is not envisaged that any trains will run through the night time, but my understanding is that 06:00 to 07:00 is classified as night time.
If I may put it in a different way, what we refer to as being night time or not is immaterial. We have specified the hours of day during which we foresee trains running. The times that we foresee them not running are the times that we have stated in the document. Whether you refer to those times as night time or otherwise does not affect them.
I am sorry, Mr Reid, but 06:00 to 07:00 and anything after 23:00 is material, because I will have to live next to it.
No, I am sorry, but you misunderstand. I am talking about whether you refer to that as night time or not. We have not tried to hide anything in the calculations that we have done or in the scheme that we have set out. We have said that the hours of operation will be up to 23:00. Whatever you refer to as night time does not take away from the hours that we have set out in our calculations.
I am sorry if the question remotely implied that you have tried to hide anything. That certainly is not an issue.
I was trying to clarify what I was referring to.
Can you confirm that with this design there will be no trains after 23:00?
As I said, at this stage there is no prospect in our minds of trains after 23:00. However, I have also said that within our railway processes, that is not something that we can fix forever.
That produces a little conundrum in my mind, because somewhere down the line—if you will pardon the pun—I read that there will be trains after 23:00. Please turn to page 2 of document SAK/S2/04/4/28, the last paragraph of which states that
As far as I am aware, there would be no trains after 23:00. If we have the opportunity, I can double-check the timetabling and provide that specific information.
That would be very helpful. As a lay person, there seems to me to be an obvious possible contradiction, so some elucidation would be helpful.
I take David Reid on to paragraph 14 on page 6 of his precognition, in SAK/S2/04/4/30, which states:
If what I say is incorrect, I am sure that my learned friends will assist me. The monitoring that we undertake will be much more to do with the maximum levels that you will experience at your property. There might be one train or 30 trains; we would consider the impact of a single train. Is that a reasonable answer?
We would also be interested in the average level over the 16-hour period—the LAeq, which was mentioned earlier.
If that is the case, I am correct in assuming that if only 10 freight trains pass by that will be reflected in the LAeq.
It will be reflected in the LAeq.
So, in all probability, because you would be monitoring only a third of the potential traffic—the maximum is three times that—that would result in LAeq values that do not reflect what could be the truth?
I will answer that question. The point that I was trying to get at was that the monitoring that we, as promoter, will undertake will consider whether the maximum levels that the passing traffic attains are what we hoped would be achieved or are better. Should they be worse, I am sure that we would take into account the fact that there was a lesser number of trains during our monitoring. We would not try to use the fact that there were only five trains per day in either direction to negate the effect that the traffic might have on you.
I appreciate knowing that, because I was genuinely concerned that the mitigation measures that are to be put in would not be adequate and would give false results that would justify what had been installed, even though it was not sufficient. You have answered my question. Thank you, Mr Reid. That is all.
Mr Martin, do you have any further questions?
No re-examination will be necessary.
There are no further questions for Mr Reid, whom I thank for giving evidence.
I have no questions at this stage.
Mr Brewerton, do you have any questions for Tara Whitworth?
Yes. Good morning. I was not sure whether I would put these questions to you or to Mr Reid, but it is good to meet you again. Will you confirm that no mitigation will be carried out on our building before the railway is built?
We cannot do anything to other people's property or Network Rail's property until Parliament has passed the bill.
Can you give us a guarantee that the mitigation of the fence will mean that people living in our house will not experience noise levels that would cause them disturbance, such that they would not be able to sleep through the day, if they needed to, without noise from traffic on the railway line waking them up? I ask the question because my wife used to work as a prison officer and had to work shifts, so I want to be reassured on the issue.
Are you seeking reassurance that mitigation measures will be sufficient to allow people to sleep during the day?
Yes—I would like you to guarantee that.
Mr Coventry is probably better placed to answer the question. The project will implement mitigation measures that are appropriate to the situation. As David Reid said, we will work with each landowner, and with you in particular, to ensure that the mitigation that is finally provided at the location is acceptable to you. If you identify daytime sleeping as an issue, we will definitely take that on board during the detailed design. Mr Coventry is better able to provide details of noise levels.
I know that this is a slight break with procedure, but it might be helpful if Stuart Coventry were able to add something to what Tara Whitworth has said.
I can give an answer to the question, if that would be helpful. The issue of sleep disturbance and noise is very personal. Obviously, I cannot provide an answer based on the personal circumstances of Chris Brewerton's family. This is a developing area. Noise disturbance from railways is not yet sufficiently understood to allow us to be precise about the effect that it has. One must turn to guidance in PPG 24, for example, which we discussed earlier and which states that at LAmax levels of about 82dB, one needs to consider the number of LAmax events, in addition to the LAeq, when determining the band into which a dwelling falls. That level is set because previous guidance has shown that it may be a factor in disturbance.
Thank you. It certainly seems that the situation will be a bit limiting. Am I correct in presuming from what has just been said that, if we experience disturbance, we could contact Ms Whitworth and she would respond to our difficulties?
When David Reid gave evidence last week—as I said, I was not here—he gave an undertaking that we will monitor the situation for a year after the line opens. If you experience disturbance during that year or during the construction phase prior to that year, you can definitely contact me and I will deal with it.
Good. That is reassuring. Basically, you can give us no guarantees at the moment that we will not be disturbed by noise or vibration. Is that a correct understanding?
I hope that I can give you some comfort, in that the project must still go through detailed design. In railway and other major infrastructure projects, noise and vibration are not new issues. A number of different standards are set by Network Rail, the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. We will ensure that the work is carried out in accordance with those standards. During the preliminary stage, the Parliament asked us to consider implementing a code of construction practice. I assure you that the draft code of practice to which we signed up has been included in the contract that we are seeking to let with the main contractor who will construct the project.
Obviously, there will be some time between now and when the work will take place. If it happens that we sell our property and somebody else takes it over, would those same guarantees be given to them?
Yes. It would make no difference who the owner of the house was. Whoever owns the house will have the same issues to deal with, so they will be able to contact me.
So that I have this clear in my head, let me ask one last question. If whoever owns the house experiences disturbance, they will be able to contact you and you would do your utmost to ensure that the issue would be resolved to the best possible degree.
Yes.
I have no more questions. Thank you very much, Ms Whitworth.
I have a couple of questions for Ms Whitworth.
I have discussed with the project team the possibility of providing air-conditioning at the Brewertons' house, given the issue that the Brewertons have raised. We have agreed to continue considering that. We do not want to pre-empt the Parliament in any way, so we are not willing to say at this stage that we will definitely provide air-conditioning. However, we are willing to say that we will continue to consider whether it would be appropriate to do that. The project steering group does not want to set a precedent that would cause problems to the Parliament.
I do not think that that would pre-empt the Parliament, although I hesitate to say something so grand. Taking a decision in principle would not pre-empt anything. Why is there such a hesitation to take a decision in principle?
Perhaps I did not articulate myself correctly.
Have another go.
If the noise levels that are calculated during the detailed design stage are over a certain amount, the Brewertons will be eligible for noise mitigation and compensation. Over the past couple of weeks, when I have not been able to attend the committee, there has been a lot of discussion about what exactly the compensation would be. As I said, we cannot confirm the noise levels that the Brewertons' house will be exposed to at this stage, but we can say that if the noise levels are above a certain amount, the Brewertons will be eligible for noise mitigation. If air-conditioning is the most appropriate means of providing that, that will be provided.
That is helpful, but it would be more helpful if you could put in writing what you have just said. Is that possible?
It is. I should also point out that there are suitable noise mitigation measures other than air-conditioning that the Brewertons might want to go for at the end of the day.
I understand that. I only mentioned air-conditioning because you did.
I cannot answer that question. To the best of my knowledge, the environmental team has assumed that the trains are travelling at the speed at which they are designed to travel, but I cannot say whether consideration has been given to acceleration or deceleration. I will have to pass that question to Stuart Coventry.
This might repeat an answer that I gave at the last meeting.
That is all right. A belt-and-braces approach is always helpful to us lay people.
Ms Whitworth is right in that our calculations assume that the trains are travelling at the design speed. At the last meeting, I said that, when a train is accelerating up to the design speed, which is what I suspect will be happening in the circumstance that we are discussing, the rolling noise of the train will be lower than we had assumed, because it will be travelling more slowly, but the engine noise will be increasing because of the acceleration. Broadly speaking, those two noise levels will balance each other out. That means that the assumption that the noise levels will be those that would be expected if the train were travelling at its design speed is not inappropriate and is likely to reflect the actual noise levels. Obviously, all of that depends on the location that we are talking about.
I think that I follow you, but common sense and experience suggest that the noise emissions during acceleration and braking might be significantly higher than when the train is travelling at a steady rate, regardless of whether that is 30mph or 60mph.
That would perhaps be the case for vehicles on roads, but the situation is different with regard to railways because the wheels on the track are the principal source of noise. The engine noise comes into play with acceleration. The balance that I described is broadly correct.
In looking at the view of Mr and Mrs Brewerton's house from the other side of the level-crossing, we have been talking about having a fence along the side of the railway as a mitigating measure. Might such mitigation be considered for the area along the road, which is also exposed at the front of their house?
I am sorry, but I do not understand that question. You said, "from the other side of the level-crossing". Which side are we talking about?
I am sorry if my description was not adequate. There is a photograph of the area on page 8 of SAK/S2/04/4/26.
Is that figure 3?
Yes. I understand that it is called figure 3. We have been discussing a case that involves mitigation along the side of the railway track at the point at which there is a hedge that is roughly 2m high at the moment.
I am sorry, but could you repeat the question.
I was just about to get to the question. Would mitigation of a similar nature be considered for the road side of the garden wall at the Brewertons' house?
I am sorry, but I seem to be missing the point. You asked about mitigation of a similar level. Are we taking about noise barriers to protect the road users or to protect the open space at each side of the road?
We are talking about the front boundary of the Brewertons' house, which I think is a white wall.
Right. I think that I have got the question. You are asking whether we would propose noise mitigation measures.
No. I am not asking whether you are proposing such measures; I am asking whether they are a possibility. From what has been said, I assume that you will design something that is suitable to individual circumstances. I am asking whether that area could be treated in the same way.
Indeed, it could be. That said, the Brewertons have a garage, which they access from the road at the location that is shown in figure 3. One of the things that they have requested is for dropped kerbs to be put in so that they can park their cars off the road. I confirm that we can mitigate along the front of their house on the road side. However, if the Brewertons continue to wish to use their existing garage, there would have to be a gap.
Thank you.
Mr Martin, do you have any follow-up questions for Miss Whitworth?
Thank you, sir. I have just one question for Miss Whitworth. You indicated that you could not do any work unless and until the bill is passed and a contract has been entered into. Will there be a pre-contract survey of the houses that are adjacent to the line? If so, would that include Mr and Mrs Brewerton's house?
There will not be pre-contract surveys, but there will be pre-condition—I am sorry, I am getting myself into muddles today. Condition surveys will be carried out prior to construction on the route. They will be carried out on the Brewertons' house. The timing of the surveys will be agreed with the Brewertons. We cannot organise the surveys until we have a body to do the work. I confirm that we will be doing pre-construction condition surveys on the Brewertons' house.
Thank you.
There are no further questions for Miss Whitworth. I thank her for giving evidence. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mrs Gorlov?
Thank you, sir, but I do not.
Mrs Brewerton, do you have any questions for Mrs Gorlov?
Yes.
Please proceed.
If the bill is passed and we decide to move and attempt to sell our property, can we submit a compensation claim, if we are able to justify one, once a sale has been completed? In other words, having realised that we have suffered a loss, can we submit a compensation claim when we are no longer the owners of the property?
The answer is yes. You would have to show that the property had depreciated in value.
Yes.
Of course, it may be that the sale at a lower price does not indicate that at all. The fact that you had sold at a lower price would not in itself mean that the land had depreciated in value because of the railway. There is another thing that one has to bear in mind, which is included in the note that no doubt you will have seen. I am not sure whether you are talking about a sale after construction or after the railway is put into use. There is a slight difference between the two situations.
My question was about what would happen if the bill is passed. I am asking about the situation once the bill is passed but prior to the railway becoming operational. I am not necessarily talking about a situation of complete blight but one in which we attempt to sell our property for a price that seems realistic, but eventually have to take a reduced price because of the effect of the railway on potential buyers.
There are two circumstances in which compensation would be payable: one is in the case of depreciation caused by the railway's construction and the other is whether the operation of the railway could be shown to have caused the property's value to depreciate. That obviously does not stretch into the far, distant future. It is measured after a year largely to show that the depreciation is related to the railway. However, I suspect that the question might be directed at a slightly different state of affairs, in which the railway might not even have started running, but you have difficulty in getting the price that you want because the railway is coming. If that is the nature of the question, the depreciation would not be subject to compensation.
If we were to sell before the line became operational, would the new owner be able to apply for blight compensation, if appropriate, at a future date?
Perhaps I ought to explain something about blight: in the legal sense of the word, it applies in very limited circumstances. The major point, as far as your property is concerned, is that it must apply where the property is proposed for compulsory purchase. If one is not going to lose any land, the law regarding blight is not applicable.
In paragraph 26 of paper SAK/S2/04/4/27, we were told:
There is no bank account with money in it, but funds are available for the project, and it is recognised that compensation will be payable. A lot has been said about the £700,000 that is mentioned in the funding statement, but that money covers the sort of compensation about which we are talking; it represents quantifiable figures for known areas of land. A specific amount has not been identified for wider compensation for the sort of disturbance about which you are talking, but it is part of the project that there will be a liability to pay compensation. The sources of funding will therefore ensure that funding is available for that, although there is no bank account with compensation money in it should it be needed.
Is a fee involved in claiming compensation?
I do not know the administrative details. When one gets to the Lands Tribunal, I am sure that fees are involved. However, there is no fee involved if one writes a letter to the authorised undertaker and claims compensation.
Would legal representation be required to activate a compensation claim?
No. Essentially, it is not a legal issue. Initially at least, one is considering land values, which is not a subject about which lawyers know terribly much, and many of us would go off to surveyors.
What is the normal settlement time for compensation?
I am afraid that I really cannot tell you, but, as in all negotiations, one can either reach agreement or not. I am afraid that I cannot tell you how long proceedings take before the Lands Tribunal. I am sure that Mr Martin could give you a better idea than I, but I am afraid that I do not know.
Paragraph 17 of the information note on compensation and blight, which is the appendix to paper SAK/02/04/4/2, says:
It would be Clackmannanshire Council. The authorised undertaker is initially Clackmannanshire Council, although there is provision in the bill for that position to be transferred to somebody else.
You might already have answered this question, so I apologise if what you said earlier did so. Assuming that the bill is passed and that we remain the owners of our property, is there a date beyond which compensation would no longer be available?
Compensation for what? Which category of compensation?
Any type of compensation. Is there a cut-off point? Is there a period of a certain number of years within which you have to apply?
There are a number of cut-off points. Compensation for depreciation due to the operation of the railway could not be claimed after more than a year. The claim might go on for more than a year, but one would be measuring it against a year's running. You could not come along 10 years later and say, "The value of my land depreciated due to the running of this railway."
If we remained the owners of the property and, after a year, tried to sell our property and found that it was blighted, would there be nothing that we could do about it then?
I do not want to mislead you or the committee. When you talk about blight and I talk about depreciation, I hope that we do not mean two different things. There is no compensation in respect of the lay concept of blight except where the value of land depreciates because of the operation of the railway next to the land. That covers the actual physical operation of the railway and, if it shakes one's house about, what that does to depreciate the value of one's house. It does not cover the wider lay perception of blight, where, for example, one can no longer sell one's house at the value that one thought that it commanded, because people do not want to live next to a railway. That is not a depreciation in value due to the trains going past. It is due to people's perception of a house next to a railway.
All right. I refer you again to paragraph 13 of document SAK/S2/04/3/2, which comes under the heading "Compensation when no land is acquired", which will obviously apply to us. The paragraph states:
Not quite. There is no general law action for nuisance, because the works will be built under the authority of the bill, once passed. However, two statutory alternatives are available to you, and they are the two that follow the "Nuisance" heading in document SAK/S2/04/3/2.
The rules about compensation do not seem difficult to understand, but they seem frightening. It seems difficult to pursue compensation, should one find oneself having to face the need to do so. Is that correct?
In itself, compensation is not difficult to pursue. One writes to the people who are causing the problem, and a negotiation follows to see whether one can agree on a figure. However, it is not something that all of us would undertake without expert advice. It is a specialist field, as is property valuation, and the rules, like a lot of other rules, are complex. It would therefore be prudent to take professional advice, both on the rules and on the property values.
Again, from our point of view, that would involve cost.
It would, but if compensation is due, one would expect those costs to form part of the compensation.
On immunity, is it the case that unless our property is safeguarded in the bill, should it be found that noise and/or vibration levels far exceed those that are predicted there would be no obligation under the law for anything to be done to our property in the form of mitigation?
I am sorry. I think that I lost the thread of the question. If you are asking whether we have put in place the mitigation measures so that there are no claims for nuisance, the answer is that the two are not related. There will be no nuisance claim; if the works are done in accordance with the legislation, there is no right to sue for nuisance. However, the mitigation measures that have been mentioned today and on other days will be put in place.
Is that a goodwill gesture rather than a legal obligation?
It is more than a goodwill gesture. It is being done because one cannot build a railway with a view to creating a nuisance for other people. If we did, you would, no doubt, have a claim for depreciation in the value of your land. There is a good reason for putting in mitigation, and undertakings are in place to provide it.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Thank you, Mrs Brewerton.
Let me say at the outset that I am in favour of the authorised undertaker doing what it ought to do, in terms of mitigation measures. As a legislative draftsman, I balk somewhat at writing into a bill anything that is so imprecise that one cannot define it. The environmental statement rightly describes the mitigation measures that are proposed in broad terms, because we will not know precisely what is the right thing to do, foot for foot, materials for materials and angle for angle, until we get there and until we can see precisely what is required. That has been explained by others who know more about building and about these measures than I do. If one wanted to be precise, it would be rather difficult for the bill to provide adequately for the measures that are to be put in place.
Thank you for that. In addition to compensation for depreciation in property values, the objectors are looking for compensation for the emotional stress that they contend they have suffered. That is mentioned in paragraph 48.8 of committee paper SAK/S2/04/4/26. In your experience, has compensation been given to objectors under that heading in similar public transport projects?
I am not aware of that having been done. The scope of compensation claims that I have been describing does not cover that sort of claim: it covers purely land value issues.
Thank you for that, Mrs Gorlov. Mr Martin, do you have any further questions?
I have no re-examination, sir.
We will take a one-minute break to allow Mr and Mrs Brewerton to take their places at the witness table.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Thank you for coming here today, Mr and Mrs Brewerton. I understand that you have both decided to take the oath.
Mr and Mrs Brewerton, you have had an opportunity to submit written evidence to the committee about your concerns in relation to the scheme. The committee has read all that evidence. In the light of what the promoter has had to say about your evidence, is there anything that you would like to add at this stage?
Yes, there is. I am still concerned about the reference to the noise exposure categories. My understanding is that the NECs apply only to residential developments where there is pre-existing noise and that they should not be used in the contrary situation in which a noise source moves into a residential area. I am concerned that PAN 56 puts an obligation on the developer, in one way or another, with a residential development in an area where there is noise, but when the noise source moves into the residential area, there is no obligation whatever. I am concerned that PAN 56 might have given the wrong impression and therefore might be a dangerous document to refer to. I appreciate that there is little or no guidance on what can be done about noise levels in residences. I have found various things, some of which refer to particular noise levels, but PAN 56 is the wrong document and should never have been referred to. That issue still concerns me.
Mr Brewerton, you might wish to save some of those comments—which are all, in your view, to the point—for your closing statement, which will be five minutes long. Would that be agreeable to you?
That would be fine.
Do you have one more specific point?
Yes, I have one last thing. I am concerned about the 55dB limit, which is the limit referred to by the WHO. I note that 57.1dB is 2dB above that. The WHO must have set a limit for a good reason. Okay, 57.1dB may just be 2dB above that limit, but if it is above it is above, and that is the bottom line. The maximum has been set for a good reason, but I am concerned that we will have to live with 57.1dB.
Mr Martin, do you have any questions?
Good afternoon. Could you please refer once again to document SAK/S2/04/4/28, which is headed "Further Noise Information"? I am sure that the committee heard quite clearly what you said about the qualification in planning advice note 56, which covers the noise exposure categories that are used for new residential developments, as opposed to new transport projects. I invite you to agree that, as the document says, the
Yes, I would agree with that.
You are quite right—I think that Mr Coventry accepted this—to emphasise the qualification in the use of noise exposure categories in PAN 56. I ask you to agree that the levels that are referred to in the document from which I have just quoted, and which are in PAN 56, are derived from material that was approved by the WHO.
I cannot confirm that—I do not know whether that is where the material was obtained from.
I refer you to document SAK/S2/04/4/26—your own statement—and in particular to the photograph that is identified as figure 3 on page 8. I am interested to follow up Mr Gibson's question to Ms Whitworth. If it were of advantage, in order to attenuate sound, to provide an acoustic fence not only along the line of the railway but—as I understand it—at right angles, along the line of your front wall and front fence, would that, as a matter of principle, be something that you would wish the promoter to consider, if it had benefits in respect of the sound level within your property?
Our main concern relates more to the sleeping areas—mitigation measures would not necessarily help with those areas. Because our main concern is noise levels, however, we would be interested in anything that might help with those factors.
If I may say so, that is extremely fair of you. I do not know what effects such a fence could have—it might have effects on the upper rooms as well as on the lower rooms. In principle, is such a fence something that you would wish to discuss with the promoter, if it could be designed to have beneficial effects?
In principle, we are willing to discuss with the promoter anything that we feel might safeguard our present quality of life.
I have a few questions for Mr and Mrs Brewerton. In paragraph 4 of your written evidence—SAK/S2/04/4/26—you state:
I was concerned as to whether everything was included in the report. I did not mean for that paragraph to seem a bit rude, as if it was intended to criticise people's professionalism; obviously, everybody has behaved as they should have done. However, I was concerned about whether every single thing that could possibly produce noise, including the horn and everything else associated with a railway, was included. If not, the accuracy of the figures would be affected. That is what I meant.
Are you saying that you now accept that a comprehensive overview has been taken? You might not agree with the overview, but it is comprehensive.
I feel as though there are too many variables at the moment. Although we do not doubt the promoter's integrity, we had an e-mail from an acoustics consultant, a copy of which we will give to the committee. Unfortunately, we did not have the finance to employ the consultant to do a site visit. The consultant's findings—we have no reason to doubt him, either—gave a wide range of variables; that is what we are concerned about.
Your real doubts are about judgment, not integrity.
We are concerned about the fact that it will be such a long time before we know anything. We have a fear of the unknown. We are not sure about anything and the promoter might agree that, although it believes that its figures are accurate, it will be impossible to say what is fact until the scheme is up and running. I like to deal in facts and in this case it is difficult to say what is fact and what will happen. There seem to be so many variables.
You are concerned because of the number of imponderables.
Yes. My husband has spent hours and days in the library, as you have probably gathered, dealing with all this. So many different matters have been raised, not just by the promoter, but by others, such as Network Rail. It is difficult to know what the facts are.
I am grateful for that response. Paragraph 8 of document SAK/S2/04/4/26 refers to information from Network Rail on noise impacts. It might be buried somewhere in the paperwork that we have, but can you tell us the source of the information and whether it is already before the committee?
I researched that information on the internet. I will have the source somewhere because I have kept just about everything. I could find it and supply it to the committee. It referred to all the issues that are mentioned in that paragraph.
It would be helpful if you could do that. Paragraph 3 of your response to the promoter's evidence, in document SAK/S2/04/4/29, describes difficulties with fencing. Will you remind me of the level of your property in comparison with that of the railway line?
It is pretty much on the same level.
Does that affect what is said in paragraph 3 or does that paragraph stand as what you see as being fact?
Paragraph 3 stands.
I have a final question. I am sure that you understand the powers of the committee. If the mitigation measures that you seek are not included in the bill, but are left to later agreement between you and the promoter, are you suggesting to the committee that it recommend to Parliament that the bill be rejected?
That is a difficult question for us to answer. When we first heard about the bill, we agreed with it in theory because the railway would be of public benefit. Now that we have done more research from our personal point of view—which is the only thing that I can talk about—we have serious misgivings about whether the bill should go ahead.
That is a fair answer.
I have a couple of points to follow up about the area to the west of your house, beside the road. What is the distance between the house and the perimeter wall?
I think that it is about 10m.
You know that the average distance between the house and the railway is about 20m.
It is 6m from the rail to the border of our fence and 16m to the shortest point of our property.
But it is about 10m from the west side—the entrance side—of your house to the road. Is that right?
Are you talking about the distance from our front door to the road?
Yes. I was trying to recall where your front door was.
I realise that. I estimate that distance to be 4m.
Is the garage between the railway and the house?
Yes.
Mr Martin, do you have any follow-up questions?
I have no follow-up questions.
That concludes questions. I now give either Mr Brewerton or Mrs Brewerton up to five minutes to make closing remarks.
I thank members of the committee for allowing us the time to ask so many questions of the promoter's witnesses, because we needed to ask those questions. I thank the committee also for undertaking the site visit. I am sure that it was a long and tiring day, but you showed understanding and concern and you listened, which was appreciated. I thank the clerks to the committee for their understanding of the circumstances and their much-needed and readily available help.
On behalf of the committee I thank Mr and Mrs Brewerton for a thoroughly researched presentation. That concludes the evidence for group 10. At this stage we will break for lunch; we will return at 20 past 2.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We move to group 14. The promoter's witnesses in the group are Stuart Coventry and Alf Maneylaws, who will give evidence on environmental matters; Julie Hamilton, who will give evidence on town and country planning matters; and Malcolm West, who will give evidence on roads, transportation and road safety. I think that everybody on the promoter's side is still under oath from the 8 March meeting. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mr Coventry or Mr Maneylaws?
No, thank you, sir. I am sure that you are aware that the document to which we refer in our evidence is paper SAK/S2/04/4/36. I have no questions at the moment for Mr Coventry.
I am obliged.
One problem that I have had with the bill is that much of it seems to be about noise. Everybody seems to be concerned about noise, but one of my problems is the same as that of the previous witness—vibration. I have been told that there is a 7.5 tonne weight limit on Hilton Road and that there will be no limit at all on the new road. What research has been done into the causes of vibration? I have asked that question time and again but have received no answer to it.
I believe that the limit that you are referring to is in respect of structural damage. The generally acknowledged fact in environmental noise and vibration is that there is no evidence that vibration from infrastructure schemes—railways and roads—is of sufficient magnitude to cause structural damage. We put that case forward in the environmental statement.
If that is the stance that you are taking, I take it that, if there were any damage and it could be proved that it was caused by vibration, we would have a claim.
I believe that the pre-construction condition survey that applies to properties bounding the railway would apply to properties bounding the road. I would need to get confirmation of that from the promoter. I am not qualified to answer the question about what would happen in the event that it was shown that damage had been caused subsequently by vibration from the road.
In the last paragraph of the promoter's noise assessment, SAK/S2/04/4/34, there is an assumption made about night-time noise levels from road traffic. Given that we are operating within an environmental impact assessment context, can you provide some justification for the assumptions—in terms of published advice or otherwise?
Is the assumption to which you refer the one that night-time noise levels from traffic are assumed to be 10dB lower than daytime traffic?
Yes.
That figure is based on a range of measurements that were taken over a number of years. It has been generally found that, in urban and suburban areas, night-time noise levels from road traffic are in the region of 10dB below the daytime levels.
Does Mr Martin have any follow-up questions for Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws?
I have not, thank you.
There being no further questions, I thank Mr Coventry and Mr Maneylaws for giving evidence. Does Mr Martin have any questions for Ms Hamilton?
I have not, thank you.
Mr Craig?
The first drawings that we received from Babtie Group Ltd showed the road built on an embankment. That is what I could see from the small scale of the drawing that we received. I had a meeting with Mr West and Councillor Derek Stewart. Mr West said that that was certainly not the case and that the road would be built at ground level. I received a new drawing from Babtie a couple of weeks ago by e-mail. I was able to zoom in on it and it shows the road in a cutting; it has gone from one extreme to the other. Obviously, the promoter wants all the objections to be taken away. How can we take away our objections when no one seems to know what is going on?
The particular detail of whether the road will be on an embankment or in a cutting is a matter that Mr West would need to address. From a planning point of view, we would be looking at identifying—on the development plan—the principle of a road in that location. That is what we have done. I cannot answer the question about the detail of the road.
Perhaps you can return to that issue when you question Mr West.
The existing Hilton Road has a 7.5 tonne turnabout limit. It is proposed that Hilton Road should be closed off at the existing level-crossing. Just up the road are the likes of Parkhead Building Supplies Ltd and Beatson's Building Supplies Ltd. Any large-scale deliveries that we get from them go down Whins Road, along Clackmannan Road and up Hilton Road, avoiding the narrow Lothian bridge. If Hilton Road is closed off, what route will they use? They will not be able to go the back way, because it is fenced off with supposed structural planting. Are we being shut off from that option? That seems to be the case.
I do not wish to be unhelpful, but that is not a planning question. It is more of a roads question. You will need to ask Mr West about the operational aspects of the road.
That is another question that you can save up for Mr West.
I hope that my next question is relevant to Julie Hamilton. Way back on 14 November 2002 I submitted a few queries to the council. I received no reply, although recently I received the promoter's response to my objections to the bill. One of my comments was that the existing Hilton Road is a speeding black spot—the police are there all the time. I asked whether there would be provision for a permanent speed camera to be placed on the new road. I was told that the council was not aware that there was a problem with speeding on the road. However, I informed the council of the problem a year and half ago—did the council think that I was lying?
There are two parts to the question. I am aware that there was correspondence to which you received no response. I understand that that had a great deal to do with the local plan inquiry, where your objection was heard and the issues that you raised taken into consideration. I do not wish to be unhelpful, but the issue of speeding on Hilton Road is not a planning matter.
We received a reply to the objections to the bill that stated that the new proposed road would be closer to number 4 than to number 3 Hilton Crescent, where I stay. That is not the case. You do not know anything about the layout of the street, so how can you say glibly that it is no problem for you simply to put in a road?
Do you have a specific question? I know that there were some questions in the comments that you have just made.
It seems that no research has been put into the proposal.
Is that correct?
No—as the committee heard on 8 March, research has been done on the proposal and the options. Mr West will be able to explain that more. We are aware that there are services in the area. I cannot comment on the conversation that Derek Craig had with Mr Urquhart, but Mr Urquhart was correct to state the principle that the road is required. He would have been aware that there were alternatives that could be considered. In the development plan, the land to the east is allocated for housing. Consideration must be given to provision of services for that housing. It is normal first to identify the principle of a development, but there is also a requirement to deal with the issue of services.
I might be going slightly off the matter of the road. We have been told that, if the railway goes ahead, the road will be needed—it is as simple as that. We have been told that the railway is a great opportunity to enhance the area by bringing in business and so on, but we have had no examples of that. We have been told that the reason why Alloa seems so far behind all the other places in the area is that it does not have a rail link, but I would just like to point out that, although Larbert and Croy have rail links, they are hardly buzzing industrial communities.
Mr Craig, you are wandering and I would like you to return to the specific issues that you want Miss Hamilton to address. You can comment in that way—up to a point—in the five minutes that you have at the end. Do you have any more specific questions for Miss Hamilton?
What examples do you have to show that the rail link will provide benefits to the area? I would like examples rather than just a glib comment.
I am sorry, Mr Craig. That issue has been decided on by the Parliament, which has agreed to the bill's general principles. Do you have any questions on your specific concerns that you wish to address to Miss Hamilton?
No.
Mr Baker, do you have some questions?
Yes. In paragraph 12 of document SAK/S2/04/4/33, you refer to the position on the existing playing field. Will that playing field be replaced by a new facility elsewhere, whether as a consequence of the implementation of local plan proposals or as a consequence of the railway scheme? In answering the question, you may wish to have regard to what you say in paragraph 6 of document SAK/S2/04/4/36 about the fact that the area is not a public open space.
The area is not a public open space, because the land is privately owned. The playing field is not an established recreational facility and there is no plan to relocate it, because we would not need to. Nevertheless, we would require there to be an appropriate level of recreational open space as part of the new housing development that is shown in the local plan.
I asked that question because of the weight that is given to the retention of playing field land in the context of the Kincardine bypass option B, which was discussed on 15 March. It rather appears that the importance that is attached to retaining the playing field within the alignment of option B at Kincardine is greater than that which is given to the retention of the playing field adjacent to Hilton Crescent. In commenting on that, you might wish to note that, just as the playing field adjoining Hilton Crescent is not public open space, the playing field adjoining the old Kincardine power station is not public open space.
The Kincardine playing field is an established recreational facility, whereas the one at Hilton Crescent is not; it is a privately owned area of space, the gate to which is locked. The only access to it is through breaks in the fence. Even in Mr Craig's evidence, it is acknowledged that the playing field is locked and fenced. Although the playing field is used by the local football club on an informal basis, it is different from the Kincardine playing field in that the land is allocated to residential development in the development plan. Regardless of whether it is public or private, it is not safeguarded open space.
Mr Martin, do you have any follow-up questions for Miss Hamilton?
Just two. Is the Alloa eastern link road included in the finalised Clackmannan local plan and was it examined at the local plan inquiry, at which matters such as effects on infrastructure were taken into account?
It is identified in the finalised local plan. Objections to that plan were received and were considered by the inquiry reporter in June last year. The inquiry reporter's report was submitted in December and he recommended no change to the local plan, so there is no reason to suggest that the eastern link road should not be retained.
Mr Craig identified that, as far as the bill is concerned, the Alloa eastern link road is part of the works, along with the reconstruction of the railway. Is the Alloa eastern link road desirable in its own terms as a piece of road infrastructure, whether or not the railway goes ahead?
My understanding is that the principal requirement for the road is to do with the rail project. The question whether the road has other benefits is one that Mr West would be able to answer.
Thank you.
There are no further questions for Miss Hamilton. I thank her for giving evidence. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mr West?
I do, sir. I have two questions of clarification.
Please proceed.
I think that Mr Craig might have identified the situation, Mr West, but there is a typographical error in your evidence. The numbers "3" and "4" are transposed. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Could you explain that to the committee and meet Mr Craig's point?
Numbers 3 and 4 Hilton Crescent are semi-detached houses at the corner of Hilton Crescent. Basically, the properties run north to south. The proposed route of the eastern link road runs at a slight angle to them such that the road would be slightly nearer the northernmost property—or the northernmost half of the property, which is in fact number 3 Hilton Crescent and not number 4, as shown.
Thank you. The second question is whether you have any recent information about road safety in the vicinity.
There are two aspects to my reply. I carried out further research into whether any notification had been made of speeding problems in the area. I found only one registered complaint about speeding in the area, which was made in July 2002. Following our receipt of the complaint, we carried out speed measurements. The average speed on the road at that time was 28mph in a northbound direction and 29mph in a southbound direction. We also carried out further research into accidents on the road. There were two, both of which involved pedestrians. In one, a pedestrian ran out in front of a cyclist and, in the other, a young pedestrian ran out in front of a car. Both accidents were slight.
Thank you.
Mr Craig, do you have any questions for Mr West?
I do. In fact, I have sent most of them to Miss Hamilton. As I stated previously, in the meeting with Mr Urquhart we were told that there were no alternative routes. In document SAK/S2/04/4/38, the committee will find the route that the promoter is proposing, plus another three. In the tenders that have been sent to contractors, why was only one option sent out for tender?
As the committee is aware, I went through the detail of the route selection process at a previous meeting. If it would assist the committee, I can go through it again or I can abbreviate my evidence today. The preferred route, which is the one that is included in the bill, was the result of an assessment process. The route minimises the impact on the warehousing in the area and on Carsebridge Road, which is the road that was used in two of the alternatives. Those are the main reasons for the selection of the preferred route.
Another question that I asked previously was how, if Hilton Road were closed off, we would receive deliveries.
Vehicles would still be able to go down Hilton Road as far as the level-crossing, at which point the road would be closed. Turning heads would be provided so that vehicles could get down the road to the point that I have described, turn around and come back again. If you are asking how the road closure would impact on specific deliveries that are made by large vehicles to Hilton Crescent, which I accept is a narrow road, there would be no difference from the present delivery arrangements.
But what if there is to be a 7.5 tonne weight limit on the bridge?
There is no weight limit on the bridge on Hilton Road. The weight limit on Hilton Road is an amenity weight restriction, which was imposed following complaints by residents about the number of heavy goods vehicles that were using the road.
Further to your comment about speed analyses in relation to accidents, as I am sure you are aware—you might do this yourself—when people are driving along and see two tubes in the road, they hit their brakes. Have you asked Central Scotland police how much time they sit waiting to catch cars speeding and how many people they catch?
I am perhaps slightly more informed than the general public. The council uses two tubes across the road to measure speed, whereas the police use three tubes. We carry out regular volume and speed checks on a variety of roads throughout the council area by using two tubes across the road. Those give us the direction of the traffic and a relatively accurate measure of its speed, but they are not as accurate as the equipment that is used by the police.
My point is that, when people who are driving along see the tubes, they hit their brakes and slow down. However, if they are coming down Hilton Road, they do not see the police hiding round the corner, so they are more likely to be travelling at their normal speed.
I agree that, if motorists see the tubes, they will be likely to brake. However, in reality, if the car is travelling anywhere near the rear of the vehicle that is in front, the opportunity to see the tubes is very limited. The tubes are a dark colour, so they blend into the road surface quite well and are difficult to spot. I suggest that, on the majority of occasions, by the time people react to seeing the tubes, it is too late for them to brake.
At our previous meeting, which you attended along with the other residents of Hilton Crescent and with Councillor Derek Stewart, it was openly admitted that the passenger line would not make any money but would be subsidised by the freight line—plenty of people admitted that. The freight is primarily for Longannet. What will happen once the power station reaches the end of its design life, which will be after 10 years or 15 years maximum? Have you any guarantees that the freight line will still be used?
All those matters were considered at stage 1 and the question is not absolutely relevant to your objection. If you have questions specifically on your objection, please address them in question form to Mr West.
I refer Mr West to the reporter's decision letter, which is contained in SAK/S2/04/4/37. Page 83 of the extract from the reporter's report on the objections says that, if the road went further into the existing bonds, more land would be freed for housing, recreation and what have you. Is there a specific reason why the principal route has been chosen above others?
Let me expand on the reason that I gave previously. The route was chosen to minimise the impact on the warehousing of producing a route further to the east.
Is it not the case that those walls will be demolished at some point anyway?
That is not my understanding.
One of my concerns was that the road was to be built on greenfield land. We have been told repeatedly that the land is not greenfield land, but it is certainly not brownfield land, as nothing has been built there before. What is the land classed as?
My understanding is that it is not classed as greenfield land in the strict planning sense of the term, as it has been used for other purposes in that past. Admittedly, it is green in so far as it is a grassed area, but it is not a greenfield site in the planning context.
During the consideration stage, we have explored evidence relating to the reason for the selection of the proposed eastern relief road. However, the Hilton Crescent residents will not have heard that evidence. With reference to document SAK/S2/04/4/38, which outlines four possible alignments for the eastern relief road, will you explain the logic behind the choice made, taking into account in doing so the concerns of the Hilton Crescent residents as explained in their commentary in document SAK/S2/04/4/35 on your response to their objection in paragraph 3 of document SAK/S2/04/4/34?
You might need to remind me of parts of that question in due course. The process of selecting the route for the relief road started when it was decided to reopen the railway line. The first option that we considered was the installation of a level-crossing on Hilton Road. That was initially estimated to cost around £750,000. On further investigation, it quickly became apparent that that was not a practical proposition because of the possibility of traffic queueing back from Clackmannan Road across the crossing and also from the crossing back on to Clackmannan Road. It was judged that the proposal would almost certainly be opposed by HMRI.
That is adequate, thank you.
We have no reason to believe that the weight limit on Hilton Road would necessarily be removed. It could remain as an amenity weight restriction—that is why it was there previously. Heavy goods vehicles tended to use the road as a shortcut between the A907 and the A908. However, that would not be possible if the road was closed at the level-crossing. The possibility of the through movement of heavy goods vehicles would be absolutely minimised. We could leave a weight restriction on the road, but I do not think that it would be necessary. Nonetheless, I am happy to consider that.
Would you consider leaving the weight restriction?
We could leave the weight restriction on Hilton Road without any problem.
Thank you. In paragraph 3 of paper SAK/S2/04/4/33 and paragraph 9 of paper SAK/S2/04/4/36, you give a distance of 34m as that between the running surface of the eastern relief road and 4 Hilton Crescent. In comparison, part 26 of paper SAK/S2/04/4/37—the reporter's report into the local plan—cites a distance of approximately 25m. I appreciate that the figure that is given in paper SAK/S2/04/4/37 is approximate, but how certain is the figure of 34m? I ask in view of the potential implications for measurable noise emissions, which are discussed on the second page of paper SAK/S2/04/4/34.
The figure of 34m was produced by me scaling from a 1:2,500 preliminary design plan of the eastern link road. The measurement was taken from the corner of the building to the edge of the running surface of the road—the black-topped surface. I chose that point because noise and vibration is created by the vehicles that are travelling on the road and the closest that they can come to the property is the edge of the running surface.
Thank you.
Mr Martin, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr West?
I have no re-examination, sir.
There being no further questions, I thank Mr West for giving evidence. We will have a one-minute break to allow Mr Craig to take his place at the witness table.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I thank you for coming along today, Mr Craig.
The committee has read all the written evidence that sets out the concerns of Hilton Crescent residents in relation to the scheme. In the light of what the promoter has said about your evidence, is there anything further that you would like to add initially?
Primarily, I want to add that I hope that it is not true that the edge of the boundary of the road will be 25m from my house, because that would be in my garden. That is pretty much it.
Okay. Thank you, Mr Craig. Mr Martin, do you wish to ask Mr Craig any questions?
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr Craig. I would like to ask you about one matter. I refer to paper SAK/S2/04/4/37, which is the extract from the reporter's report of objections made to the Clackmannanshire local plan. I think that the second part is a decision letter, which is a separate matter. From section 26 onwards, which begins on page 78 of the overall document from which this document was extracted, we can see that there were objections from a number of parties in relation to Hilton Road in Alloa and the Alloa eastern link road. Were you an objector at the time in respect of both of those?
Yes.
I would simply like to clarify matters and I am sure that you can assist the committee. To what extent did you participate in those proceedings? James Barr is referred to in the report, but I do not think that there is a reference to you or to any other individual. There is also a reference to written submissions from the council. Will you explain to the committee what you did in relation to that objection?
Sure. We really heard about the local and structure plans first—I think that they were at the Greenfield offices. It was pretty much from those plans that we saw that there would be a road and that the playing field would be taken away. Our objections then moved from the local and structure plans to the bill and pretty much the same objections have carried on from one straight through to the other.
I understand that, Mr Craig, but I am really asking about your participation in the local plan inquiry proceedings. Did you go and give evidence? Did you make written objections? Did you consider the documents? What did you do?
I made written objections.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr Martin.
Mr Craig, in document SAK/S2/04/4/32, you refer just before the postscript to a public inquiry. I assume that the reference is not to today's hearing, but perhaps you could help us with the event to which reference is made.
To be perfectly honest, I was talking about today's hearing. We heard that a hearing would be required.
Right. That was not clear from the document. In paragraph 5 of document SAK/S2/04/4/33, the promoter indicates uncertainty about two references that you made to "The previous plan" and "The updated plan". You address that point in document SAK/S2/04/4/35 at points 5 and 19 and you say that you attach a further copy of a letter. With reference to that letter, which I think is attached at the back of paper SAK/S2/04/4/32, could you take us to the concerns that you do not consider to have been answered?
The concerns were pretty much the ones that are unanswered as of now. Primarily, they are about noise and safety and they arise from the fact that the road will run so close to our boundary fences. The road will mean a greater increase in noise for us than the railway will mean for some people. The fact that the road will run so close to the boundary fences also means a problem of pollution. As the road will be a major one, there is bound to be a pollution problem. The biggest concern that many people have about the railway is about a train derailment. I imagine that, statistically, there is more chance of a car leaving the road than there is of a train being derailed.
So safety is your main concern.
Yes.
That concludes the questioning for group 14. Mr Craig, you have up to five minutes to make any closing remarks.
I will simply reiterate the points about safety. I find it hard to comprehend that the road is to go ahead so close to our boundary fences. This might be an aside but, in a previous meeting with Mr West, I asked him how many people who are on the planning committee stay in Alloa and will be affected by the proposals. Obviously, the answer is none. It is easy to put something in somebody else's back yard. However, my major concern is safety. I have an 11-month-old son. As the road is to go right up to our boundary fences, I dread to think what would happen if a car left the road.
Thank you for your attendance at the meeting, Mr Craig. That concludes the evidence on group 14.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We now move to group 12. The committee is aware of a planning application that is currently before Stirling Council. Both parties should appreciate that the committee cannot become involved in a local planning determination that relates to residential land. Accordingly, the committee requests that parties do not lead evidence that pertains to the merits or demerits of the planning application.
Good afternoon, Ms Whitworth. I have questions on matters arising from your precognition, which is SAK/S2/04/5/12. Can you confirm the technical specification of the proposed Waterside level-crossing at Ladysneuk Road, so that there is no doubt?
I can indeed. The current proposal for Waterside level-crossing is for an automatic half-barrier crossing. That contradicts what David Reid indicated on 15 March, at column 359 of the Official Report. He was under the impression that a full-barrier crossing was envisaged. That is not the case. The promoter's current proposal is for an automatic half-barrier crossing, with any mitigation measures as required by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and Network Rail.
Obviously, from the documents, AHB is the acronym for an automatic half-barrier.
It is indeed.
Can that be supplemented by a particular safety feature, so far as protecting the crossing is concerned?
It can. The measure most likely to be put in at the location is red-light enforcement cameras. This type of crossing has traffic lights that go with it. A problem with half-barrier crossings is that sometimes, when they are in a hurry, people try to break through the barriers. The red-light enforcement cameras improve safety by recording that illegal act.
Is it intended that there should be such red-light enforcement measures in this situation, or does that ultimately depend on detailed design and perhaps the input of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate?
It definitely depends on the detailed design, and the input of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and Network Rail.
But if it is desired by the authorities that have ultimate control over this matter, will red-light enforcement be provided by the promoter?
Yes.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr Macleod, and welcome to the committee. Do you have any questions for Ms Whitworth?
Yes, sir, I do. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Good afternoon, Ms Whitworth. Mr Martin in his examination in chief dealt with my first question for you, which was on the current status of the barrier. You mentioned that Mr Reid had been under the impression that a full barrier was envisaged. Are you able to say what led him to that conclusion?
No, I am sorry, I cannot.
Have you had any discussions with Mr Reid about why he came to that conclusion?
I have had some discussions with him. He was under the impression that the half-barrier crossing could be amended so that the barrier crossed the full width of the road. He is not sufficiently expert on the names of the different level-crossings, and he got slightly confused as to whether the barrier went halfway across the road or whether it went the full way across the road.
So that I am not confused when I ask you some questions later, in terms of standards of level-crossing, is there a difference between what is referred to in some reports as an MCB, which is a manually controlled barrier, and what is referred to elsewhere as a CCTV—or closed-circuit television—crossing?
To the best of my knowledge, an MCB is a manually controlled barrier, and it is a different type of barrier from an AHB. An MCB crossing involves different types of signalling and interlockings between the gates and the signalling system. It is monitored and CCTV is the form of monitoring that is used in a lot of circumstances at this type of crossing, so it is commonly referred to as an MCB3 with CCTV camera. I hope that that answers your question.
In short, for present purposes, are they one and the same?
Yes.
First, I would like to ask you some questions about the environmental impact assessment process that was carried out, with particular regard to the site that Taylor Woodrow intends to develop. I ask you to look at the first volume of the environmental statement.
I am sorry, could I get a copy?
Certainly. As I will also refer you to volume 2, it would be helpful if you had a copy of that as well.
Okay, I have the documents.
The first point is a point of fact. At the top of page 3, we see that the main aims of the EIA process are to
Yes.
Do you further agree that it is of the utmost importance that consistency is applied during the environmental impact assessment process?
Yes.
Please turn to volume 2 of the environmental statement. Before I refer you to any specific section, what is your view on whether it was appropriate for the environmental statement that accompanies the bill to take into account the proposed redevelopment of the site that we are considering this afternoon?
I am not an expert on environmental statements and environmental regulations, but I will answer to the best of my knowledge. My understanding is that environmental statements must take account of all approved planning uses of land, that where possible they should recognise any planning applications that are under consideration but that they must deal only with approved applications—where consent has been given, the environmental statement must consider it.
I accept the caveat that you gave before your answer, but there are different ways in which an environmental statement can look at development proposals, are there not? It could consider the baseline for the environmental impact assessment or it could consider the cumulative impact of the scheme that is under consideration and other projects that may be going through the planning process.
Again, I am not an environmental statement person, but the environmental statement baseline, as I understand it, considers what is there on the ground at the present time. It does not consider what might happen. The future case that it considers looks at the proposed project in a scenario of approved land use.
Please look at page 17 of volume 2 of the environmental statement. The chapter that this falls under begins on page 15 under the heading "Land Use". Paragraph 3.4, which is headed "Baseline", states:
Yes, I see that paragraph.
I take it that you are aware that the reference to the
Yes.
On the face of it, that section of the environmental statement seems to take those sites into account within the baseline.
Yes. Scott Wilson Scotland Ltd, which carried out the environmental statement, did a consultation on the project at that time. I believe that Gail Jeffrey was involved in discussions with Kerr's, which ran the scrapyard at that time. Kerr's indicated that it was considering selling it, and she was put in contact with Taylor Woodrow. I am aware that that matter came up through consultation.
Please look at page 34 of volume 2 of the environmental statement, which comes under the heading "Community Effects". In the box at the top of table 4.2, which is headed "Level Crossing Site Consultees", there is a reference to the Causewayhead level-crossing and
To the best of my knowledge, Stirling Council received the planning application in something like December 2002.
Yes.
During the preliminary stage, the committee asked questions about the timing of the environmental statement. I believe that it came out through questioning that although the environmental statement was published in February 2003 when the bill was submitted, the baseline studies were concluded, I believe, in November 2002. I am not the author of the document, so I am reciting what I believe to be the case. In November 2002, when the statement was written, it was correct but, as you say, by February 2003, when the environmental statement was published, Stirling Council had received a planning application, I believe.
I appreciate that you are not responsible for the environmental statement and that you are not an "environmental statement person", but is it possible that a planning application could have been received and determined in the period between when the baseline studies were conducted and the environmental statement and the bill were submitted to the Parliament? I am not referring necessarily to the one at Causewayhead, but generally.
Yes. That happened in Clackmannan, I believe. On the day on which the bill was introduced, planning permission was granted for a site that abuts the railway and that was not reflected in the environmental statement. I understand that Clackmannanshire Council tries to turn planning applications round within two months, so there was plenty of scope for that to happen.
Has no account been taken of that development site either?
That came up during the preliminary stage, and we used it as an example of how the notification that is attached to the bill's introduction serves to highlight issues that have not come to light. When the landowner of the development site in Clackmannan received notification that the bill was being introduced, he contacted me and Alison Gorlov, advised us that his planning application had been given consent and was not correctly reflected in the environmental statement, and requested that we no longer take possession of his land. We entered into a legally binding agreement to release his land from the project.
From pages 31 and 32 of volume 2 of the environmental statement, does it appear that the Causewayhead site and its potential for development for residential purposes were taken into account in assessing the community effects at the baseline level?
I am sorry, could you repeat the question?
Yes. I suspect that it was long and rambling. Pages 31 and 32 of volume 2 of the environmental statement introduce and set out the methodology for the assessment of community effects, and reference is made to the consultations. Table 4.2 goes on to show that the possibility of development of the site was taken into account in the baseline study of community effects. Do you agree with that?
I cannot confirm that without having studied the environmental statement.
Under the heading "Cumulative Community Effects Assessment" and under the subheading "Causewayhead Level Crossing", at the bottom of page 64, reference is made to
Sorry—is that a question?
Yes.
Could you repeat the question?
Yes. Paragraph 4.8, on page 64 of the environmental statement, is headed "Cumulative Community Effects Assessment". At the bottom of that page, under the heading "Causewayhead Level Crossing", reference is made to
I cannot answer that, as I was not one of the authors. I can say that both William Kerr and Taylor Woodrow were consulted. That consultation was fed back into the bill process and into the environmental statement, at the points that you are pointing out. However, I cannot confirm whether that information was fed back into all the various sections of the environmental statement. The area of land that you are discussing is not identified in the Stirling Council local plan as having housing among the permitted development there. There is a planning application covering that piece of land, which has been submitted by Taylor Woodrow. However, planning approval has not yet been granted, and it had not been granted when the environmental statement was written and published.
Indeed not—that is understood. I refer you to an earlier point in the environmental statement. Page 58 of volume 2 contains table 4.4, which is headed "Predicted Pedestrian Journey Length & Time Impacts". You will see, near the top of that table, reference to the Causewayhead level-crossing being closed. The next box along from there refers to the
That is correct. Under the "Comments" column, it says that that is
Yes—there is a caveat there. Nonetheless, the impact appears to have been assessed.
Yes, according to the table.
The table on page 238 of volume 2 of the environmental statement mentions the level-crossings at Causewayhead and Waterside, and reference is made to the existing position. However, there is no reference whatever to the potential for development of that site.
That appears to be the case.
Similarly, table 13.3, on page 242, shows the results of assessments of the significance of the effects of the level-crossings. Again, no reference is made to the potential for the development of what is referred to in that table simply as "Kerr's scrap yard".
From my brief reading of the table, I do not see any reference to that.
Accepting that you are not ultimately responsible for the document, and that you are possibly looking at some of its pages for the first time this afternoon, would you agree that, on the face of it, there has not been a consistency of approach in the environmental assessment as to the bill's effects on that site?
I agree that the sections that you have pointed out indicate that the proposed development that does not have planning approval is not dealt with in the same way in every section. That might be because different people wrote different sections, but again, I am not the author. I believe that the discussion on the environmental statement's methodology was undertaken during the preliminary stage.
Indeed, that is fully accepted, but I am asking you particular questions in relation to the site and I think that your answer is probably that, on the face of it, there is an inconsistency in the procedure for different sections of the environmental statement.
I hate to sound like Perry Mason, especially as I am not quite that old, but you cannot put words in the witness's mouth.
I am very sorry, sir.
That is okay. Miss Whitworth, as you are not the author of the sections of the environmental statement that are under consideration and which Mr Macleod is asking about, perhaps someone for the promoter could clarify the point so that Mr Macleod does not have to go around putting words in witnesses' mouths and he can be 100 per cent certain that he is getting information from the people who wrote those sections.
Can I just be clear that clarification is required on the treatment of the proposed development in the environmental statement?
Yes.
Mr Macleod also wants to know whether that treatment is consistent. Is that the question?
That is a good question, yes.
Thank you.
It can.
Miss Whitworth, will you consider a document with which you might be a little more familiar? Indeed, you gave me a copy of it, so I suspect that you know it better than I do. It is the Arthur D Little risk assessment of December 2003—document SAK/S2/04/5/14.
I point out that the copy that the Parliament has sent to me is missing the first page. I submit that page to the Parliament as document SAK/S2/04/5/14A. It appears to be the way in which the document was copied. It has a front half cover and there is a lot about a notice on the front of the Parliament's copy.
We have a copy of document SAK/S2/04/5/14A here and we will take it into consideration.
I suspect that it will be helpful to take the committee through the background to the document. Page 1 is headed "Introduction" and paragraph 5 on that page summarises the background. Scott Wilson had been commissioned
The report came about when Scott Wilson Railways (Scotland) Ltd was commissioned to undertake the preliminary design and parliamentary submission for the project. It did some work on level-crossings, as it did on the rest of the route, and that work was used for initial discussions with HMRI and Network Rail. HMRI raised some concerns about the validity of the report, which it had received so that a site visit could take place.
So, in essence it was a response to HMRI concerns.
It was a response to concerns raised by Network Rail, the project team and HMRI about information that had been produced previously.
And some of that information related to the standard to which level-crossings should be upgraded.
The issue of what a level-crossing will be in the future is under discussion and will be discussed right through the project's development. There are a number of existing level-crossings along the route. Although some are deemed operational, they have fallen into disrepair and will require works to bring them back up to full operational standard. Those discussions form part of the discussions about approvals under the Railway and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994 that HMRI is required to give Network Rail.
I turn to the aims and objectives on page 1 of document SAK/S2/04/5/14. The first bullet point indicates that one of the overall aims of the work was to establish the likely risks at each location if each crossing were to be specified as an automatic half-barrier crossing or automatic barrier crossing, locally monitored—ABCL. That sets the context for what I am going to ask. At the bottom of page 9 of the document, there is a summary of Arthur D Little's initial conclusions. It considers that the minimum level of protection for all four crossings—the basis for consideration of additional risk mitigation—is the automatic half-barrier crossing. In essence, Arthur D Little carried out work and came to the conclusion that AHB was a starting point; whether that was satisfactory could then be considered in more detail. Is that a fair summation?
I do not have in front of me the brief that we gave Arthur D Little, but my recollection is that we explained that we proposed to upgrade the level-crossings to AHB and that we were seeking its professional opinion on whether that was sufficient to allow us to continue discussions with Network Rail and HMRI.
We are puzzled. In relation to paragraph 2.4 of document SAK/S2/04/5/14 you referred to four level-crossings, but it seems to us that only three are seen as AHB and the one at Kincardine Station Road is seen differently.
You are absolutely right; that is my mistake.
Okay.
On page 10 of the document, there is an explanation of a risk assessment and options review exercise that was undertaken. In the second paragraph, an explanation is given of the VPF—value to prevent fatality—figure. Two figures are given. One is £1.3 million per equivalent fatality for single events and the other is £3.64 million per equivalent fatality for events with the potential for multiple fatalities. Am I right in thinking that those figures are used as part of a cost-benefit analysis when considering the level to which one would upgrade a level-crossing?
I think that you are correct in principle. My understanding is that the final approval of a level-crossing is subject to a number of different issues that HMRI and Network Rail are concerned about. One of those, which is noted on page 1 of SAK/S2/04/5/14, is the fact that the risk to the users will be kept
I ask you to turn to page 4 of Arthur D Little's risk assessment report. Under the heading "Collective risk", we see a reference to
Yes, that is correct. Appendix A shows different charts that are extracts from the model that Arthur D Little uses. They go through the different assessments that are made at each location. Traffic moments are assessed, as is the position of the level-crossing, whether the road surface is suitable, what the visibility is like and suchlike.
Let us consider first the level of road vehicle traffic. I ask you to look at page 11 of paper SAK/S2/04/5/14. In the second bullet point under the heading "Notable features of the crossing", we see that the level of road vehicle traffic is estimated from the quick census to be around 840 vehicles per day. How long was the quick census?
I will just check that. I believe that we are told in appendix A. On page 29, we are told that the quick census was of 27 minutes' duration.
Am I right in thinking that, at the time that the Arthur D Little report was commissioned and produced, the information in the environmental statement was finalised and in the public domain.
That is correct.
Can you advise the committee why the information on traffic numbers in the environmental statement was not made available to Arthur D Little when it was carrying out its risk assessment?
It was made available to Arthur D Little. I do not believe that we sent the company a copy of the environmental statement, but I believe that we indicated the assumptions that Scott Wilson had made in carrying out the assessment. In undertaking its level-crossing risk assessment, Arthur D Little felt that a site visit was the best means of correlating all the information and ensuring that what it was doing was not based on other people's work, so that the results that it produced would be consistent with those for other level-crossings that it assesses. Arthur D Little chose to go out on site and to take a quick census, as that is what it normally does in such situations.
I ask you to keep hold of the Arthur D Little report and to refer back to the environmental statement. Page 238 of volume 2 of the environmental statement, to which we referred earlier today, deals with the existing situation at the various level-crossings. In the second box from the top of the page, reference is made to the Waterside level-crossing. In its traffic assessment, Scott Wilson assessed the levels, at 2002, as being in the region of 1,100 vehicles per day.
That is correct. The figure ties in quite well with the estimate of 1,050 vehicles per day that Arthur D Little used in its assessment. The second bullet point on page 11 of the Arthur D Little report says:
I can see that, but we should read out the sentence in full. It says:
For Waterside level-crossing, yes.
I ask you to look at page 242 of the environmental statement. I refer to the second box down, where you will see a reference to Waterside level-crossing. It says:
Yes, but in traffic terms, the numbers are really quite close. As I said, the reports were done for different purposes. The environmental statement considers the bigger picture, whereas the Arthur D Little report is based specifically on the level-crossings. As you have seen, Arthur D Little went out and did a quick census on the Waterside level-crossing. I do not believe that it did any on the Causewayhead and Abbeycraig crossings. The Arthur D Little numbers are more likely to be an accurate reflection of the situation at the present time.
Are you seriously suggesting that an assessment that was carried out for 27 minutes on one day is likely to be more robust than the assessment that Scott Wilson took into account in its preparation of the transport section of the environmental statement?
As I said, in traffic terms, the numbers are really quite close together. The two things were done for different purposes. Arthur D Little has sufficient knowledge of these things. It undertook its quick census on a day on which the traffic flow would give a broad estimate of the traffic level that it should consider in the level-crossing report.
Surely a huge degree of extrapolation is required if a 27-minute survey is used to work out what the likely daily traffic movement is.
Again, I hate to say that I am not a traffic expert, but I am not. I am aware that there are recognised formulae that take days of the week, hours of the day and different months of the year to come up with estimates of the likely traffic that can be predicted at any one location. Traffic engineering is a specific area of engineering and it is not one in which I am expert.
In addition, reference is made in the second bullet point on page 11 of the Arthur D Little report to the fact that
Although I have read the environmental statement from cover to cover, I should clarify that I have not done so in the past couple of days. That is why I am saying that I am not totally up to speed on every paragraph that you are highlighting. I assure everybody that I have read it. I am sorry; I have forgotten the question.
Arthur D Little and Scott Wilson certainly both seem to have taken into account the closure of the two nearby level-crossings, although they come to different conclusions in respect of the traffic numbers. In its transport assessment, did Scott Wilson take into account the potential for an increase in traffic because of new housing to the south of the railway?
As far as I can remember, Scott Wilson did not do that, because it focused on the base conditions as they were at the time. Again, I would have to clarify whether it assumed that the traffic at Cambuskenneth would increase in the future. My understanding is that, in the Arthur D Little report, matters such as local plans were not considered and there was no awareness of the planning constraints that exist in an area such as Cambuskenneth. To err on the side of caution and for safety's sake, it appears that, because there was an existing area of residential houses at the end of a dead-end road, it was assumed that the number of vehicles and the traffic that the existing housing generated would be likely to increase somewhat in the future. I believe that Arthur D Little added about 25 per cent to its predicted levels, to ensure that any further increase in traffic from Cambuskenneth was included in the risk assessment at the level-crossing.
Let us adopt such an approach to Scott Wilson's study. If we refer back to page 238, we find that, at 2002, traffic levels at Waterside level-crossing were in the region of 1,100 vehicles per day. That was the base condition, leaving aside any question about whether the figures that it used for the closure of the level-crossings and so on were appropriate. Do you accept that figure?
I accept that.
Mr Macleod, this is all very interesting, but where are you leading to?
The objectors are concerned about the treatment of the Waterside level-crossing by the bill's promoter. A recent risk assessment of the impact of the railway proposal on existing conditions—leaving aside any potential development of the Taylor Woodrow site—which the bill's promoter commissioned, seems to point in the direction of a particular type of level-crossing. I would like to explore with Miss Whitworth why the bill's promoter does not seem willing to accept the conclusions of that report. In order to do that, I need to ask a couple more questions of detail, but I assure you that I will not take up any more time than is necessary.
The committee is grateful for that assurance. Proceed.
I want to consider briefly the 25 per cent margin of safety that Arthur D Little uses, to which you referred. If we were to take the Scott Wilson figure of 1,100 vehicles per day in 2002 and apply a factor of 25 per cent, do you accept that we would end up with a figure of about 1,300 vehicles, which is not far off the figure of 1,350 vehicles that Scott Wilson predicts there would be with the closure of the two level-crossings?
Yes, your maths appears to be correct.
I am glad to hear it. Do you think that, in relation to future traffic numbers, it is fair to use a figure of around 1,300 or 1,350 vehicles, as Scott Wilson concludes on page 242 of volume 2 of the environmental statement?
In relation to level-crossings, I do not accept that. At the detailed design stage for the level-crossing, there will have to be consideration of the existing conditions at the time. If the bill is passed, the bill promoter will have to give an assurance to Network Rail, as the owner of the infrastructure and the operator of the level-crossing, and to Her Majesty's railway inspectorate about the most appropriate type of level-crossing to be installed at the location.
I understand what you are saying about HMRI, but do you accept that this committee has to be relatively satisfied that what the bill promoter proposes is likely to be safe?
Yes, I believe that the committee has to be satisfied. I would point out that HMRI lodged an objection to the bill on the basis of some of the wording about level-crossings and has asked that we remove any wording that states what type of level-crossing we are proposing, as that was seen to be taking away its role in the process. This committee must be assured that our proposal is safe, but I stress that that is the reason why the bill does not specify the form of level-crossing. The bill only gives us the power to continue the level-crossing at that location.
To return to my first question, if the committee has to be convinced that the promoter's proposal is safe, is it appropriate that it should err on the side of caution if there is a discrepancy between two sets of figures that the promoter has produced?
I will leave the committee to answer that one.
I want you to consider a different aspect of the Arthur D Little risk assessment, which is train numbers. Figure 2 on page 7 of the assessment is entitled "Traffic Moment Compared to National AHB Profile". Before we consider the train figures, do you accept that, if 1,350 cars were using the crossing, the traffic moment would be 81,000, as opposed to the 62,000 that is set out in figure 2?
Without having a calculator before me, as you do, I defer to your maths. As there has been a lot of discussion, particularly today, about the predicted traffic levels at that location, I point out that, if the number of trains was reduced, the traffic moment would also be affected.
Indeed. Note 1 to figure 2 on page 7 of the risk assessment document SAK/S2/04/5/14 states:
I can clarify that. You have quoted from Arthur D Little's final report, the draft version of which used an incorrect number of train movements. When I sought clarification from Arthur D Little on which level of passenger and freight usage was being studied, Arthur D Little clarified that the correct figure was 60, which is 30 passenger train movements and 30 freight train movements per day. I suggest that note 1 is an incorrect reference that was not corrected by Arthur D Little.
Are the key assumptions in appendix B on page 54 correct? Paragraph 1 states:
Again, I think that that has been carried over from the previous version of the report. I can seek clarification from Arthur D Little, but I am positive that the assessment was based on 15 passenger and 15 freight trains in each direction each day. The draft version of the report incorrectly used too many passenger and freight movements.
Mr Macleod, where are we heading?
I am just about there, sir. I have one further question on train numbers before I move on.
Please proceed.
When Mr Reid gave evidence on train movements this morning, he used the figure of 64. Why is that figure not appropriate in this context?
I believe that Mr Reid's evidence related to the environmental statement. This issue has been discussed quite a lot throughout the whole process. The design capacity of the route is 15 passenger and 15 freight trains in each direction per day. The environmental statement used a slightly higher number, which I believe was 64 movements in total.
On a slightly different issue, we have heard reference to the MCB3 barrier. What is the approximate cost of an MCB3 barrier?
It is difficult to answer that. Are you talking about one MCB3 crossing at one location or are you talking about one of a number of such barriers?
I suppose that I am talking about one MCB3 in the context of a number of other level-crossings that are being bundled as part of a tender.
My current understanding is that an MCB3 is somewhere in the region of £1.6 million.
Perhaps I should phrase my question differently. Is £1.6 million the total cost of an MCB3 barrier?
It is not easy to give you a simple answer to that. An MCB3 barrier is connected to the signal system. It requires interlockings between the traffic signals and the railway signals that are relayed back to a location. In the situation that we are talking about, if the barrier were to be put into Waterside level-crossing, one would expect the CCTV camera to be located in the Stirling north signal box.
In broad terms, though, would £1.6 million be a relatively accurate overall figure?
It seems to be very difficult to get a cost for level-crossings from those who are involved with them. They are not constructed every day and are normally dealt with by Network Rail, whose financial management systems I am not party to. The indications that I have been given suggest that an MCB3 costs in the region of £1.6 million. However, that has not been defined in a way that would allow me to say which costs are included in that and which are excluded and whether that is a commercially reasonable cost.
Could you give the committee an indicative cost for an AHB standard of crossing?
My recollection of what is included in the estimate of expense and funding statement is that around £400,000 has been allowed for four AHB crossings to be put in as part of the signalling system and the major project that is being developed. That work feeds into the signalling cost that is presented in the estimate of expense.
Page 13 of the Arthur D Little report contains the conclusions that have been reached following the exercise that was conducted using the value-per-fatality information that we discussed earlier. The report uses lower traffic numbers than those I have referred to this afternoon.
Are you saying that the Arthur D Little report says that an MCB3 costs £1.3 million?
The first paragraph on page 13 says:
I point you to the final paragraph on page 13, which sums up the matter. It states:
Page 13 states that the
Yes. My understanding is that options 1 and 2 were considered because the crossing is a borderline case in risk assessment terms. Arthur D Little considered an AHB as the base case and concluded that for option 1, which was an AHB with a red-light camera, the individual risk of a fatality per year came down to a figure lower than the minimum that is required by Network Rail. The report concluded that that is the most cost-effective option and should be chosen.
But if we can justify costs of £1.3 million over and above the £450,000, that takes us to £1.75 million, which is greater than the £1.6 million that you quoted as the general ballpark figure for an MCB3 barrier.
I am sorry, I do not understand the question. Are you asking what we propose for the location?
No. The question is whether the Arthur D Little report says that spending £1.3 million over and above the £450,000 for an automatic half barrier could be justified.
I believe that the report says that an MCB barrier could be justified on safety grounds. However, the report also says that that is not the most cost-effective option, as an AHB with a red-light camera brings the individual risk of fatality down to an acceptable level.
Mr Macleod, the issues that you raise are for Network Rail and HMRI. Do you have any other questions?
I have one other question on a slightly different topic.
One question will do, thank you.
Paragraph 10 of Miss Whitworth's precognition, which runs from the bottom of page 11 to the top of page 12—
To which document are you referring?
Sorry. I am referring to Miss Whitworth's precognition, which is part of document SAK/15/20/04/5.
It appears that the document is SAK/S2/04/5/19. Sorry, I mean SAK/S2/04/5/12.
Any advance on number 12? On we go.
At the top of page 12 of SAK/S2/04/5/12, there is a quotation from the Arthur D Little risk assessment that implies a fundamental difficulty with the potential redevelopment of the William Kerr scrapyard. Why did you choose that quotation from the report?
I do not recollect why I chose it. It just seemed like a good one at the time.
The quotation implies an impact on the site. The committee is entitled to understand whether Clackmannanshire Council, as the bill's promoter, has a fundamental objection to the development of the Taylor Woodrow site.
I am afraid that you are straying into a subject that is not relevant. I refer you to my introductory remarks to everyone concerned.
I fully understand your remarks about the planning application. I do not intend to become embroiled in any discussion of that. However, the bill's impact on existing and proposed land uses is relevant. That is evidenced by the fact that the environmental statement contains a land use section.
If you are asking about land use in the context of the environmental statement, please proceed—but with caution.
The quotation in Miss Whitworth's precognition says:
That is not my understanding.
I therefore repeat my original question: why did you choose that quotation from the Arthur D Little report?
As I said, the quotation seemed appropriate at the time. Taylor Woodrow representatives and I have had much discussion about the planning application for the location and the level of access provision. In the bill, we have tried to maintain access to an area of land, the main access to which will be removed. That is what "Work No. 1A" does.
As far as you aware, the bill promoter's position is not that no residential housing will be permitted at the site.
That is correct. The site has residential housing at present. We have no desire to change the land use.
I am sorry to have taken so long with my cross-examination.
Not at all. Mr Mundell has some questions.
I will be brief. In SAK/S2/04/5/12, Tara Whitworth refers to a letter of 16 September 2003 to the objector. The committee would appreciate it if you provided that letter, as is offered in your precognition.
I can do that. I have the letter with me this afternoon, so I can give it to the clerks before we leave.
Can you confirm the reasons for the proposed closure of the Causewayhead level-crossing? Why is that necessary?
There are about 15 level-crossings along the route of the existing railway. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has indicated to us that it dislikes level-crossings; they are inherently dangerous places because they are the interface between road and rail. We are seeking to amalgamate as many level-crossings as possible. At an early stage we identified that Causewayhead level-crossing is a private accommodation works crossing. It serves one residential property, which was the scrapyard. On the opposite side is Abbeycraig level-crossing, which serves one property. It was felt that closing those two level-crossings and keeping open Waterside level-crossing, which is on a public road, offered the best balance between maintaining access to existing properties and minimising the number of level-crossings along the route.
Has any assessment been made of the highway capacity of the road across the Waterside level-crossing following the intended upgrade to CCTV standards?
No formal assessment has been done. The Waterside level-crossing crosses an existing public road. Traffic levels on the road—in the region of 800 to 1,000 vehicles per day—are well below its expected capacity. A single carriageway road can carry in the region of 10,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day. We did not think that it was appropriate to assess the capacity of the road at Waterside level-crossing, given that traffic levels are so low at this stage and that the road is a dead-end into Cambuskenneth.
Do you expect that the capacity of the road as it crosses the level-crossing will be greater or less than or the same as it is currently?
The capacity of the road will not be affected by the railway.
I refer you to the objectors' written evidence, which is document SAK/S2/04/5/9. I want to deal briefly with the statement in the context of the cross-examination.
Work number 1A is required to maintain access that is being severed by the closure of Causewayhead level-crossing. It will maintain the status quo in future. It is not meant in any way to facilitate or to hamper development at this location. It is intended merely to maintain access.
That is the case because, in principle, access will have to be via Ladysneuk Road and Waterside level-crossing, rather than Causewayhead level-crossing.
That is correct.
The next paragraph refers to
Stirling Council is a member of the project steering group, so right from the beginning of the project it has been aware of the possibility of closing Causewayhead level-crossing and maintaining Waterside level-crossing.
When was the Arthur D Little report received?
The Arthur D Little report is dated September 2003.
After it was received, and no doubt considered, to whom was it sent and when?
The report was sent to members of the project steering group, which includes Stirling Council, in October 2003, I believe. A copy was sent to Scottish Power as the report refers to the Station Road level-crossing in Kincardine. That is a private-user works level-crossing and Scottish Power is the private user. A copy was also sent to Network Rail as the report refers to its infrastructure.
Paragraph 7 of SAK/S2/04/5/9 states:
As I said earlier, the bill does not define the type or the standard of level-crossing to be provided.
That will be determined in discussion with whom, ultimately?
Network Rail and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate are the two main parties that will be involved in the discussion.
Will they take into account the actual characteristics that will arise from the detailed design, the actual rail traffic projections, the actual road traffic projections and any other circumstances that may be relevant?
The methodology for taking factors into account is in the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994—known as ROTS. I believe that Network Rail and HMRI will take a number of different things into account, but they will definitely focus on proposed rail traffic and, I assume, on existing and proposed road traffic.
In principle, if the powers of the bill are granted, will that methodology be any different to that used at any other location at which a level-crossing is involved?
No. The situation is exactly the same at Station Road in Kincardine. We still have to conclude the discussions with the interested parties—which, in that case, are Scottish Power and Network Rail—to ensure that what we propose, and what Network Rail will ultimately seek approval from HMRI for, is in accordance with everybody's requirements.
Thank you, Ms Whitworth. I am sorry, convener, for taking up a few moments.
That is quite all right, Mr Martin. We have no further questions for Miss Whitworth, so I thank her for giving evidence. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mrs Gorlov?
No, sir.
Mr Macleod, do you have any questions for Mrs Gorlov?
Sir, you will be pleased to hear that I have none.
Mrs Gorlov, in paragraph 31 of your precognition—SAK/S2/04/5/12—you describe the current status of discussions with Mrs Kerr. Has any further progress been made?
I have no personal knowledge of that, but perhaps Miss Whitworth can answer.
No further progress has been made.
Is there any prospect of Mrs Kerr's element of the objection being withdrawn?
I stand to be corrected, because I simply accept what I am told, but, as I understand the position, Mrs Kerr is in fairly close contact with the Kerrs next door. I get the impression that she might be guided by what action they choose to take.
Mr Martin, do you have any follow-up questions?
I have no further questions, thank you.
There being no further questions, I thank Mrs Gorlov for giving evidence. We will take a break to allow the objectors' witnesses to take their places at the table.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I invite the next group of witnesses to take the oath or make a solemn affirmation.
Mr Macleod, do you have any questions for Mr Macdonald?
No, convener.
Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mr Macdonald?
Yes. I have some general background questions about the plan at the back of document SAK/S2/04/5/7 and, in particular, about the two level-crossings that are indicated. If the bill were passed, the Causewayhead level-crossing would be closed. Am I right that development on the north side of that roundabout has already effectively closed off that level-crossing?
The access to the development to the north of the railway line does not use that strip of ground to access the houses, if that is what you mean.
That is not quite what I mean. I suggest that the route from the public road to the Causewayhead level-crossing—we can see a little bit of it on the north side of the railway in the drawing before us—has been built over substantially.
No. The access road that the Kerrs used while the scrapyard was in operation is still intact physically and has not been built on.
If one were crossing the level-crossing to the north-west side, could one still go straight out to the public road?
Yes.
I see. In so far as the other level-crossing at Waterside is concerned, can you agree that what is known as work number 1A in the bill—the new junction that provides access to the Riverbank development—would be sufficient to allow road access to such a development from Ladysneuk Road and that the precise position and design of that access has been a matter of discussion with the promoter?
That is correct.
That leaves the question of the Waterside level-crossing. Did you hear the evidence of Ms Whitworth that the precise standard and specification of that crossing will be determined only after final design has been considered and approved by Network Rail and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate?
Yes.
Did you also hear Ms Whitworth's evidence that when the authorities make that assessment, they will no doubt take into account the volume of road and rail traffic and the likelihood of traffic generation when assessing the standard of the level-crossing?
Yes.
Are you therefore reassured that, if it is the case that the Riverbank development has received planning permission by that stage and is able to be developed, that is a factor that the authorities will take into account when deciding what standard of level-crossing is appropriate?
The problem that we have at the moment is that in attempting to determine the application, Stirling Council assumes that the level-crossing will be a half-barrier crossing and that, if our development were to go ahead, that crossing would have to be upgraded. I do not know whether the council could determine the application before the assessment of what is required is complete.
The convener is rightly urging me not to get into the planning merits of your scheme and I do not intend to do that. The fact is, however, that you will be able to develop only if planning permission is granted. Is that correct?
Correct.
Is it also correct that it is a matter of the planning merits whether access can be taken in relation to any site, including the one that we are discussing?
Correct.
Is it true that it is often the case in such situations that a developer has to make alterations to the road network, as well as particular investments in design and upgrading, to allow for the additional traffic?
Yes.
In principle, you are in no different a position at the Riverbank development.
Different from what?
From the position that I have just described. If you wish planning permission for a housing development, you will have to design the access, satisfy the authorities that the road network can cope and, if it cannot cope, you might have to invest in upgrading it.
That is correct.
So the position in which you find yourself at Riverbank is no different in principle from that of any other development.
Not in principle.
Ms Whitworth has explained why there would be no specification in the bill—if it were passed—of the technical design of the level-crossing. Does that reassure you that no concluded situation would arise if the bill were passed, because the detailed design has yet to be finalised and that detailed design will take into account all the material circumstances, including the possibility of planning permission on your site?
If the detailed design were to include the possibility of planning consent on the site, I would be reassured.
You do not suggest that that is a matter on which the committee can decide.
No.
I have some questions, but I am not clear about how topics have been allocated to the witnesses. I will put my questions to Mr Macdonald, but he should advise me if other witnesses in the group are better placed to answer them.
My colleague Mr Gaul, who is our design director and the architect who has been dealing with the planning application, might be better placed to answer your question.
As you have probably heard, our planning application—
Mr Gaul, I beg your pardon for interrupting you just before you launch into your answer, but perhaps Mr Martin and Mr Macleod should interrogate the witnesses before Mr Mundell asks his questions.
Fine.
Mr Gaul has been forewarned of one question. Mr Macleod, do you have any further questions for Mr Macdonald?
No.
As there are no further questions, I thank Mr Macdonald for giving evidence.
No.
Mr Martin, do you have questions for Mr Gaul?
Yes. Good afternoon, Mr Gaul. On what matters will you and the remaining two gentlemen give evidence? I do not want to take up the committee's time by duplicating matters.
We are here in case there are any questions about the planning issue.
Are you the person to whom Mr Mundell and I should put questions on planning issues?
Yes, in relation to the Causewayhead site.
I hesitate to steal a committee member's thunder, but I was going to ask—
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Mr Martin.
What is the status of the site in the current Stirling local plan?
The site is currently used as a scrapyard. I understand that the site was not zoned for housing within the plan, but we have been in consultation with the planning department for about three years and the principle of a housing development is acceptable to the department. Indeed, in December 2002, we submitted a detailed planning application, which is on-going and has reached a stage at which our design is acceptable to the planning department. Only the transport issues remain to be resolved.
If we consider the structure and local plans, do you agree that there is a relationship between the development, the granting of planning permission in relation to any site and the possible effect of that site on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway reconstruction?
I agree, but the timing is the problem. We have been engaged in discussions about the site for about three years. The problem with the recent discussions about the railway is precisely that they have been recent. We fully expected to receive planning consent without the transportation issues arising at this late stage.
I understand. Will you look at page 49 of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling structure plan? I hope that the plan was circulated in advance, because I indicated that I would ask the witness to consider it.
I am sorry, but I do not have that document.
I apologise. I asked for copies to be given to committee members but perhaps the witnesses do not have them. Perhaps I should say that I will also ask Mr Gaul to consider page 70 of the Stirling Council local plan.
It would be helpful if I could also have copies of both documents.
We will take a short break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Mr Martin, would you care to proceed with your questioning of Mr Gaul?
Thank you, sir. Mr Gaul, do you have page 49 of the "Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan" in front of you?
It is not marked "page 49", but I presume that that is the page that is in front of me.
In a box on the left-hand side, it has the words "Proposal TRP1". I am afraid that the copy is not very good, but it is as good as we can get it.
I have the page in front of me, thank you.
Can you see "Proposal TRP1: "Strategic Transport Infrastructure"? The plan refers to the councils in the plural because, of course, it was produced by Clackmannanshire Council and Stirling Council. Under point 2, it says that the councils will
Yes.
Towards the top of the page, in a paragraph that is numbered 6.8, you will see a policy that is referred to as "POL.T2". The paragraph says:
Yes, I agree with that. Our discussions with the planning department indicated that they view the Causewayhead site as a brownfield site. As such, it is viewed as a development windfall opportunity for the council. During our discussions, even before the bill came into being, the reopening of the railway was always recognised as a possibility. We have taken it into consideration in our design.
Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
Mr Macleod, do you have any follow-up questions for Mr Gaul?
No, sir. I do not.
As there are no further questions for Mr Gaul, I thank him for giving evidence. Mr Macleod, do you have any questions for Mr Steven?
No, sir. I do not. However, I would like to clarify for the committee's benefit that Mr Steven is the regional engineer for Taylor Woodrow. He is here to address any detailed issues in respect of the contamination of the site or to clarify any infrastructure matters that the committee might want to address. With that explanation, I am happy for questions to be asked of him.
Thank you. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mr Steven?
Thank you, sir, but I have no questions.
Right. Mr Macleod, do you have any questions at this stage?
I have no questions at this stage, sir.
Okay. I thank Mr Steven. You may be giving evidence a little later on, Mr Steven. Mr Macleod, do you have any questions for Mr McDermott?
No, sir. I do not. Bearing in mind the convener's introductory remarks about the demerits of the site in respect of the planning application, I do not intend to ask Mr McDermott any questions. Again for the committee's benefit, I would like to clarify that Mr McDermott is the master and factor of the Cowane's Hospital Trust. I am sure that he would be happy to explain the role that that organisation fulfils and the impact that non-development of the site would have on the aims of the organisation.
Thank you. Mr Martin, do you have any questions for Mr McDermott?
Thank you, sir. I have no questions.
Mr Mundell, do you have any questions at this stage?
Thank you, convener. I will proceed on the basis that the first question that I was going to ask has been eloquently put and answered. I will move on to my second question.
Any of the gentlemen can answer.
During our discussions, the closure of the Causewayhead level-crossing was always on the cards. No other solution was ever discussed.
Thank you. I refer you to paragraph 7 of document SAK/S2/04/5/9. With regard to the Waterside level-crossing, on what basis is it said that the upgrading of the crossing will not allow for the development of the site, as is discussed in paragraph 4 of the same document?
I am sorry—could you repeat the question?
The first sentence in paragraph 7 of your statement says:
We received correspondence from the planning department, which states that that level-crossing must be upgraded.
By upgraded, do you mean beyond the upgrading to CCTV?
Yes.
We mean upgrading the level-crossing from AHB to CCTV, so there is a change in the cost from £400,000 to £1.6 million.
Without that upgrading we will not get planning consent.
Yes. However, I am afraid that I am a little confused, because you seem to say in your statement that the upgrading to CCTV would not be sufficient. Is that what you are saying?
My understanding is that if the level-crossing is upgraded to CCTV, the council will grant planning consent, but an additional expense is involved.
However, that is not the upgrading to the full barrier that was being discussed earlier by Mr Macleod.
Yes, it is.
Okay. I am still confused, but perhaps reading the evidence that has been given will shed some light on the matter.
The problem will perhaps now be one of delay. If we do not know what type of level-crossing will be required, the contribution amount cannot be determined, which may impact on the granting of planning consent.
Overall, the committee, in looking at your objection in the light of today's evidence, wishes to be clear about what it is that you now seek. You must appreciate that the committee cannot become involved in the local planning determination; that has been made clear today. Are your objections really matters for discussion in the context of compensation rather than in the context of the content of the bill?
I am not sure that I could answer that question, to be honest.
In simpler terms, is there anything specifically that you are looking for the committee to do to the bill in relation to your objection?
Ideally, we want the committee to recognise the traffic figures that we consider are correct. We also want the level of contribution that is requested from us as applicants for the Causewayhead site to accord with those figures.
We will note that. However, I am sure that you heard evidence previously that the nature of the level-crossing will not be covered in the bill.
Yes.
It will therefore not be a matter that we will determine.
Mr Macleod, do you have any further questions?
I have one point of clarification. Mr Gaul, you were referred to paragraph 7 of paper SAK/S2/04/5/9, the first sentence of which refers to the upgrading of the Waterside level-crossing, as proposed by the bill. Do you recollect the evidence that Ms Whitworth gave on the promoter's current intentions with regard to the upgrade of that level-crossing?
My understanding was that the upgrading was to be considered at some later date, after a detailed design had been considered.
Yes, but what is your understanding of the promoter's intentions at this stage?
A half barrier.
So the reference in the first sentence of paragraph 7 is to a half barrier, as opposed to upgrading the crossing to CCTV status.
Yes.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Thank you, Mr Macleod. I thank all the gentlemen for giving evidence or for being available for questions.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr Macleod. That concludes the evidence for group 12.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
At the start of the meeting, I said that the promoter would make closing comments on all the groups, following the conclusion of evidence taking on the last group. I therefore invite Roy Martin to make his closing remarks on behalf of the promoter—you have up to 30 minutes.
Thank you very much indeed. At this stage of the proceedings, I will not, on the promoter's behalf, labour any of the detailed issues that arise from particular objections. The committee has heard evidence over the past three meetings, and I have been privileged to be present at two of those. The committee also has the Official Report for the previous days and will have one for today. I hope to be able to assist the committee in highlighting a number of issues that, I suggest, support the promoter's objectives and should allow the bill to pass the consideration stage.
You finished exactly on 30 minutes. Thank you for your closing remarks on behalf of the promoter. I thank all the witnesses and their representatives for their attendance and contribution not just today, but during the past two Mondays. The committee appreciates everyone's efforts. We will now consider carefully all the evidence before we publish our report, giving our decisions on the objections that have been considered. The report might mention areas in which the committee expects the bill to be amended during the second phase of the consideration stage. I thank all the staff here at Alloa town hall, who have looked after us these past few months while we have been meeting here—we are grateful to you all for your help.
Meeting continued in private until 17:57.
Previous
Item in Private