Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, 15 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Official Report 102KB pdf

---

Late Objections

The third item relates to consideration of late objections. I stress that what we will do at this stage is decide whether to consider the objections despite the fact that they were not lodged timeously. There is no undertaking on the part of the committee at this stage to accept the objections that have been raised; it is merely a question of our accepting that we are prepared to consider them.

There are three late objections. The first, objection 88, is from Mr Leslie Stevenson. An unfortunate situation has arisen in this case, involving an elderly gentleman. Members will note that the objection was, in fact, only a couple of days late in any case. My view is that we should admit the objection. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Objection 89 is from O2 UK Ltd. The objector is a tenant of the Gyle shopping centre, but it was the previous tenant who was notified of the bill. That was an error, and on that basis it seems reasonable that we admit that objection. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The third objection—objection 90—is from Historic Scotland. Under the local government planning process, Historic Scotland is an automatic statutory consultee, but that is not the case with private bills, which are considered under a rather different system. That is because the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which make Historic Scotland a statutory consultee under the local government planning process, are not adopted in their entirety by the private bills process, which refers only to schedule 4 of those regulations.

The explanation that Historic Scotland gives for its late objection is the newness of the private bills process. It is claimed that Historic Scotland was unaware of the system that applied. Bearing it in mind that the number of late objections that we have received is not particularly formidable, members may wish to agree to admit the objection from Historic Scotland. However, members will no doubt be a little concerned that Historic Scotland failed to recognise the system that would normally apply. I would have thought that it should surely have been aware that all this was going on and that it should have responded appropriately.

Is it the view of the committee that we admit the objection?

Members indicated agreement.