Official Report 185KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the first meeting in 2007 of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. I ask those attending to ensure that they have switched off all portable electrical equipment.
Since the publication of the bill, and even before that, we have had continued dialogue with the promoter and its consultants on all the protected species that are involved and on other natural heritage issues.
On the otters that live in the area, your evidence states that the third test that needs to be met will be satisfied. Will you elaborate on your specific reasons for reaching that conclusion?
From the surveys that the contractors have carried out on behalf of the promoter, we know that otters are present at three sites. The works will involve the closure of one of the active holts and disturbance to some resting areas. The third test requires us to consider and to provide advice to the Scottish Executive—the licensing authority—on whether the disturbance will affect detrimentally the favourable conservation status. That status is decided at European level, but each individual development proposal that could cause disturbance must be considered at the local, national and European levels.
I think that I heard two double negatives, but I believe that what you said means that everything is okay. Is that right?
Yes.
Your submission states that no bat roosts were identified during survey work. What process would be put in place should some be discovered later?
An issue with many species is that they are very mobile. As there will be a long period between the introduction of the bill and royal assent and between royal assent and any construction works, we have asked for the normal continuous survey work to be undertaken before construction starts. If a bat roost were found, a licence would have to be applied for and we would conduct similar tests to those which we are conducting for the otters. We would consider what mitigation could be implemented. We would advise whether favourable conservation status would be affected and which species of bat were affected, and would offer mitigation solutions.
I understand the mobility of bats, but great crested newts are not as mobile, so I take it that they are just hiding from everybody at the moment. If they were to abandon their secretive ways and not hide from the construction workers, would the same process apply to them?
The process is slightly different for great crested newts, because we are aware of only one site where they could be present. The consultants carried out a survey that determined that great crested newts were not present at the time. However, it is notoriously difficult to determine their presence or absence. The consultants have worked on the basis of the worst-case scenario that great crested newts are present in the Dalmeny ponds and have provided a mitigation solution that is satisfactory to us. If great crested newts were found, further mitigation would not be required. A licence would have to be applied for and the proposed mitigation would have to be adhered to.
I have a feeling that great crested newts know how to be a success story: they simply hide from everybody.
The witnesses will have seen the proposed amendment to section 46 of the bill, on mitigation of environmental impacts. It is for the committee to determine whether the amendment is adequate, but we would welcome the witnesses' thoughts on the proposal and its consistency with other schemes with which they have been involved.
We have seen a version of the amendment to section 46. However, this morning we were sent further proposed amendments, which we have not had a chance to check. The version of the amendment that I saw was reasonable, but we will need to get back to the committee with further advice on the proposed amendments that we were sent this morning.
Do you have any other comments?
No. As long as the proposed amendment to section 46 takes into account the code of construction practice, we will be satisfied with it.
Those are all the questions that we had for you. Thank you for your attendance and your evidence. I will allow a short pause to allow the promoter's witnesses to take their place at the table.
It is worth going over some of the history of the scheme so far on that issue. With help from and review by SNH and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, we have already looked at the application of the regulations and how the scheme may satisfy the three pertinent tests, with particular regard to the ground investigation works. We believe that the applicability of tests 1 and 2, on overriding public interest and there being no alternative, sets a sensible precedent for the scheme as a whole. With regard to the ground investigation works, test 3 was applied to those works that were particular to the situation. However, having gone through the issue at length, we believe that it has been demonstrated that the scheme that is presented overrides tests 1 and 2 and the regulations.
In relation to test 1, in terms of the public interest under regulation 44(2) and the rise in passenger numbers at Edinburgh airport from 5 million passengers per annum in 2001—the figure is, I believe, about 8 million at the moment—to between 21 million and 23 million passengers per annum by 2030, we believe that the EARL project offers a number of benefits to the public at large, which were covered at preliminary stage. In summary, the project will bring economic benefits of £920 million; transport benefits over 30 years; a benefit-cost ratio of 2.16 over 60 years; and accessibility for about 3.2 million people in the Scotland who live within 2 to 3 miles of a station served by the EARL project.
Sorry, but can I stop you there? We know all that. We have discussed those issues and have considered the evidence at preliminary stage. The crux of my question relates to the regulations on European protected species. Is the project considered more important than protecting the bats, otters and great crested newts? That is what I was trying to tease out in my question.
Perhaps I can pass the question to Andy Coates, who may be able to elaborate.
In terms of the project that we have at the moment, we are looking at the designs that are available and comparing them with the tests that we looked at. We believe that the work can be done and still meet the requirements of the tests.
Earlier, Erica Knott mentioned the code of construction practice. How will SNH be kept up to date on the progress of the scheme? What role do you envisage for SNH in relation to the code?
We see SNH as an important consultee in the development of many of the management plans, including those that relate to the European protected species and the environmental management plan. In the past, we have consulted SNH and other interested and pertinent groups at length, and we will continue to do so in the future. It is important that the mitigation that we bring to the project has their endorsement and oversight, so we will continue that consultation to its fullest.
Although most of the committee would recognise a bat and probably an otter, I am not sure that we would know a great crested newt if it ran along the table. Bearing that in mind, how will you ensure that all your contractors are fully trained and aware of their responsibilities in relation to otters, bats and great crested newts?
The environmental management plan, the commitments that it captures and the detail that supports it—the otter mitigation plan, the great crested newt survey and the other background work that is going on—will all be made available to, and their importance brought to the attention of, the contractors. Responsibilities will be contractually enforced through the environmental management plan, and all the commitments that are made for various locations across the project will be catalogued in that document, so that it is readily accessible and clear. It is obviously important that the contractors work with those commitments.
What enforcement measures are in place to ensure compliance with the plans? As promoter, how will you police them?
We have talked about an environmental officer—someone who has an overview on behalf of the promoter, which will be the authorised undertaker at the time—policing the work. There will be an audit and compliance process to ensure that the environmental management plan is delivered.
I would like to touch on the legalities of how the enforcement process will work. There are two levels: one is what the authorised undertaker does for itself; and the other is how enforcement is picked up if the authorised undertaker does not do what should be done or if there is disagreement about how something has been carried out. That is where proposed new sections 46, 46A and 46B come in—they would be inserted by the proposed amendments, of which the committee has copies. Broadly speaking, they would impose statutory obligations to comply with the COCP, the noise and vibration policy and—this is important today—the environmental policy documents and management plan. Those obligations would be policed as if they were a set of planning conditions and would be enforceable in the same way.
My experience of the enforcement of planning conditions is such that that does not give me a great deal of comfort. I hope for reassurance that the promoter will ensure that the commitments are adequately enforced, rather than just relying on local authority planning officers to do so.
The position in this case is slightly unusual, as there will be a specific person whose task it is to monitor what the authorised undertaker is doing. That is the public sector long stop and, as I said, it is in addition to the fact that TIE will monitor its own compliance with its obligations.
Will the promoter undertake to revise the current draft of the code of construction practice to incorporate the changes requested by SNH? Could you have a revised draft with the committee clerks by next Monday?
We will undertake to deliver that for next Monday.
You have suggested amendments to the bill to meet the concerns of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in relation to the Water Conservation (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/3480), on which the committee received representations in May. Will you briefly explain what is proposed and confirm whether SEPA is content with your approach?
First, we do not know whether SEPA is content. We have proposed some amendments, which I will run through in a moment, but, rightly or wrongly, we did not send them to SEPA initially because we were responding to a letter that had been addressed to the private bills unit. The proposed amendments were sent to SEPA last night, but we have not had a response.
I understand that you do not regard it as necessary to extend section 46 to impose specific obligations. Is that correct?
Yes. The objective of section 46 is to impose statutory obligations that do not at present exist. However, nothing in the bill will affect the obligations to comply with the controlled activities regulations.
The committee will know SEPA's view before we consider any amendments.
The proposed amendments were prepared in helpful consultation with one of the Parliament's lawyers. I think that I am right in saying that she indicated that she was content with what was proposed.
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The committee will consider all the written and oral evidence on European protected species before it reaches its views, which will be set out in a report to the Parliament.
I hope that committee members have seen our paper on this topic. If so, I suspect that you will not want me to repeat the paper but simply to summarise its key points.
Could you perhaps simplify it?
Simplifying the paper will be a useful way to start. The EARL noise and vibration policy document is, I believe, quite simple; it is certainly a little bit simpler to read than the GARL document. That is important because we want people to understand what we are committing to.
I do not know about my colleagues, but I am not sure that I am following this completely. Bear with me.
Someone who lives next to the GARL route currently has a railway running past them. When the GARL scheme is introduced, it will add more train noise events, but there will be no need to mitigate the new train noise to be quieter than the existing train noise. If there is no change in the ambient noise, that will be acceptable to everybody. The existing peak noise levels along the GARL route are around 80dB. That figure is very similar to the 82dB that we are committed to for the EARL scheme.
Is everyone else following this?
Just about.
Shall I try putting it another way?
Yes, if you could.
I will talk about the peak noise level that you would mitigate. In the EARL scheme, you would mitigate to 82dB or the ambient peak, whichever is higher. Generally, the 82dB is the higher, so that is the number that you would mitigate to. In the GARL scheme, the ambient level is generally the higher when you compare the 70dB and the ambient. The ambient level is around 80dB, so in both GARL and EARL you end up mitigating to a very similar number—around 80dB.
Right. I think I understand that.
A particular feature of GARL is that the ambient peak noise levels are much higher than they are for EARL; that is why the policies look different. However, they will deliver mitigation at a very similar noise level.
Right. I want to ask now why the hours during which the levels apply differ for the impact levels and the unacceptable impact levels. Why do the unacceptable hours commence one hour earlier and finish one hour later?
Are you comparing the unacceptable levels in the EARL with the threshold levels—the one-hour difference?
Yes.
The reason is historical. We have inherited the unacceptable levels from the noise insulation regulations that apply to railways in England and Wales. Those regulations just happen to use a different time period to define the night. Rather than reinvent those regulations, we have inherited them and the levels within them for the scheme. The intention is not to adjust the level of protection, but merely to follow the convention that is used in the regulations in England.
What remedies would affected persons have regarding the noise levels?
Could you help me with the question?
If the threshold levels are breached and acceptable levels are exceeded, noise insulation will be offered. I wonder what that actually means. How will people actually not hear anything?
Where it is predicted that the threshold levels will be exceeded, we are committed to trying to stop the noise at source, by which we mean the railway. We will build noise barriers or bunds to try to contain the noise within the railway land. We expect that to be successful. From our work on the environmental statement and work since then, we expect to be able to mitigate the noise from the railway to achieve the threshold levels. However, if we cannot do so and we breach the acceptable noise levels, we will revert to noise insulation, which is a package of internal secondary glazing to be added to existing glazing. Additional ventilation may in some cases be needed to allow windows to remain closed. Those are the two main tiers of our mitigation strategy.
Will you explain what "routinely exceeded" means in practice in relation to train horn noise and why train horn noise should be treated differently from other noise that the railway creates?
Train horn noise has the potential to cause sleep disturbance at night, which is why it is dealt with in the noise and vibration policy. There is a possibility that train horns will be sounded at night if there is maintenance on the track or if, on occasion, a driver thinks he sees a person or perhaps an animal. Drivers have discretion to sound the horn. If that happens in the sort of situations that I described, we do not expect to provide mitigation, because there will be no reason to expect that the event will be repeated. On the other hand, if the horn is sounded routinely—perhaps every night or a few times every night—as drivers see something that is a permanent feature of the railway, such as the entrance to or exit from a tunnel, where the standard is for some reason to sound the horn, and if someone is disturbed by that to the extent that it causes sleep disturbance, we will mitigate the noise.
Is it not the case operationally on railways that drivers tend to sound their horn as they approach a tunnel, in case there is someone there whom they cannot see?
Historically, that is absolutely correct, but the rules have recently been changed slightly to allow drivers more discretion, partly because some new trains in the south of England have particularly loud horns. In the past few years, there has been a process of trying to relax the traditional sounding of the horn, so the situation is now slightly flexible. Under the noise and vibration policy, if when the railway is operating the horn is sounded routinely and the noise is above the acceptable levels, we will offer noise insulation to allow people to sleep without being disturbed.
What is the significance of the phrase
That paragraph suggests that, if the horn is sounded routinely near an area of residential property, we will have to provide mitigation. As you say, the most likely candidates are areas near either end of the tunnel, particularly at the north end, in the Wheatlands area.
What happens if vibration levels are not within the levels that are set out in the document?
The short answer is that an engineer somewhere would be a bit embarrassed. Designing the system is all about the need to avoid exceeding the vibration standards that we have set for ourselves. Design is not an exact science; nonetheless, it is a fairly empirical process. There are plenty of railways from which decent source data can be taken and from which engineers can work out whether the limits may be exceeded. Of course, any good engineer would allow for design margins within the process; doing that gives a level of confidence.
At the moment, will any properties be affected by vibration levels that are outwith the levels that have been set?
We will look carefully at the track form in one or two areas. If I may, I will put the question in another way: do we need any special track forms to solve the problem? Clearly, special track forms can solve any such problem. I refer to various levels of resilient track form that have different levels of elasticity support, so to speak. There are a couple of places where we expect to use a non-standard track form. For example, we need to look carefully at the track close to the Myre and Myreside properties at the north end of the scheme. We expect to achieve the standards with the use of a modified track form—indeed, we expect to achieve them everywhere.
Why do you propose to restrict the monitoring of noise and vibration levels to a five-year period when, for example, the GARL scheme has a seven-year period? What will happen thereafter?
I think that the GARL scheme has a five-and-a-half-year period. That is my recollection from the last time I read it. I stand to be corrected on the matter. I apologise if my information is out of date.
Although you have undertaken to monitor vibration levels, you have not indicated how such sites will be selected or how many there will be. Can you indicate the number of sites and give details of the locations for vibration monitoring?
I am unable to do so, as that will depend on the final design. Under noise, we have indicated that approximately 10 sites will be monitored. I stress that the figure is approximate—the number could be greater or smaller. The principle is one of monitoring locations where mitigation is required to achieve the standard that has been set. Given that there are only a few such sites in terms of vibration, I expect the number to be less than 10. If the local authority was concerned that residents are anxious about vibration, it has discretion in this regard. If it were to express concern, we may slightly increase the number.
If noise and vibration levels are exceeded, what is the mechanism for enforcing noise and vibration mitigation?
The mechanism is exactly the same as it is for all the other environmental obligations. There is a statutory obligation in section 46 for the authorised undertaker to
Literally.
Indeed—before the tracks are even laid.
We all got there before you, Iain.
That concludes questions on the noise and vibration policy, so we will move on to the draft code of construction practice. Can you explain the role of SEPA, SNH and other regulators in the production of site environmental management plans?
They will be consultees and will be involved as the plans are developed, so they will see what the plans bring to the contractors' management processes.
Are you saying that such bodies will be consulted on the plans?
Yes.
That is what I was looking for.
Yes. I agree that it would be helpful if we made that clear.
Thank you.
This might seem silly, but are the lines in yellow and green part of the draft COCP, or did we put them there?
We put them there, to try to assist in showing where amendments have been made between drafts.
This is a nippy little comment, but we can hardly read the green bits.
Yes. It is available on our website.
The flow chart on neighbour notification, at figure 1.3, is useful. How will local residents be informed and consulted as construction proceeds?
The intention is to establish a two-week neighbour notification process, during which we will consult neighbours and others, before we make formal notification about a change of process that we would agree, for example, through the code of construction practice.
How do you define "local residents" and ensure that you do not miss people out? I know from the Communities Committee's work on planning legislation that a difficulty with neighbour notification is to do with who is notified.
Indeed. That might just depend on where the works are at the time and who is local to the works, but we will ensure that we approach community liaison groups and community councils if they also seem to offer an appropriate mechanism. We will do what is appropriate to the circumstances.
Is there a conflict between what the COCP says about neighbour notification and what it says about the arbitration process in paragraph 1.15?
I do not think so.
The local construction plans have not yet been drawn up—I take it that they are up for discussion. What is the role of residents in agreeing the plans? They will be key to the process, given that the work might be right on their doorstep.
Very much so. In developing the local construction plans, we want to take on board local residents' views, where possible, through consultation.
What is the timescale for that? It will depend on the work that you will be doing, but can you give us an idea? A week would not be long enough. Are you involved in discussions already?
No. We might hold the discussions through a series of workshops, which might be a sensible, practical way of consolidating people's views on what is essential in the local construction plans and what is less important.
As a matter of interest, have you followed the evidence that the Communities Committee has taken on planning advice notes and the way in which developers should liaise with and relate to communities?
Yes. We will reflect on that.
That is important, because communities feel that they do not get involved early enough. They say that that is why conflicts arise. Their evidence is useful.
Yes, indeed.
Will you explain the role of the local authorities in relation to consents and approvals?
The local authorities have been consulted on the code of construction practice and we will consult them throughout on the local construction plans. They are the backstop for people if there are any problems, so it is important that they share in the plans and have a voice in how they are developed.
Am I right in thinking that, in effect, the bill will give outline planning consent and the ordinary planning process will then kick in? Things are a wee bit more complex with a technical project such as this one.
That is true.
So you will work within the discipline of planning advice notes and the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, which will be in force by then?
We will work within that discipline, but the committee should bear it in mind that it will be modified somewhat. The effect of the bill is to give outline planning permission for the works, so we will not go to the local planning authority with a detailed planning application. We are required to take certain things to the local planning authority and to seek prior approval of design details, but the general permitted development order will enable us to build the major part of the works without seeking further planning approvals from the local planning authority.
Thank you for clarifying that.
We will try to accommodate concerns about the ways in which works are undertaken but, as you rightly say, there might well be aspects that are beyond that accommodation. If what we can do falls short of what is sought, we will try to explain what can be done and why it is not appropriate to go beyond that. We will explain as fully as possible why aspects of the work need to be undertaken in a particular manner, perhaps for safety or environmental reasons that are overriding and must prevail.
So you will have the last say.
We will not have the last say, in that the local construction plans are subject to approval by the local planning authority, which has to consult. We will present it with the results of our consultation. If the local planning authority is aware that there is a disagreement, it will, no doubt, want to hear more from all concerned.
And then?
It will make a decision.
So it is the planning authority—
The local planning authority will make the decision, which will be subject to an appeals procedure.
So it will fit into the usual planning process?
Yes.
You mentioned a hotline. I am sceptical about hotlines generally—they are either engaged or not on when they ought to be on. How will the hotline work? Will it be on 24 hours a day? If it dawns on me at 3 o'clock in the morning that I have something about which I am cross, will I be asked to press button 1 and, following that, buttons 2 and 3 and lose the will to live, or will there be a person at the other end?
We think that there will be a person there at all times. Throughout normal working hours, it will be managed by a person in an office.
Will it be 24 hours a day?
Beyond normal working hours, a call might be referred to a responsible manager on site, who is looking after works that are being undertaken at that time. If there was a railway possession, for example, the number might be forwarded directly to the manager so that something could be done at the time, if it was practical to do so. At all times, there would be a mechanism by which a complaint that came in by the hotline would be captured, registered, logged and then followed up and, we hope, resolved.
Capturing, registering and logging the complaint might not mean that I speak to somebody.
No, it would.
So I will always be able to speak to somebody, no matter what time of day or night or what day of the week?
Yes, absolutely. The intention is that a caller will be forwarded to a person who is responsible for works that are being undertaken outside general business hours.
We now have on record the commitment that there will be no press-button hotline.
The advice that we had from the City of Edinburgh Council's environmental and consumer services department when we did the study for the environmental impact assessment some time ago was that it would expect all-day working on Saturday as the norm, so we have fallen in line with what we believe is the local standard.
That is the norm in Edinburgh, is it?
Yes, the City of Edinburgh Council gave us that advice.
I have learned something about the City of Edinburgh Council that I did not know. That is one to add to the encyclopaedia.
The neighbourhood notification process that is described is applicable whatever the day, so the intention is that there will be a two-week notification process and, thereafter, a week's publicity about the works happening. I believe that that is what is being referred to in the seven-day notice for Sunday working: there would be seven days to alert near neighbours once Sunday working was agreed.
I seem to remember that you will do only a certain level of work in those odd hours—it could not be really noisy stuff. Is that right?
Particular works that are described as taking place in the working hours would be expected to be undertaken seven days a week—for example, the tunnelling operations—but if there were noisy activities outwith those hours, there is the facility for us to go to the local authority and seek approval for such works, having consulted on them and on the requirement to work outwith normal working hours.
My last question is about vermin displacement. There is something in the code of construction practice about pest control and food on site, but what might concern residents is that, once you start tunnelling, digging and moving rivers, a lot of rats will be looking for new homes. What are your obligations on that and how much have you taken the issue into account? It is quite serious.
Indeed. We have talked to a number of parties local to the works who share that concern. We will undertake to manage those aspects ahead of the work commencing and, when the work is on site, to ensure that refuse is managed well and that the site is tidy, clean and clear from vermin.
Refuse is probably the lesser of your problems. The greater problem is the disturbance of creatures that, unlike the great crested newt, do not seem to be friendly. It is a serious issue for the people who live nearby.
Yes, and we take it seriously. We understand the problem and will consider a way of managing it ahead of the works.
Why should anyone who claims for property damage when the promoter has not undertaken a prior survey be required to meet the initial costs to support their claim?
We believe that somebody who makes a claim for damage to property that lies outside an area in which we have concerns and in which we have said we want to monitor properties for damage should initially be responsible for that claim. That is a reasonable proposition. We have made it clear in the code of construction practice that expenditure will be recovered from the authorised undertaker if damage occurs as a result of works and a claim is found to be just. The aim is to avoid unnecessary claims. Spurious claims might be made if the authorised undertaker met all costs. We want to distil out responsible claims and ensure that matters are dealt with appropriately.
I thought that there could be a middle way. I foresee a scenario that involves a little old lady on whose home a prior survey has not been carried out. A crack starts to appear in her property during contractor operations and you say to her, "You'll have to arrange a survey at your own expense," but she is asset rich and cash poor. I thought that a procedure could be devised so that a nice man like you can go to the property and say, "That looks like a crack. Perhaps we should spring for a survey for this little old lady."
I suspect that that would be reasonable. There could be a case-by-case approach. We simply wanted to outline our approach in principle, but we may have to create a process that will allow problems to be considered on a case-by-case basis if people do not have the means to arrange a survey entirely at their own expense.
We have identified what we think are the risk properties, and we accept that we must do something about them—indeed, the bill obliges us to do so. Forgive me for speaking as a dry lawyer, but in every sphere of endeavour, if a person thinks they have a case and t'other chap does not agree, the first person must pay to prove that they are right and that the other person is wrong. A person whose property is outside the at-risk envelope must prove their position. It is not unusual for a person who makes an allegation to pay to prove that they are correct and to be reimbursed if they are proved to be correct. The arrangements are therefore not as draconian as they may appear to be.
It still seems to me that you could map out a middle ground.
Noise limits during normal working hours date back to the then Department of the Environment's advisory leaflet 72, which was published in 1976. All railway and road schemes of the nature and on the scale that we are talking about have adopted those limits. The list of precedents is longer than my arm.
I understand that such levels have not been set for other schemes and that such matters have been left to local authorities.
From my experience, 75dB in urban areas and 70dB in rural areas, as measured at the side of the nearest sensitive property, are the universally adopted noise limits for normal daytime contractor working. I am not aware of variations on those levels for contracts of the type that we are discussing. You may have seen an unusual project.
Can you guarantee that the same maximum noise levels will apply in all places where so-called quiet work is undertaken nearby? I understand that that is a particular concern for businesses in Roddinglaw.
If a business premises that might not at face value seem sensitive to noise—for example, a factory—contains an office that is sensitive, the office or other area of the premises where people require concentration and peace and quiet to function will be treated as a noise-sensitive receptor. However, the rest of the factory premises that is not sensitive to noise will not be so treated.
What land take is proposed at Carlowrie Farm Cottages? In particular, has an agreement been concluded with the residents to the effect that their land will not be acquired permanently for drainage works? The committee agreed to amend the bill if necessary to provide only for temporary land take for the drainage works.
The only update that I can give the committee is that we have not concluded an agreement at this time. We are seeking such an agreement. We are content to reach that agreement if we get sufficient powers to undertake the drainage works. However, the issue between the promoter and the objector parties has not been resolved.
If, during the construction period, noise levels are a problem and exceed the limits that have been set, by what process will residents or businesses be able to object or complain?
There will be two routes. There will be noise monitoring in areas where critical interfaces between essential works and nearby receptors are expected. In those areas, we will capture the values that can be assigned to the noise and the local authority will be involved in checking those data. If exceedances are noted, a feedback process will enable the contractor to take action and a repeat monitoring exercise will be undertaken.
You have given an undertaking that people will be able to speak to a person. You are committed to that now.
Let us hope that they will be heard above the noise.
Sorry: there is no question but that the hotline will be about more than just pressing buttons.
How will the pollution emergency response plan and the other plans be enforced?
They will be enforced under section 46, which the committee has heard about before. Like the code of construction practice, the pollution emergency response plan will be treated as a mitigation policy document, which will be enforced under section 46.
At the risk of repeating everything, I should say that all the other mitigation measures that I described before will be similarly enforced.
From our reading of the assessor evidence, it is clear that a number of agreements have been reached with objectors and other affected parties. Why is none of those listed in annexes A and B?
We are working on a comprehensive commitments list, or register, but it is still under development. The register will form part of the code of construction practice. As I mentioned before, some of the commitments will come through the environmental management plan. The agreements will make their way into the document, but we have not been able to include them yet. We will refer to areas where commitments have been given so that those are visible. Local construction plans will draw out areas where we need to demonstrate that commitments have been brought to the attention of the contractor.
It is worth pointing out that the agreements relate to not just the COCP, but to a variety of things. The COCP issues will find their way in there, as has just been said; other things will sort themselves out in whatever way is appropriate for the particular agreement. All of them will be in a commitments register, the status of which—concerning its public visibility—I am afraid I do not know. However, that is perhaps not for me.
What is the timescale for them finding their way into the document?
We have a register running just now, which we could put in as a starting point. It will develop over time. A register could be put in very shortly; in fact, we will try to put something into the revised version that we will submit on Monday.
I was going to ask whether you could do that for Monday.
We will try to do that.
Paragraph 13.1.1 of the code of construction practice sets out how the code and the local construction plans will be applied to contractors. Can you explain how the landscape and habitats management plans will be applied?
Where elements of landscape and habitat management and mitigation require to be made explicit for local construction plans, for example, they will go into the local construction plan documents. We will draw them through that process and make them visible. Equally, mitigation commitments will be made through the environmental management plan, and mitigation commitments that are made through the landscape management plan will flow into the catalogue that is the environmental management plan. So, the plans will be visible to the wider public through two mechanisms.
What consultation will take place in relation to finalising the landscape and habitats management plans, and with whom?
As has been the case to date, we will consult the environmental bodies, the local authorities and the local community. The document is available on our website. Where we have liaised with objectors and communities, we have invited comment on that document—as we have on all the other documents that have made their way on to our website. We will continue in that vein, and we will ensure that those comments are considered.
That completes our questions on the code of construction practice. Thank you for your evidence.
Regarding Mrs McGowan's situation, we believe that the property at Wheatlands House can be acquired under the EARL advance purchase scheme, subject to some additional commencing and to proper application of the APS.
Excellent. Can you tell us whether any such application by Mrs McGowan would be supported by Transport Scotland?
I can. We have received confirmation from Transport Scotland that it would support the acquisition of the property under that scheme.
Thank you very much. We will finish today with questions on the amendments that may arise as a result of negotiations between promoter and objector. Does anyone have any questions on that?
I note the position regarding the objectors at Carlowrie Farm Cottages. That is still on either the hotplate or the back-burner—one or the other. You have agreed, in negotiations with objectors, to promote amendments to meet their concerns. Can you explain what is proposed, whether any amendments are proposed in respect of other objectors, and why the committee should agree to the amendments?
I had better deal with that. I think that I am correct in saying that the majority of the agreements do not result in amendments to the bill. In some cases, in which we have different arrangements regarding land acquisition, there are outright obligations not to acquire land. That is to say that, come what may, that land will not be acquired from EARL. That will give rise to amendments. They are not in the paper that you have because, when that paper was put together, I had not completed verifying what I had been told about the content of all the agreements. I need to trawl through them, and I have not completed that exercise; however, I will do so in the near future.
No.
I do not think that Christine—
Thank you very much for the comprehensive list, but I would also like to know what the deadline is. It is perhaps a stupid question, but what is the deadline for proposing amendments?
We introduced a first draft of the amendments that we are after on 12 January. That draft has what we thought at that date would be everything bar the land acquisition details. Since then, we have identified one further matter, which is an adjustment of the procedures in schedule 9, to bring in planning appeals procedures—I think Mr Cullum has seen what we have done. We do not think that anything else is needed, other than to complete the land acquisition details. I do not think that we have been given a deadline for submitting our paper, but no doubt the clerks will tell us about that in due course.
Yes. The clerks are nodding and mumbling off-stage, like a Greek chorus.
Please excuse me if we have already been given a deadline. I might have been told, but I do not have a date in my head.
The convener will provide guidance, as always.
No deadline has yet been set. Committee members will lodge the amendments in accordance with parliamentary procedure, as members know. We will let the promoter know before that happens.
The theoretical scope for securing developer contributions will be reduced. The bill as drafted includes a provision that facilitates the local planning authority in the creation of a developer-contributions strategy, which the authority would apply. During consultation with a number of parties, including BAA and other significant landholders in rural west Edinburgh, developer contributions were a major issue. At a previous committee meeting we described the process whereby we reached agreement with BAA. The sum of that agreement included the modification of the developer contributions horizon. The justification for that approach was that what was being secured through that agreement was considered to be crucial to the future of the project, given the potential risk to the project if BAA and others—but particularly BAA—continued to object to the bill.
Who are the other major objectors you mention? In simple language, I take it that people who were going to have to pay into the scheme will no longer have to do so, which has secured their support for the project.
No. As I said, the issue of developer contributions is somewhat theoretical. One has to make a raft of assumptions. First, there is the assumption that local planning authorities will put in place a developer-contributions policy and framework, which it will impose on developments in west Edinburgh. It would be an assumption to think that an authority would do that, given that it would clearly need to weigh up the benefits of doing so against the benefits of securing developer contributions for either the tram project, for example, or its own projects rather than for EARL.
I am following what you are saying, although the language is difficult—I know that that is not your fault—but I want to know which other major objectors withdrew their objections in the light of the change in developer contributions. Who were they? I want their names.
I am pausing because I know the developers who had a particular interest, but I want to be certain that the developer contribution was a ground in their objection. They included New Ingliston Ltd, West Craigs Ltd and FSH Nominees Ltd and FSH Airport (Edinburgh) Services Ltd.
Thank you. How does that impact on the funding of the project?
I cannot do any better than refer back to the evidence given by Transport Scotland at an earlier meeting, when a similar question was asked. You will remember that, from the first days of the project, although the statement of funding indicated that funding sources would be likely to include funding from developers, no specific sum was allocated for that category. As Transport Scotland also noted, we have secured significant contributions from BAA.
So the funding is secure?
I cannot do any better than requote the evidence that the committee heard from the minister and Transport Scotland.
I will read the evidence after the meeting.
I want to press that point and perhaps put it as plain as a pikestaff. Edinburgh Airport Ltd was an objector, but it has now withdrawn its objection. Am I right that, because there will be a smaller contribution from that privately owned firm, the taxpayer will have to make a larger contribution than would otherwise have been the case?
This is a question of probability. Because the local planning authorities have never put together—or even said that they were minded to put together—a developer-contribution policy for EARL and because we therefore do not know what such a policy or any rate would have been, it is impossible to say what funding the policy might have secured, particularly when we consider the value of funding in year 25 or 29 of the project when it is discounted. However, we have a significant contribution from EAL, in both land and the effort and work that it is putting into the equation, and our judgment is that we have significantly reduced risk to the project because of that. I cannot really equate that to what might have happened, because we do not know what might have happened.
Hmm.
Okay. I do not think that we have any further questions, so that concludes our evidence taking this afternoon. I thank Scottish Natural Heritage and the promoter for their evidence. I remind committee members that the next meeting will be next Tuesday and that it will be held entirely in private.
Meeting closed at 15:25.