Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Official Report 571KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

Our fourth agenda item is consideration of two public petitions. The committee first considered the petitions at its 12 December meeting last year.

PE1236, from Jill Fotheringham, is on safety improvements for the A90 and the A937. Members have a paper from the clerk that sets out the background to the petition. The committee should note that responsibility for any work that is carried out on the issues raised by the petition lies at local level and that the relevant local authority and transport bodies are engaged with the issues that have been raised.

I welcome Nigel Don, the local member, to the committee and I invite comments from members.

I have been involved in this process for years—I seem to remember signing the petition that originally brought the issue to the Parliament’s attention back in 2004. It is disappointing that we still have not made acceptable progress on the matter.

Having looked at the correspondence, I see that the reaction from Transport Scotland appears to be similar to its previous reactions. That gives me cause for concern, because local analysis of previous views expressed by Transport Scotland has been that there was a lack of understanding of the situation at Laurencekirk. Consequently, I am concerned to ensure that we assist the understanding and better the relationships between those with concerns on the ground and those within Transport Scotland.

Nigel Don, do you want to comment?

Thank you, convener. I am grateful to be here. I am conscious that time is, as always, agin us.

I have produced some papers—I apologise that they came late, although I had little option because I had not seen the correspondence from other folk who have tried to take members through the issues.

One issue is the simple fact—the map that I have provided illustrates it—that there is a 20-mile stretch between Brechin and Stonehaven where there are no bridges or underpasses, so it is not possible for traffic to cross the road safely. That means that heavy vehicles, of which there are many—big lorries with trailers and so on—have no alternative but to make what are undoubtedly dangerous manoeuvres.

I also draw members’ attention to the fact that between Perth and Dundee, which is also a 20-mile stretch, there are no less than four grade-separated junctions. I am absolutely delighted that they are there and I have nothing against the good folk of the Carse of Gowrie, but the populations down there are smaller.

The second map, which shows Laurencekirk, is crucial to some of the argument. The hatched area that you can see is the bit that is already built up and the bit to the north of it, beneath the black dotted line, is the area that is earmarked for development. I hope that it is entirely clear that any development up there will not fund the south junction. Section 75 agreements are not going to let that happen. Sure, that development may contribute to a north junction in time, but the south junction is the problem. That is exactly what the highlighted parts of the local plan on page 3 make clear. The plan states:

“There is a road safety issue at the southern A90 junction, which has been an ongoing problem.”

Alex Johnstone said that. It also states:

“It is recognised that a grade separated junction is required ... to overcome this.”

The other highlighted part simply reinforces that, although this is a local problem, the A90 is a trunk road and is Transport Scotland’s problem, but the budget is local.

The last page highlights what I believe are the structural issues. I recognise that the petition started life as being about safety and, unfortunately, the safety issue has not gone away. The correspondence over the period has, however, demonstrated that there is a fundamental disagreement between Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council about the need for a grade-separated junction, there is a disagreement between Transport Scotland and the north east of Scotland transport partnership about the trends in traffic flows—I mention that briefly and it could be documented for you—and there is a disagreement between Transport Scotland and the local community about the safety issues at the junction, which are entirely obvious to those who cross it day and daily, but not so obvious to those who just drive north or south.

Equally, no account has been taken of the matter in the development plans for Laurencekirk. I note from page 20 of the Aberdeen city and shire strategic development plan that arrived on my desk yesterday that a significant number of houses are required in Laurencekirk. No account seems to be taken of the fact that we have a pre-existing problem. If we are to build more houses, we will need the grade-separated junction sooner rather than later, and preferably beforehand.

I leave you with the point that the junction has the only permanent 50mph speed limit on the trunk road network, as I understand it. It seems to me and to those who live in Laurencekirk that that is an indication that it should be the next place that gets a grade-separated junction. If the junction needs a 50mph limit to keep it safe, there is plainly a problem.

I hope that you can see that, although the problem is clearly local to the Laurencekirk south junction, there are structural problems with Transport Scotland. I, my constituents and, frankly, anybody who lives within about 20 miles of Laurencekirk would be grateful if the committee could pursue the matter with Transport Scotland.

It is clear that the two local members have considerable sympathy for the petition. I note the pressures that arise when there is a strong feeling from communities that roads are unsafe. Given that the committee does not allocate funding and does not instruct Transport Scotland, what action could we take to help to resolve the problem?

I have listened to the comments that have been made about the issue both publicly and privately. I know that the committee’s role is not necessarily to take a specific issue and work on the problems that appear to exist, but I believe that there is a problem with the process that is well highlighted by this particular case. The replies from Transport Scotland show me that there is a clear failure to understand the needs of the area. I am genuinely of the view that the committee can have a role in highlighting the difficulties in properly communicating the needs of an area and getting an adequate response from Transport Scotland.

We cannot allocate funding, but we can certainly act as an intermediary to ensure that there is a proper understanding in this case and perhaps affect decisions in other cases in the future.

We will publish the evidence that we are discussing on our website so that people know what we are talking about.

Nigel, you mentioned the grade-separated junctions in the Carse of Gowrie. Were they all funded by Transport Scotland with no developer contributions?

I cannot answer that definitively. However, given that there are no substantial communities anywhere near them, they cannot have been funded by developer contributions. They were simply, over a period, removing what were definitely dangerous junctions that connected very small communities to the A road. The largest community involved is probably Inchture. My information is that Inchture has a population of 700 and Longforgan just under 700 and they each have their own flyover. That bears no relation to the population of 3,000 or 4,000 in the Laurencekirk area.

12:15

I have not seen the Aberdeenshire local plan that you mentioned. It is on your desk; I am not sure whether it is on my desk yet.

Are you talking about more development in Stonehaven over and above the development at the north junction?

Forgive me. You said Stonehaven. I assume that you meant Laurencekirk.

Sorry, I meant Laurencekirk. I beg your pardon.

I refer members to the Laurencekirk map. The hatched area inside the thick black lines is the bit of Laurencekirk that is already built. Between that and the red circle to the south there is a small triangle, where I think the development plan shows something like 50 houses. If we get £5,000 each off 50 houses, that is £250,000, which will hardly scratch the surface of the £12 million that is required. I accept in principle that a wee bit of developer funding might go in, but it will not be significant.

It is fair to point out to anyone who does not understand the situation that this junction is not substantially concerned with dealing with traffic for Laurencekirk. It is a junction between two A-class roads, the A90 and the A937. The A937 is a popular and widely used access point to and from Montrose and areas to the south of Montrose. It is a significant local link road. The bulk of the problems are associated with traffic that is using the A937 to access the area to the south. Consequently, the likelihood of developer funding—

If the traffic is accessing the area to the south, then it is just turning left on to the A90. The problem is traffic that is accessing the road heading north.

Yes. The problem is associated with vehicles coming up from Montrose and Marykirk and turning right to join the road heading north. There are lots of other problems—it is that kind of junction.

Alex Johnstone is saying the south.

Sorry, I meant vehicles that are coming from the area to the south.

To try to understand this, I watched a video showing traffic coming from the A937 and trying to get across the A90. It took about half an hour for a lorry to get across; there was a tailback of other cars as well. What also looks dangerous is that the middle part of the road is not big enough for big lorries and buses. I am surprised that there have not been more serious accidents. Would it be worth while asking Transport Scotland to come to the committee and explain why it does not consider it necessary to upgrade that part of the road?

There are a number of local issues, which Margaret McCulloch has just referred to and which the local members have set out in some detail. There are wider issues about how Transport Scotland engages with local communities. It would be useful to have a short evidence session with Transport Scotland in order for us to better understand the process for funding decisions that go ahead—or do not go ahead.

Do members agree with that suggestion?

That would be useful. It may also be of value if we spoke to somebody from the local community in advance of that. I suggest that the petition that brought the issue to our attention should not now be our first priority and that there may be people—I am thinking of an individual in the community who is associated with the village improvement committee—who could give us a constructive criticism of the position so far. It might be of value to hear from him about his experience and the reaction to some of Transport Scotland’s comments before we question Transport Scotland further.

There is also a role for the local authorities. I want to know what discussions both Angus Council and Aberdeenshire Council have had with Transport Scotland about the junction, because it strikes me that, if Transport Scotland is saying that the work should be developer led, Aberdeenshire Council and Laurencekirk in particular need to say that there are no proposals for a large increase in the number of houses at Laurencekirk yet. The junction is extremely busy and dangerous.

We want to hear from Transport Scotland. Do the clerks have any suggestions?

We will go through the work programme and suggest a suitable day.

Okay. Perhaps we could even have the two councils. If we are having an evidence session, we might as well make it worth while.

I certainly think that contacting Mike Robson of the village improvement committee would be worth while. He could be very useful.

And the regional transport partnership.

Yes. Okay. I ask the clerks to take that work forward, please.

---

DVLA Local Office Closures (PE1425)

PE1425, from Maureen Harkness, is on the adverse impact of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency local office closures. Members know that the matter is reserved and that the Scottish Government is actively engaging with the United Kingdom Department for Transport and the DVLA on the proposed office closures. Can I have comments on the petition from members, please? We have the most recent response from Transport Scotland, and we know that the Scottish Government has actively engaged with the DFT. From what I have read, I do not think that the Westminster Government is for shifting on the matter.

Could we see the correspondence between Transport Scotland and the UK Government and get an opportunity to review it?

We could keep a watching brief on the issue by requesting a copy of the Transport Scotland response to the UK Government consultation. Would that be suitable?

Members indicated agreement.