A701 (Upgrading)
We are running very late. It is nearly a quarter to 6, and we are starting the members' business debate, on motion S1M-643, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on the A701 route. The debate will be concluded, without any question being put, after 30 minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the more than 400 objections to the upgrading of the A701 to dual carriageway and the case for a public enquiry so that the views of the objectors can be properly considered.
In raising this topic, I wish to make it clear that an important issue of principle is involved: that a listening Parliament should be prepared to take proper and objective account of the large number of substantial objections to a large-scale development with far-reaching implications.
The normal procedure in such a case is to have a local public inquiry. The case for an inquiry is overwhelming on many grounds, in particular, on account of the strength of opposition to the proposed development. There have been 442 objections, among them notes of opposition from the relevant three community councils. I need hardly add that the number of letters of support can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. In the light of such strong opposition, the appropriate course is to have an inquiry to enable the concerns of local residents to be considered fully.
The concerns are well founded. First, the area is in Edinburgh's green belt. It is believed that the proposed upgrading will lead to unsustainable development. The route cuts across a site of special scientific interest, good agricultural land and an historic bridge. The ecological implications require at least further investigations and detailed surveys.
There is also the conviction that communities at the southern end will have enormous increases in traffic inflicted on them during peak periods, which is contrary to the policy of the Government's 1998 white paper, "Travel Choices for Scotland". The proposals would end the green belt between Edinburgh and Penicuik. It is therefore believed that the proposal will adversely affect quality of life and the well-being of the environment in the vicinity of the development. However, it is not just a question of intrusion into the green belt.
Secondly, there are allegations that the road contravenes local, regional and national policy policies relating to SSSIs, the green belt and agriculture. It has been pointed out that the proposals were not included in any approved local or structure plan. I understand that claims have been made that the proposal conflicts with the Executive's policies on transport, conservation and sustainable development.
Furthermore, I am informed that when the proposals were discussed by councillors, they were approved in less than four minutes, leaving a great many questions unanswered. The council consists of 17 Labour councillors and one Liberal Democrat. There is, effectively, one-party rule on the council. It is therefore all the more important that the Labour administration does not abuse its power and is seen to be taking minority representations properly into account.
Thirdly, the development is likely to have a substantial knock-on effect. Protestors have said that the proposal will open up the Penicuik to Edinburgh corridor to massive-scale, car-based out-of-town developments, which again appears to contradict the Government's stated aim of rejuvenating town centres.
Fourthly, the local community wants not just a preoccupation with issues surrounding the local economy, but a balanced view, which takes into account the need for sustainable development to protect the environment and the quality of life. The reluctance of the Administration to listen to legitimate concerns and its refusal to give permission for those concerns to be put to an inquiry have provoked outrage, resulting in the strongest campaign of opposition ever seen in Midlothian since the days of Mr Gladstone's Midlothian campaign.
Fifthly, apparently the finance for the project will be raised in part from the sale of two Dalkeith high schools and their playing fields, much to the consternation of pupils and parents. That is in clear contradiction to Labour's 1997 policy document, "Labour's Sporting Nation", which states on page 4:
"We will tackle the decline in schools by ending the sale of playing fields."
Sixthly, there are safety arguments. As the minister knows, a 50 ft by 50 ft crater opened up at Straiton, beside the proposed route, as a result of either redundant mineworkings or an old landfill site, which caused a slippage. Campaigners have argued that the incident proves that the area is unstable and that drivers could be subjected to danger if the proposal goes ahead. Certainly, we know that in 1986 a caravan was lost down a 90 ft hole and that the residents of some 32 nearby homes had to be evacuated. The safety considerations must be taken into account.
I do not intervene lightly. I was roads minister for 10 years and would never have been associated with a refusal to listen to more than 400 substantial objections by denying the opportunity for a public inquiry. If that refusal stands, it will be viewed as a blatant abuse of the democratic process, which reflects badly on the coalition.
On 31 March, the Edinburgh Evening News reported that the minister would secretly like the proposal to be scrapped. I feel that a heavy responsibility rests on her shoulders. I can think of nothing that will increase her stature more than if she agreed to the legitimate calls for a public inquiry and proved that she has the ability to be an objective, fair-minded minister, listening to the people.
Thank you very much. I hope to be able to—[Applause.] Order. No applause in the gallery, please.
If members can stick to four minutes, I hope to be able to call everybody who has requested to speak.
I should declare an interest, in that I use the A701 as I come to work every morning.
The minister will recall that on 22 November last year, I asked a question on the upgrading of the A701. I asked which documents had been received from Midlothian Council and particularly how many objections had been received. The reason I asked the question was to flag up the extent of opposition to the proposal. I felt certain that once the minister told me that over 440 objection letters had been received, as well as petitions containing hundreds more signatures, there would be a public inquiry; I was therefore surprised and disappointed when one did not take place.
I went to a public meeting on 3 March in Penicuik, at which I made clear my feeling that it was a shame that a public inquiry was not held. Midlothian probably has a case that it would wish to put forward in favour of the road. However, the issues have not been heard on a fair basis.
There are certainly questions to be answered. There are questions on policy. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, there is the policy of sustainable development. There is the idea of funnelling traffic into a city, when we are trying to reduce the impact of traffic on the city centre. There are questions on the environment and whether the green belt is under threat, as many people believe. It is believed that sites of special scientific interest are under threat.
There are questions on transport impacts and integrated transport policies. It may be that Midlothian had not fully investigated all the options. The A701 is like a big avenue between Edinburgh and Penicuik, with a bottleneck at either end. In one direction, drivers encounter traffic entering Edinburgh, and in the other direction, traffic entering Penicuik.
There are questions about finance: £18 million to £20 million is to be spent on the road. Can Midlothian demonstrate that it is best value? It might be able to do that. Is it the best use of that sort of money, when there are other public transport issues—railways, light rail, buses and so on—to be dealt with? As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned, there is the issue of the source of funding for the road from the potential sale of areas that are currently school sites in Dalkeith.
There are questions about planning. There is the idea that the proposal was nodded through fairly quickly and that this is a landfill site that might have underlying problems. There is the possibility that, to do the thing properly, as Midlothian says it wishes to do, it must get co-operation from City of Edinburgh Council in regard to park and ride. It is suggested that there should be a park and ride at Burdiehouse. It is not in Midlothian's gift to provide that. Has the issue been properly discussed with Edinburgh? I understand that Edinburgh does not fully approve of the proposal—it noted it, but it did not go further.
There are questions about democracy, which is where Lord James Douglas-Hamilton started and where, in a sense, I would like to finish. Community councils appear to be against the project, yet, while there is a large number of objectors, they are not given a hearing. If this is a listening Parliament, we must avoid that fear of disfranchisement and the feeling that people cannot get their views heard.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton might not agree, but when he talks about Midlothian Council having 17 Labour members and one Liberal Democrat, it is a wonderful argument for proportional representation in local government. Even without a public inquiry, people might feel better if they thought that their views had been given a proper hearing at the council.
I ask the minister to consider reversing the decision and to declare a public inquiry. If not, perhaps she could find a way to extend the consultation surrounding the Midlothian plan to include consideration of the road. That would allow people's full arguments to be heard in public.
I want to pay tribute to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for bringing this matter before Parliament; I concur with the points that he has so eloquently made. This matter is worthy of debate; it should be debated in public and it should be the subject of a public inquiry.
As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, it has been suggested in an article in the Edinburgh Evening News that the minister does not approve of the scheme. If that is true, the minister should have the courage of her convictions and ensure that a public inquiry takes place—she should act as her heart and head tell her. The danger is that not only Midlothian Council, but the minister, will drive the proposals through in the face of objections.
The remit of the inquiry should be expanded. The A701 is not simply about extending and expanding the road at Straiton; it is a fundamental link from Midlothian to the city of Edinburgh. It affects more than Midlothian—it affects points north and south. The debate and inquiry would be equally relevant and important to the Borders and points north. We must consider the effect on other areas of building the road, not simply the effect on the land on which the concrete is laid. That, after all, is what an integrated transport policy is all about. The road would have a substantial impact on the south side of Edinburgh, the city bypass, points leading towards it and related areas further south. The matter needs full consideration.
Full consideration means a multi-modal study. Not just road, but other options, particularly rail, should be considered. The possible reopening of the Bilston Glen line is one such issue. Some people have registered opposition to the road and others have campaigned for the reopening of the Bilston Glen line; I pay tribute to them.
Today, I have managed to obtain a copy of the report by Scott Wilson to Midlothian Council. The report refers to the reopening of the line, which was closed only in 1989; it is viable and could be opened up quickly. To some extent, that line runs in parallel to the road. Any inquiry should consider that option. To be fair to Midlothian Council, it has viewed the matter not as either/or, but as both. We cannot proceed with the road without considering not only the effects mentioned by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, but the other options.
I refer members to the first point in the executive summary in the Scott Wilson report:
"Reinstatement of the disused branch line to Loanhead is technically feasible for an estimated cost of £4.8 million based on single train operation."
That is significantly lower than the costs that will be incurred by building the road, never mind the knock-on effects on health and other matters.
The report goes on to say:
"Corridors exist for subsequent extension of the branch line to Penicuik, either via Roslin avoiding the Bilston Glen Viaduct or through Straiton."
That also should be considered. If it is not, Burdiehouse and other areas will become glorified park and rides, similar to areas close to where I stay in Edinburgh, which have, in effect, become park and rides.
The report also says:
"Options exist to reduce the funding gap, including sourcing external funding and the potential benefits to be obtained by combining a rail service to Loanhead or Penicuik with parallel rail proposals, such as the Edinburgh CrossRail project."
As the crossrail project has been given the green light, it is essential that we consider where we take and extend that project.
We have already had debates on the Waverley project and the Borders rail link. Here is another option. Let us consider all options, not simply the A701. I accept that, as the executive summary states:
"The anticipated demand for the rail service is unlikely to generate sufficient revenue to meet operating costs, either to Loanhead itself or with an extension to Penicuik."
However, very few, if any, rail lines in Scotland would qualify on that criterion. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we do not become a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. We need to consider all options. That is why I pay tribute to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and say that we should open up all aspects of this issue to public inquiry in a multi-modal study of how the city of Edinburgh, the Borders and other areas will be accessed in the 21st century. Let us raise our horizons and have some vision.
I, too, would like to compliment Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on the precision and elegance of his speech. I would also like to compliment Kenny MacAskill on the clear presentation of the research that he has done.
It remains for me to address three further issues. First, I joined the second protest march—or country walk—along the route of the projected road. I can assure all members present that the road will obliterate a very pleasant and beautiful piece of countryside, which includes woodland, copses, meadow and farmland. It is real green belt, rather than a piece of land that has been left to go down the tubes in preparation for building over, as has happened to some pieces of land in Scotland.
Secondly, there is a democratic deficit. I think that I speak for all the protesters and people who have signed the petition when I say that they have had great difficulty relating to Midlothian Council, which takes most decisions in secret and meets in public for periods as short as four minutes. If the minister is minded to listen to the petitioners, she will be addressing that democratic deficit.
Last—this point has not yet been made—I believe that at some point a cost-benefit analysis of the construction of the road should have been presented. The opening of a 50 ft by 50 ft crater in close proximity to the planned path of the road devalues—in fact, invalidates—any cost-benefit analysis that has been made so far. Surely that in itself is enough to convince the minister that she should examine this issue.
I would like to thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. I am mindful of the comments that several members have made about the level of objections to this project and am grateful to have the opportunity to reply to many of the points that have been made in the chamber. I know from personal experience and from the many written questions that members present for this debate have asked me that there is strong public interest in this matter. I am aware of the level and nature of objections.
I believe that it would be helpful if I set out briefly some of the background to this issue and, by doing so, answered the questions that have been raised tonight. The project that was the subject of this application envisages the construction of a stretch of dual carriageway from New Milton to the Straiton junction on the Edinburgh bypass. The new road would follow a separate route from the existing single carriageway. An integral part of the council's proposals is the implementation of a package of public transportation measures on the existing A701. That relates to the point that Mr MacAskill raised. The measures would ensure that the A701 is developed as a dedicated route for pedestrians, cyclists, local traffic and buses. The project also incorporates the construction of 4.9 km of side roads and junctions. Further traffic management improvements are planned by the council for the stretch of the A701 from Milton Bridge to Penicuik. They involve traffic calming measures.
It is important to bring to the chamber's attention the fact that the plans for the road go back some time. The council applied to the previous transport challenge fund for this project. It was notified on 18 February 1997 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, that £2.5 million was being made available to assist with the development, under the private finance initiative scheme. Mr Forsyth's letter to the council said that he and his ministerial colleagues had considered the submissions from the local authorities carefully and that:
"We recognised the importance placed by the Council on improving the A701 and I am therefore pleased to advise you that your application has been successful in the competition."
As I think Mr Forsyth's letter makes clear, there had been a collective decision by the then Government. The ministerial colleagues included Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, as he himself said. The project has been on the go for a long time. No additional funds have been allocated to the council since that award. In May 1998, the council followed up the application with an outline business case to the then Scottish Office.
Does the minister accept that whatever challenge funding is made available after a competition throughout Scotland, it does not invalidate the case for a public inquiry, especially when there are a substantial number of objections?
I was making a point about the financial background. I will come on to the planning issues shortly. I wanted to bring to the Parliament's attention the fact that the project has been going on for some time and had already been given financial support before the planning matters that have been mentioned arose. My concerns are about the planning issues rather than the financial issues, but I wanted to address the points that members have raised.
Planning permission is a central issue. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton peppered his opening remarks with such phrases as "I understand that" and "It has been put to me that". We must acknowledge that there have been a lot of comments, all of which I have had to address in making the decision to pass the issue back to the local authorities to enable them to move ahead with the project.
Local authorities may not submit planning applications to themselves for developments that they propose to carry out. That is why they must go to the Scottish Executive. They must follow the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development by Planning Authorities) (Scotland) Regulations 1981. Under those procedures, authorities must first advertise their proposals in the form of a notice of intention to develop. If objections to their proposals are lodged, they may not proceed to develop without first notifying the Scottish ministers. That procedure gives ministers the opportunity to decide whether they wish to call the proposals in for their own determination or clear them back to the council, thereby granting deemed planning permission, which is what happened in this case.
Scottish ministers will normally presume against calling in a submitted notice of intention to develop where the proposed development is in line with the adopted or approved local plan for the area. That is in line with guidance set out in Scottish Office development department circular 4 of 1997. It is a matter of law that the determination of any planning application must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Midlothian Council, having advertised its proposals for improvements to the A701 and having received objections, duly submitted its notice of intention to develop to the Scottish ministers. It was accompanied by a statement from the council that made it clear that the council is committed to pursuing other initiatives as part of a package of measures to improve transportation within and outwith Midlothian. That addresses the points that Mr MacAskill made about developing a multi-modal approach across that corridor.
Whether or not to intervene in the determination of the council's proposals was a matter that required extremely careful consideration in the light of the weight of the objections that had been received. Scottish ministers had to take account of the national planning policy guidance and the current development plan for the area.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton raised a point that I think requires a direct response. I stress that the development plan consists of the Lothian structure plan, which was approved by the then Secretary of State for Scotland in July 1997, the Bonnyrigg and Loanhead local plan, which was adopted in 1992, and the villages and rural areas local plan, which was adopted in 1995. It is a function of those plans to resolve the competing—and often conflicting—demands for land and to consider whether the loss of green belt, for example, is outweighed by other benefits. That can make for difficult choices, as all members acknowledge and as is reflected in all the objections that we have received.
There was no objection to the proposals from Scottish Natural Heritage, but it identified a number of issues that it felt should be taken on board. When writing back to Midlothian Council, Scottish ministers noted that Scottish Natural Heritage, although not putting in an objection, had made certain points that it wanted the council to deal with. Those points, especially those relating to Straiton bing, were made directly to the council.
Robin Harper's points about the green belt were very relevant. The opening up of land in the Straiton-Penicuik corridor is covered by the new local plan that is currently available for people to comment on. Because of concerns that have been raised, and in the light of the current development plan, I have already called in both the proposed biotechnology park at Gowkley Moss and a single house in the corridor area. I can assure Robin Harper that, in line with Scottish Executive policy, I will be vigilant in protecting the green belt from unjustified and inappropriate development.
Several members mentioned national planning policies. As members may be aware, national planning policy guideline 17 on planning and transport promotes development in a way that minimises the need to travel. It also encourages more environmentally friendly ways of moving around. The guideline recognises the important strategic role that roads can play in carrying long-distance traffic and improving accessibility, which can be important for the local economy. However, it also indicates that proposals for major new roads should be included in wider development plan strategies. Such proposals should, as far as is practicable, be integrated with existing settlements, and should be capable of being accessed by public transport and by local cycle and footpath networks.
Although the Lothian structure plan predates NPPG 17, its policies are still consistent with the guideline. The structure plan sets out a clear commitment to improvement of the A701 road transport corridor. During the processing of the plan, only one objection was received on that issue. The current local plans, and the proposed replacements, also contain policies to support that improvement and to safeguard land for the road's construction.
I want to emphasise strongly that development plans have to be drawn up following a process of extensive public consultation. They provide the basis for efficient, effective and consistent decision making. In reaching decisions on whether to call in planning applications, ministers attach considerable weight to whether a proposal is in line with the development plan.
In considering the proposals that are before us today, it was clear to Scottish ministers that the proposed improvement of the A701 was in accord with the statutory development plans and the Executive's own guidance. Accordingly, ministers decided—as would normally be the case where proposals are deemed to be consistent with established development plan policy—that intervention was not warranted. The Executive is committed to seeing councils and others deliver projects and proposals that are consistent with the statutory development plan for an area.
The sensitive nature of the A701 proposal was, however, fully recognised. My department's letter of 1 February, which intimated our decision not to intervene, noted that the council was committed to pursuing a package of transportation measures. Those measures include proposals to enhance the potential for public transport, walking and cycling along the existing A701. They also include proposals on the long-term work on the provision of a park and ride facility at Burdiehouse; a rapid transit route providing a link between Midlothian and Edinburgh; and a scheme of traffic management measures for Penicuik.
All those proposals were set out in the existing Lothian structure plan. The council will therefore be proceeding in line with established statutory planning policy. The decision letter said that Scottish ministers hope that the council will pursue those initiatives with a view to delivering a comprehensive and sustainable package of transport improvements as soon as possible.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am just about to wind up.
I have been asked by, I think, all members whether I will consider the case for holding a public inquiry into the proposed development. That choice was available to me when I decided whether to call in the development. As ministers decided not to call in the notice of intention to develop, we have no further locus in that issue. It is for Midlothian Council, which now has deemed planning permission for its proposals, to decide whether to proceed with the development. It is also for the council to decide whether to carry out any further assessment of its proposals and whether a public inquiry would be appropriate.
Members have raised a number of issues that were not in front of us when we dealt with the initial application. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Robin Harper both mentioned an issue that was mentioned in Parliament two weeks ago—the subsidence close to Straiton, on the route of the proposed new dual carriageway, that has opened a crater that is some 50 ft deep and 50 ft wide. Midlothian Council will have to take that into account. It is a matter for the council, not for me as a minister.
I hope that members have found the debate useful. There is much local interest in this issue and I hope that I have been able both to shed some light on it and to answer members' questions. Furthermore, I hope that my answers to the many written parliamentary questions on this matter have been helpful. It is now up to Midlothian Council to decide how to proceed on this planning application.
Meeting closed at 18:15.