Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

APPENDIX 2

PART 2

Category 1 letter 30.5.02

Dear Sir/Madam

Waverley Railway Project

I am writing to you with regard to the Waverley Railway Project which, you may already be aware, is the project to restore a rail link between Edinburgh and the Central Scottish Borders.

The Waverley Railway Project is made up of Scottish Borders Council, Midlothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council – all of whom have identified the re-opened rail line as of great benefit to their inhabitants. Benefits have been identified for the region’s transport, the environment, for housing issues and to help tourism in the area.

Over the last eight months, engineers have been involved in relatively complex technical assessments of alignment and station options in order to determine the best route alignment for the railway.

As part of the whole process of building the line, we are contacting people who may be affected by the line of the railway – being on or within close proximity to their property – and the property that you own or occupy has been identified as such.

Whilst the alignment will be finalised through a consultation process and further detailed technical assessments, it is likely that engineering restrictions, topography, existing urban form, cost and existing structures will restrict the Waverley Railway Project to an alignment similar to that taken by the previous railway line.

I enclose an information pack with a considerable amount of information, which is intended to give you some background information to the project, but which may not answer your individual questions.

If you have any further questions, please contact me on the number below and I will be delighted to arrange a personal meeting at a convenient time and location.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Rosher
Consultation Manager
Waverley Railway Project
C/o Turner & Townsend Project Management
5st Vincent St,
Edinburgh EH3 6SW
Telephone: 0131-220 4139

APPENDIX 2

PART 3

Category 1 letter 23 - 31.7.02

Dear Sir/Madam

Waverley Railway Project

I am writing to you as a follow up to the letter I sent some weeks ago informing you of the consultation process currently being undertaken on the route of the proposed Waverley Raliway Line.

During the past few weeks, engineers, representatives of the Waverley Railway Working Party and myself have met with a number of those people who will be affected by the railway. As a result of these meetings, it has been brought to my attention that there is some confusion over what rights people have in relation to compulsory purchase of property and compensation for disturbance. Therefore, I enclose a brief factual guide that outlines your rights in respect of the above.

It is anticipated that a Private Bill will be presented to the Scottish Parliament early in 2003. If successful, thereafter we expect the Bill to be passed by the Scottish Parliament in late 2003 or early 2004. A guide to this process and your rights to object are also enclosed.

I hope the enclosed is of some assistance. However, please call me in the first instance if you have any further questions or require further information with regard to the guidance note or any other matter relating to the Waverley Railway Project.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Rosher
Consultation Manager
Waverley Railway Project
C/o Turner & Townsend Project Management
5st Vincent St
Edinburgh EH3 6SW
Telephone: 0131-220 4139

APPENDIX 2

Category 2 letter 23-31.7.02

Dear Sir/Madam

Waverley Railway Project

I am writing to you as a follow up to our recent consultations on the work currently being undertaken on the route of the proposed Waverley Railway Line.

During the past few weeks, engineers, representatives of the Waverley Railway Working Party and myself have met with a number of those people who will be affected by the railway. As a result of these meetings, it has been brought to my attention that there is some confusion over what rights people have in relation to compulsory purchase of property and compensation for disturbance. Therefore, I enclose a brief factual guide that outlines your rights in respect of the above.

The process of presenting a Private Bill to the Scottish Parliament is relatively straightforward, but within that process there are a number of opportunities for all persons who want to comment on the railway to make their feelings heard. A guide to this process and your rights to make comment is also enclosed.

I hope the items enclosed are of some assistance. However, please call me in the first instance if you have any further questions or require further information with regard to the guidance notes or any other matter relating to the Waverley Railway Project.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Rosher
Consultation Manager
Waverley Railway Project
C/o Turner & Townsend Project Management
5st Vincent St
Edinburgh EH3 6SW
Telephone: 0131-220 4139

APPENDIX 2

PART 4

Compulsory Purchase and Compensation – Brief Guide

WAVERLEY RAILWAY

Private Bills, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation

A Basic Outline

Introduction

Compulsory purchase law has evolved so as to enable the construction of publicly beneficial works, such as roads or railway infrastructure, which require areas of privately owned land and buildings. The aim of the law of compulsory purchase is to balance private rights against the wider public good. To achieve this the law applies the fundamental principle that the promoter as the acquiring authority must compensate affected landowners by paying them a sum of money equal to but not less than the loss imposed on them. (The rules do not differentiate between land and buildings. For simplicity this leaflet refers to “land”, but it should be noted that “land” includes anything built on land.)

Compulsory Purchase and Scottish Private Bills

1. A person wishing to construct a railway in Scotland must apply to the Scottish Parliament (“the Parliament”) by lodging a Private Bill, which, if passed, will become an Act of the Scottish Parliament (“ASP”). An ASP can authorise a wide range of matters in relation to the construction of railways, and can be wide enough to do so as a complete package for the convenience of the promoter. It will often be necessary for land and rights in land to be acquired, and this can be authorised in the Bill. The resulting ASP operates in the same way as a compulsory purchase order.

2. Notice of an application for a Private Bill which includes compulsory purchase powers must be served on affected landowners. Opportunity is then provided for objection to be lodged with the Parliament and, if required, for objectors to appear before the Committee of the Parliament which is responsible for the Private Bill in order to make representations. This is an integral part of the Parliamentary process before the Parliament can decide whether to pass the Bill.

Extent of land acquisition

3. The land subject to compulsory acquisition will be specified in the Private Bill and shown within defined limits on plans. (These and other relevant documents will be publicly available.) The fact that land falls within these limits means that it is potentially required for compulsory acquisition. However, land can only be acquired compulsorily to the extent that it is actually required. If, therefore, it turns out once the works have been designed that particular land is not required, it cannot be acquired compulsorily even though it is within the prescribed limits. Similarly, if all that is required is e.g. a subsoil interest for a drain, surface rights cannot be acquired except so far as necessary e.g. for access.

Compensation where land is acquired

4. There are three main elements to the compensation that may be paid when land is compulsorily acquired under an ASP. These are compensation for land acquired; compensation for severance or injurious affection; and compensation for disturbance. The total of these separate elements of compensation awarded must not add up to more than the landowner’s actual total loss.

Compensation for land acquired

5. The amount of compensation payable by the promoter is the market value of the land acquired by the promoter, taking into account any planning permission or potential for planning permission, and disregarding the effects of the scheme proposed by the ASP. The level of compensation will be as agreed between the promoter and the landowner. Where they cannot agree the dispute may be referred by either party to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

Compensation for severance or injurious affection

6. This can only apply where the promoter takes only a part of a landowner’s land for its scheme. The purpose is to compensate the landowner for any depreciation in the value of the retained land (i.e. the land that is not compulsorily acquired). This depreciation may be caused by severance i.e. the fact that the land acquired contributed to the value of the land retained, or by injurious affection i.e. the adverse effect of the scheme on the retained land.

7. Where a scheme has a positive effect on the retained land and enhances its value, the value of the enhancement may be set off against other elements of compensation that are payable to the landowner.

Compensation for disturbance

8. Compensation for disturbance reflects costs incurred by the landowner as a result of the acquisition e.g. by being forced to move his home or his business.

Compensation when no land is acquired

9. It is possible for landowners to claim compensation for depreciation in the value of their land as a result of the construction or use of public works even when none of their land has actually been acquired. The three potential types of claim when no land is acquired are nuisances under the common law; under section 6 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845; or under Part I of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Nuisance

10. Under the common law of nuisance, a landowner can claim against a person or body causing an unreasonable interference with his use or enjoyment of his land. A person acting under the authority of an ASP has an absolute defence. However, this does not apply where the activity in question is not authorised e.g. because it is carried out negligently.

Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845

11. Section 6 of this Act provides that compensation may be payable when the value of land has depreciated as a result of the construction (but not the operation) of works.

Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973

12. Under Part I of this Act, a qualifying landowner may be entitled to compensation for the devaluation of his land caused by certain physical factors such as noise, vibration and artificial light.

This Outline

This document is merely an overview of the law of compulsory purchase and compensation. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. For advice on your particular case, or if you are in any doubt please contact your own independent solicitor or other adviser.

PART 5

Guide to Parliamentary procedure

WAVERLEY RAILWAY PROJECT

Proposed Private Bill

A Basic Outline Guide to the Private Bill Procedure

Introduction

The Waverley Railway Project is an initiative with the ultimate aim of re-establishing a rail link to provide a passenger transport service from Edinburgh to the central borders area in Scotland by 2008. The Project is seen as the first phase of reinstating the entire rail link between Edinburgh and Carlisle.

The joint promoters of the scheme are Scottish Borders Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council who, along with Scottish Enterprise Borders, form the Waverley Railway Partnership. Railtrack and ScotRail are advisers to the Partnership.

The intention is to reinstate the railway, so far as possible on the route of the former Waverley Railway, using the old railway formation, which largely still exists. (There will be some places where this is not possible because e.g. modern safety or operational considerations do not allow.) However, the former railway itself has gone and the project involves building a completely new railway, with new stations and built to the standards of the 21st century.

The necessary railway construction works need to be legally authorised by the Scottish Parliament (“the Parliament”). If the Parliament approves the project, this authorisation will be by means of a Private Act. Formal application for the Bill for this Act is to be made in early 2003. These notes are intended to give outline guidance on the Private Bill procedure but are not a substitute for legal advice.

The Bill

The Bill is the legal document that, if passed as an Act of the Scottish Parliament (“ASP”), will authorise the construction of the railway and other works required in connection with it. It will include compulsory purchase powers in relation to the property that will be needed, and so, if passed, operates in exactly the same way as a compulsory purchase order. If passed it will also give outline planning permission for the authorised works.

In this instance, therefore, the Parliamentary proceedings take the place of the more familiar public inquiry on a compulsory purchase order or planning application. As with public inquiries, there is the opportunity to object and (in this case) to appear before a Parliamentary Committee to argue the case for an objection.

These notes summarise the stages through which the Bill will have to pass before it can receive the Royal Assent and become an ASP. They are an outline only. The Parliament’s ‘Guidance on Private Bills’ provides full details. It can be found on the Scottish Parliament website at www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/ctee/private-01/gprb-c.htm.

Public notice

Public notice that the Bill is to be introduced will be published in local newspapers prior to the Bill’s formal introduction. In addition to the Bill, the Parliament requires to be provided with specific accompanying documents that explain the detail of the project and its impact. The newspaper notices will give details of places where the Bill and these documents are available for inspection. These places will include named public libraries along the route.

The notices will also give contact names for the project and the Non-Executive Bills Unit (“NEBU”) of the Parliament, as well as details of the objection period.

Accompanying documents

The accompanying documents will include a detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill, plans and sections showing the proposed works and a list of affected property owners whose property may be compulsorily acquired. There will also be a full Environmental Statement, with a Non-technical Summary.

Formal Introduction and objections

The Bill will be formally introduced into the Parliament. It is intended that this will happen in early 2003. The 60 day objection period will run from the date of formal introduction. The clerks at the NEBU should be consulted as to the precise date when the objection period ends and about the way in which objections should be lodged.

The Parliament will set up a Private Bill Committee to consider the Bill ad report on it to the full Parliament. The Bill will then go through three Stages.

Preliminary Stage

The Private Bill Committee considers: the general principles of the Bill; whether the Bill can legally proceed as a Private Bill and whether the procedural requirements have been complied with, and (without deciding on the case for or against any objection), whether each objection shows that the objector can reasonably claim to have an interest that may be adversely affected by the Bill. The Committee may hear representations at this Stage, but need not do so.

The committee reports its findings to the Parliament, which has a Preliminary Stage debate on the Bill

Consideration Stage

If the Bill is approved by the Parliament at the Preliminary Stage debate, it is referred back to the Private Bill Committee for the Consideration Stage, when the Committee considers the detail of the Bill. First it meets to hear evidence on the Bill and the objections. This will be presented by the promoters and any objectors who wish to do so. This is the part of the proceedings that equates to a public inquiry. Evidence will be given on a similar basis, with parties presenting their own evidence and being cross-examined on it.

Once this phase has been completed the Committee will prepare a report giving its decisions on the objections. Promoters and objectors do not play any direct part in the proceedings after this.

The Committee will then consider any amendments to the Bill.

Final Stage

The Bill goes before the Parliament, which will vote on any amendments and decide whether the Bill should be passed.

Royal Assent

Once a Private Bill has been passed its three stages without challenge under the Scotland Act, it receives the Royal assent and becomes an ASP.

Cost of objecting

The Parliament’s fee for lodging an objection against a Private Bill is currently £20. Both promoters and objectors bear their own costs of representation, including legal and other professional fees.

General

Objectors can appear before the Private Bill Committee in person if they wish. However, if several people have common interests they may wish to consider presenting a joint objection and appointing someone to represent them. A representative does not have to be legally qualified.

The role of the Private Bill Committee is as an arbiter between the promoter and the objectors. It is therefore in objectors’ interests to set out the precise nature of their objections clearly and be prepared to negotiate with the promoters on their objections. The Councils’ aim (so far as permitted by the requirements of the project) is to accommodate concerns such as to avoid objections altogether; and, where that has not been achieved, whenever possible to negotiate a compromise acceptable to both sides.

Further information

Information and advice about the Bill when it has been introduced, and full details of the procedures, including how to lodge an objection, are available from

Non-Executive Bills Unit
The Scottish Parliament
Committee Chambers
Edinburgh EH99 1SP
Tel: 0131 348 5951/5524
Fax: 0131 348 5252
nebu@scottish.parliament.uk

You can contact the Waverley railway project

By telephone: 0131-623 2008

By email: Info@waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk

In writing:
The Communications Office
Waverley Railway Project
C/o 21-23 Hill Street
Edinburgh EH2 3JP
Web Site www.waverleyrailwayproject. co.uk

APPENDIX 2

PART 6

Letter to owners and occupiers, Beechbank Place, Galashiels 15.8.02

Dear Sir/Madam

Waverley Railway Project

I am writing to you as a follow up to our recent public consultation exercise on the work currently being undertaken on the route of the proposed Waverley Railway Line. It has been brought to my attention that as the project is being developed, Beechbank Place may be affected by the alignment design.

During the past few weeks, engineers, representatives of the Waverley Railway Working Party and myself have met with a number of those people who will be affected by the railway. As a result of these meetings, I realise that there is some confusion over what rights people have in relation to compulsory purchase of property and compensation for disturbance. This is a relatively complex area and therefore, I enclose a brief factual guide that outlines your rights in respect of the above.

You may be aware that the Waverley Railway Project requires parliamentary approval before it can progress. The process of presenting a Private Bill to the Scottish Parliament is relatively straightforward, but within that process there are a number of opportunities for all persons who want to comment on the railway to make their feelings heard. A guide to this process is also enclosed for your information.

I hope the items enclosed are of some assistance. However, please call me in the first instance if you have any further questions or require further information with regard to the guidance notes or any other matter relating to the Waverley Railway Project.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Rosher
Consultation Manager
Waverley Railway Project
C/o Turner & Townsend Project Management
5st Vincent St
Edinburgh EH3 6SW
Telephone: 0131-220 4139

PART 7

Consultation Evaluation Report

CONSULTATION PHASE – EVALUATION REPORT

Summary statistics for the period from July 01 to October 28, 2002

Locations: Galashiels (305), Hawick (110), Edinburgh (>1,000), Dalkeith (120), Melrose (n/a), Stow (60), Selkirk (65), Tweedbank (60), Danderhall (50), Penicuik (130), Loanhead (32), Mayfield (30), Newcastleton (40), Kelso (65), Newtongrange (133), Bonnyrigg (80), Eskbank (Tesco) (737), Gorebridge (116), Heriot (60), Stow CC (40), Glenfield Road East (and West) (>70)

Key Categories of Responses

*Note: judging purely by the language used on the response cards, of the 230 currently supporting the railway AND a station at Stow/Heriot/etc, at least 105 would be almost guaranteed to withdraw their support for the railway and become objectors. This would mean a recalculation to 84% in favour and 15% against. It could be argued that this may even be the entire 230, giving 73% support and 27% opposition.

Results from Response Cards

1. Are you in favour of passenger rail services being re-established between Edinburgh and the central Scottish Borders?

2. Would you expect to use the new rail service?

3. If Yes, would you use it for:

4. If No, why not (8% of total responses)?

5. Where do you live (categorised by ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to Q1 & Q2)?

6. Where do you work (ditto)?

* Refer to Stow responses

Summary of key areas for consideration by Waverley Railway Partnership

7. Selection of Stations

The majority of respondents in this category highlighted their belief that there should be a station at Stow. While most people in this category stated they were in favour of the line, a proportion of these respondents placed a “condition” on their response being based on having a station / halt at Stow.

Rationale for the inclusion of Stow was based on:

• future development plans around Stow / Lauder / Fountainhall / Clovenfords
• the commuters that travel from Stow to Midlothian / Edinburgh
• a station would revive facilities in the area
• the detrimental effect a Borders rail line was perceived to have on the bus service – further cutting off the communities of Stow and surrounding areas.
• the feeling that this was simply a commuter line from Edinburgh to Galashiels and not a ‘socially inclusive’ line.

There is a feeling amongst a number of respondents that if there is no station at Stow they will receive no benefits and yet have many of the disadvantages of a rail line passing through their community – ‘all the pain and no gain’.

The only other requests made for stations on the outline route corridor were for a station at Heriot and a station closer to Millerhill than Shawfair.

Supporters of a station at Stow include Lord Steel and Christine Grahame. Respondents also made reference to the CBR survey.

8. Extending the Route / Other Route Options

While most respondents were aware that we are proposing ‘Phase 1’ on the Waverley Railway line to Tweedbank, a significant number stressed that the route should be opened beyond this terminus – if not immediately certainly in due course.

In addition to those stating the line should go through to Carlisle, other key locations mentioned included the need for extension to Melrose, Charlesfield and, in particular Hawick, given its population.

Rationale for extending the route to Carlisle was based on:

• the opportunities this would bring to carry freight on the line
• the benefits for passengers of being able to travel south. Similarly the benefits of those wishing to travel from N/W England to the Borders and Edinburgh.
• more socially inclusive by covering more towns along the route
• the potential to develop tourism on the route
• relieve pressure on the ECML and WCML

Some respondents felt that the route of the line should be Edinburgh - Loanhead – Penicuik – Peebles – Cardrona – Innerleithen – Walkerburn – Galashiels – Tweedbank (based on catchment areas). This view is perhaps understandable given that the roadshow visited both Penicuik and Loanhead.

Also one other route alternative preferred by one was a connection with the existing Bilston line providing a direct link to Millerhill and the ECML.

9. Technical Aspects

Cycleways:

There was a strong feeling that every effort should be made to re-route (if not retain)

cycleways along the route particularly at Eskbank and the ‘black path’ between

Galashiels and Tweedbank.

Safety:

Safety was often mentioned in connection with preventing access to the railway speed

of trains and children playing near the line.

Noise:

Noise of trains was also a concern to some.

Ability / Mobility:

Consideration will have to be given to mobility and ability issues such as wheelchair

and push chair access to platforms / trains.

Condition of structures:

Structures such as bridges / tunnels gave some concern to respondents.

Size of car parks:

Some respondents felt that for ‘park and ride’ facilities the car parks were too small.

In the case of Tweedbank however it was felt that the car park was too big at this

stage and should not be built in one go.

Timing of Opening:

Some respondents asked if the railway could be built in stages in order to open the line between Edinburgh and Eskbank / Newtongrange / Gorebridge earlier than 2008. A small proportion of people felt that 2008 was far to late for the opening!

10. Finance

One suggestion from a respondent was to use Midlothian’s £900k for overbridge on Sherrifhall to finance early opening of Eskbank Stations.

A minority was also interested in how the rail line will pay for itself and where the money will come from to build it?

11. Opposers Due to Personal Interests

As yet there has been no active campaign against any part of the route plan. However, there are some individuals and small groups who feel that the railway will adversely affect their way of life and as such are opposed to the project.

Such “clusters” do not necessarily include every resident in a particular street / area but will encompass a ‘significant’ number of individuals. Individuals / clusters are evident in:

Midlothian :

• Newtongrange – Victoria Park, Victoria Road, Redwood Walk, Dean Park, Old Star Road, Station Road.
• Newton Village

Scottish Borders:

• Falahill – Falahill Cottages
• Galashiels – Glenfield Road East

At this point it should be noted that this is also likely to include some residents of Stow if the provision for a station is not built into the final route plans.

12. Freight

While there was an appreciation by the majority of respondents that the WRP aims to re-establish passenger links between Edinburgh and the central Scottish Borders, a number of respondents did highlight the need, at some stage, to re-instate freight on the line through to Carlisle.

13. Operational

A range of operational issues were expressed by respondents. These included comments on the need for:

• adequate station and on-train cycle holding facilities
• competitive pricing to attract passengers
• free / cheap station parking at ‘park and rides’
• adequate links with bus services to other Borders locations
• concessionary fares for OAPs
• integrated bus / rail ticketing
• marketing the route as a tourist attraction
• a good Sunday service
• clean and modern carriages with plenty of leg room
• late night service to be provided

14. Special Interest Groups / Correspondence

There are some groups / individuals who merit particular attention in response to the Consultation period. In addition to those with a personal / property interest, communication has been entered with the following groups

• Campaign for Borders Rail
• SPOKES
• Cross Party Group on Borders Rail

Response to Consultation Process

We recommend that responses and follow-up correspondence to the Consultation Period is carried out as follows:

• MPs and MSPs

This Group can be reached through the Cross Party Group on Borders Rail, through forthcoming features in the media and individual briefing meetings on request. A meeting was scheduled with Rhona Brankin (15 August) to discuss the route plan for Midlothian.

• General Public

In its broadest sense this group will be reached through ongoing media relations activity in national, regional and local TV, radio and newspapers.

The general public can also use the information line and website to gain further information.

• Special Interest Groups

A specific reply should be provided to organisations such as CBR, SPOKES etc who have been active in the Consultation Process from a number of standpoints. Organisations such as this may also benefit from an individual briefing with representatives from the WRP.

• Respondents

Where respondents to the Roadshows have requested updated information by e-mail this will be delivered when appropriate. All e-mail enquiries to the website will also continue to be dealt with efficiently.

The Information Line continues to operate and is promoted through media relations activity and through promotional literature.

Further information:

David Southern or Nick Ball at Atlantic Public Relations, tel: 0131-624 0800.

ENDS.

PART 8

WAVERLEY RAILWAY PROJECT

SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS INVOLVING

PROMOTER’S TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS

PART 9

Recipients of ODPM guidance on compulsory purchase and compensation or directions to ODPM website

ANNEX A2

CONCERNS RAISED IN OBJECTIONS ABOUT ADEQUACY OF ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS (EXCLUDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT) AND THE PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO EACH CONCERN RAISED IN EACH OBJECTION

Falahill Cottages – General Note

a. The ten cottages at Falahill (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8 and 9) and The Old Railway Cottage, Falahhill, were the subject of detailed consideration by the promoter as to how best to minimise the impact of the railway while maintaining access to the cottages via the access track to the rear of the cottages (plots 43, 44 and 45 in Scottish Borders). The owners of the cottages are known to have an occupational interest in the access track but it falls short of ownership.

b. It was decided to move the railway alignment away from the access track with a view to allowing the Cottages owners to retain access, and the track was included in the Bill limits for purposes of access.

c. The Falahill Cottages owners had been included in the Book of Reference in respect of their interest in the rear access track. The computerised system therefore automatically identified them among those entitled to receive landowners’ notices. Through human error, following the moving of the railway alignment, the interest in the access track was overlooked and it was mistakenly supposed that the inclusion of these owners as landowners entitled to notice was an error. As a result, positive action was taken to remove the Falahill owners from the database of those entitled to landowners’ notice. This supposed correction of the computer system was in fact a human error.

d. In consequence, it has now been established that none of the Falahill owners received a landowners’ notice.

e. For reasons that have not been identified, notice of the Bill has however been served on the owners of The Old Railway Cottage as well as the owners of nos. 4 and 7. These owners have therefore received special notice about the Bill. What they have not received is a notice correctly identifying the effect of the Bill on them. This is because the form of the three notices served was the ‘affected persons’ notice.

f. The owners of nos. 1, 5b and 7 Falahill Cottages have not objected to the Bill. The owners of the remaining cottages (including The Old Railway Cottage and no. 4, as respects which notices were served) have objected to the Bill.

g. The promoter is in discussion with the Clerks as to late notices and will serve any that may be required.

h. The Master Book of Reference and Database have been updated to rectify the omissions made.

Objection 1

Mrs R I Street and Mr R W Street C Eng, MCIBSE, 4 Dalhousie Mains Cottages, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 3LZ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. In respect of Notices Nos 1589 and 1592, including the Schedule and Drawing No 10002271/OD04/234 Version A, the objectors note the Notice states that it relates to the “Acquisition of rights only” in the property bounded by the A7, the aforementioned track and the proposed railway line, but that no detail is provided in the Notice or the Schedule as to the purpose of the acquisition. The objectors, in their letter of 24th June 2004 to Andrew Rosher (representative of the promoter) and forwarded to the Committee, state that the Notice relating to Plot 234 (to refer to the land included in Notices No 1589/1592) provided no definition as to the purpose of acquisition of this plot The objectors state that, until such definition is provided further to that already provided to them in correspondence from the promoter,⁵⁵ they will continue to object to this Notice.

Promoter’s Response

b. Notices Nos. 1589 and 1592 do not relate to the acquisition of rights only but to the outright acquisition of plot no 234 in Midlothian. The land is within the limits of deviation for the authorised works and therefore under section 13 of the Bill may be acquired for the purpose of the authorised works.

c. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the Parliament’s ‘Guidance on Private Bills’ (“the Guidance”) and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed. They are not intended to provide a justification for compulsory acquisition powers.

d. Where a notice is served in respect of temporary possession or acquisition of rights only, the notices do state the purpose for which rights may be acquired or for which temporary possession may be taken.

e. On 24th November 2004, following submission of the objection, the promoter’s Consultation Manager (Andrew Rosher of Turner & Townsend) wrote to the objectors offering a meeting to discuss the issues set out in the objection. A meeting with Mr and Mrs Street took place on 10th February2004 when there was a lengthy discussion including an explanation of the Bill’s proposals as affecting their land. The matters discussed were confirmed in a letter from Mr Rosher to Mr and Mrs Street dated 19th February 2004.

f. The promoter will be responding on the various points raised in Mr Street’s further letter of 24th June.

Objection 2

James Dun, J S Dun and Partners, Catcune Farm, Gorebridge, Midlothian EH23 4QQ

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that the maps which have been sent out on behalf of the promoter are lacking in identification, description, use and area information. The objector states that, due to this lack of detail, it is very difficult to establish exactly what area is required. The objector also states that the varying scales used on the maps make it difficult to decipher the Project requirements and are contrary to the requirements of “Parliamentary regulations”.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed.

c. The plans and sections deposited in connection with the Bill are drawn on a horizontal scale of 1:1,250. The determination in Annex M to the Guidance is that plans must be no smaller than 1:2,500 and that the horizontal sections must be on the same scale as the plans. The Promoters are therefore satisfied that the plans and sections deposited in connection with the Bill comply with Parliament’s requirements. Varying scales were not used in respect of the Parliamentary plans and sections.

d. The plans submitted with the landowners’ notices are computer generated extracts showing by means of shading the individual plot in respect of which the notice relates. The purpose of these plans is to identify the land. Generally these were 1:1,250 scale plans but where these covered a large area some of the plans were reduced to a more convenient size.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

e. In respect of the proposed land take at Catcune Farm, the objector notes that part of the only suitable access route to the farm is to be taken under a Temporary Possession of Land Order and the rest under a Compulsory Purchase Order. The objector states that this will make access to the farm questionable but that no indication has been given by the promoter of the provisions to be made during the railway/bridge installation and after completion, so that normal farm activities can continue. The objector also states that there has been no consultation about some other areas under Compulsory Purchase Orders which will lead to loss of land use, agricultural subsidies and qualifying forage hectares, as well as preventing access to fields and winter feed areas.

Promoter’s Response

f. The access land affected by the Bill in which the objectors have an interest forms part of plots nos. 419, 428, 429 and 430 in Midlothian. As the objector has correctly understood from the notices, the Bill proposes that part of the access land will be acquired permanently and part taken temporarily. The permanent acquisition relates to plots nos. 419 and 430, which include the former railway formation on which the railway will be built. Temporary possession will be taken of plots nos. 428 and 429 for use as construction compounds, working spaces and construction accesses.

g. Plot no.419 includes an accommodation bridge affording access to Catcune Farm. Plots nos. 428, 429 and 430 include the approaches to the bridge. The Bill specifically requires the bridge to be provided as a private crossing.⁵⁶ At a meeting with Mr and Mrs Dun held in January 2003, it was agreed that access would be retained to Catcune Farm at all times during construction. As a result of those discussions the promoter recognised that potential difficulties could be avoided by slightly altering the alignment of the bridge and this is to be done. In this instance, therefore, the prior consultation with these objectors had a useful effect on the detailed scheme.

h. The objectors complain that there was no consultation regarding unspecified areas of land to be acquired. The promoter undertook the consultation described below. If the objectors believe it failed to touch on the concerns about these areas of land the promoter would be happy to discuss those concerns in an effort to resolve them.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

i. The objector states that there has been a total lack of consultation about the requirements of the project after an initial approach by Turner Townsend (Project Managers for the promoter). He states that, due to the lack of consultation, it is difficult to plan for the future in both the short and long term, which he states is essential for farming effectively.

Promoter’s Response

j. These objectors are among a group of landowners consisting of farmers and estate owners. They were reluctant to discuss the scheme, permit access for survey or provide ownership details except as a group represented by a land agent. The promoter accommodated this by holding two general meetings (on 10th September 2002 and 8th October 2002) at which a number of issues were discussed concerning access for survey work, payment for access, payment for meeting attendance, Bill process and timescales. The meetings also allowed for initial discussions on the impact of the scheme on farming operations. Present at these meetings were all the landowners in this group who submitted objections, or their representatives, with the exception of Lionel Litchfield of Bowland Estates. The objectors were among those present.

k. These meetings were followed up by meetings with individual landowners. Meetings with Mr James Dun took place on 21st January, 7th February and 18th February 2003. The intention of the meetings was to gain an initial understanding of the requirements of farming operations in order what works might be necessary to accommodate these requirements. An output of these meetings was to request that the project engineer review undertrack access. At these meetings, draft engineering layouts were available for discussion. Copies were not given to the landowner, a policy decision having been made that draft plans should not be released because they were subject to change.

l. Following submission of the objection letters were sent on 28th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a further meeting. This has not been taken up. Sets of the finalised engineering layouts were provided by post on 2nd April 2004.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

m. The objector states that it has not been proven that there is, or will be, enough funding made available for this project to be constructed, or run as a railway in the future.

Promoter’s Response

n. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

o. The promoter is currently in discussion with the Scottish Executive with regards funding from the Integrated Transport Fund for the Waverley Railway line. Any agreement will be provisional on the successful passage of the Bill. This is the accepted approach on public sector financed transport projects.

Objection 3

Mr and Mrs R G Rae, 3 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors state that the detail of what is being proposed in the area of Falahill Cottages remains unclear and that, despite representations made by the Community Council and the Leader of Borders Council, plans consistent with those accompanying the Bill have still not been provided. The objectors state that the plans accompanying the Bill (Schedule 6, location 10, sheets 33 and 33) imply that both access for construction and thereafter for provision of track, and access for construction and provision of car park and access, are required. They state that the land in question is for exclusive access to house numbers 3, 4 and 5 Falahill Cottages and that this is supported in legal documents and registered in the General Register of Sasines. They state that either the promoter or its agents have been “lax” in their surveying

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

b. The objectors state that, in respect of the section of the line running past Falahill Cottages, details of what is actually proposed in this locale remain unclear, despite representation on behalf of the residents by the local Community Council and the Leader of the Scottish Borders Council. The objectors report that plans consistent with those accompanying the Bill have still not been provided. They consider that notifications and the provision of detail pertaining to the Falahill area over the past 18 months have been consistently ambiguous.

Promoter’s Response

c. The complaint is that these objectors have not been provided with copies of plans consistent with the Parliamentary plans lodged with the Bill. This touches on the information provided during consultation, as to which see the responses below relating to the Promoter’s Memorandum. The complaint also relates to the notices served on these objectors.

d. As regards the sevice of notices, the Committee is referred to the General Note on Falahill Cottages at the beginning of this Annex A2.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

e. The objectors state that they do not believe that due process has been followed by the project team in consulting with those affected by the Bill. They state that communication with the project team seems to have been largely instigated by local residents, that information has been difficult to glean and, when it has been provided, it has been in an extremely ambiguous manner and on many occasions has contradicted that already in the public domain. No specific examples of such occasions are given by the objectors.

Promoter’s Response

f. Meetings with residents at Falahill including these objectors have been held on a regular basis, generally with the residents as a group. The first meeting was held in June 2002 and was attended for the project by the Consultation Manager and the Project Engineer. As the result of a suggestion made at this meeting by another resident, Mrs Inglis, the promoter assessed the feasibility of an alternative alignment. On the advice of the project engineer it was decided that the alternative suggested was an improvement and it is included in the Bill as a result. This is an example of the consultation exercise leading to a change in the design of the scheme.

g. In addition to the Public Consultation Roadshow at the McPhie Hall in Heriot in July 2002, subsequent meetings with the group were held on 21st August 2002 (Mr and Mrs Rae were absent) and 5th February 2003, at which the revised alignment was discussed and draft engineering plans were made available for discussion. Copies were not given to the landowners, a policy decision having been made that draft plans should not be released because they were subject to change. Heriot Community Council also hosted representatives from the Waverley Railway Partnership at meetings to discuss ongoing progress with the project. These meetings took place in the McPhie Hall, Heriot on 23 rd September 2002 and 31st March 2003.

h. In addition, residents of Falahill were present at a wider forum where plans were discussed at the Heriot Community Council in September 2003. The promoter understands these objectors to have been present at that meeting. Once again, engineering plans were made available for the meeting but were not given to residents because they were subject to change.

i. In terms of correspondence, common form initial letters dated 31 stMay 2002 were sent to the owners of each of the Falahill Cottages, including these objectors offering to arrange a meeting with individual residents at their convenience. Subsequent correspondence was entered into with regard to specific issues that arose from meetings and letters and e-mails were sent to Mr Rae, Mrs Inglis and Ms Foster and their agent Mr McCallum. Following the receipt of objections, letters were sent on 24th and 28th November 2003 to all Falahill residents who objected. A second round of letters were sent on 29th January offering meetings to all objectors who did not request a meeting following the first round of letters.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

j. The objectors state that, after consultation with the Project Team and Sponsoring Body, they are convinced that appropriately accurate cost estimates are not being presented to the Parliament. They do not give reasons for this view nor do they identify which particular cost estimates they believe to be inaccurate.

Promoter’s Response

k. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

l. The cost estimates given in the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement have been prepared using a methodical industry recognised approach. The promoter will be able to explain and justify the figures to the Committee. If the objectors raise any specific issues the promoter will address them.

Objection 4

Mr Graeme R Sandie and Mrs Irene E Sandie, Fairways, 30 Glenfield Cresecent, Galashiels, Scottish Borders TD1 2AR

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

a. The objector states that because the final estimated cost of this project is still unknown, the project could potentially have a major impact upon the amount of local tax that will have to be paid. It is submitted that any monetary shortfall will require to be made up in local government taxes, not just to pay for the railway itself but also to cover the envisaged infrastructure costs such as roads, schools, sewerage and water.

Promoter’s Response

b. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

c. The cost estimates given in the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement have been prepared using a methodical industry recognised approach. The promoter will be able to explain and justify the figures to the Committee.

d. The cost of the rail project and other infrastructure projects as yet undetermined but referred to by the objector will be met from a variety of funding sources which may include a contribution from the three local authorities. The commitment to other projects will, where appropriate, be subject to the normal approvals and controls associated with the local authority planning procedures.

Objection 5

The Parish of Stow Community Council, c/o Mr H A Hunter, 1 Haypark Woods, Stow, Galashiels TD1 2SF

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objectors report that, although the Community Council has kept itself informed on progress regarding the railway project, there has been no official approach from the promoter to inform them of the proposed and final content of the Bill. The objectors consider that Stow is one of the communities most dramatically affected by the project and feel, as such, that the promoter has failed to carry out adequate consultation in their area.

b. The objectors note that in paragraph 40 of the Promoter’s Memorandum, the promoter states that “Responses were sought from people living near the line on access and safety issues”. The objectors state that they are aware of Stow residents living adjacent to the proposed line who have not been consulted on this matter. However, the objectors do not provide specific details of such residents or properties.

c. The objectors state that they have been reliably informed that Stow Primary School, whose playground is adjacent to the proposed line, has not been consulted about the project by the promoter. They report that concerns have been raised by parents of children at the school regarding issues of pollution, traffic, health and safety and state that these impacts on local residents have never been addressed.

d. The objectors note that paragraphs 42 – 46 of the Promoter’s Memorandum refers to landowner consultation. They state that they are aware of three landowners within their community who will be seriously affected by the railway construction and who they say have not been “properly consulted”. However, they do not provide specific details of which landowners they are referring to nor to any consultations that have taken place with them.

Promoter’s Response

e. Public meetings were held in Stow on 12th February 2002, 9th July 2002 (Public Consultation Roadshow) and 5th August 2002 at which representatives of the Waverley Railway Project were available to provide verbal information, answer questions and obtain more detailed responses. In addition to the official consultation exercise carried out by the Waverley Railway Partnership, ‘Campaign for Borders Rail’ (an affiliated group to the promoter) carried out direct mail research throughout Stow on people’s views on the line. One result of the consultation exercise and the subsequent CBR survey was the formation of a new campaign group – Stow Station Supporters.

f. The promoter notes that there may be landowners or residents who feel that they have not been consulted. In the absence of details the promoter cannot comment.

g. The objectors state that there has been no consultation with Stow Primary School. The school is a local authority school and is therefore the responsibility of the Lifelong Learning Department of Scottish Borders Council. Discussion has taken place between Turner & Townsend on behalf of the promoter and the property manager for the Lifelong Learning Department.

Objection 6

Stow Station Supporters, c/o Sparrow Castle, 91 Galashiels Road, Stow TD1 2RQ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 7

Mr and Mrs Wilson, Dalhousie Station House, Dalkeith EH22 3LZ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 8

Symon of Edinburgh, Hardengreen Road, Eskbank, Dalkeith EH22 3JY

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors state that, in respect of Notice 685/Plan 196 which takes away a chunk of their building together with a twelve foot security wall and road, the Plan makes no mention of a replacement but the promoter’s website shows that the security wall is to be replaced with a “fence”.

Promoter’s Response

b. Plot 196 has been included for permanent acquisition to accommodate a new pedestrian link to the proposed station car park. It has been drawn to the promoter’s attention that the limits include the gable end of the building. This is not the promoter’s intention and amendments will be submitted to exclude the building and the existing wall.

c. Following receipt of the objection the promoter wrote to the objector on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a meeting, but this has not been taken up. The promoter will be writing again to explain the position.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

d. The objectors state that it is not true that “a letter has been sent to all…giving information on Parliamentary Process, compulsory purchase and compensation”, as claimed in the Promoter’s Memorandum. The objectors say that they have not received any hand delivered letters from the promoter, only Landowners Notices sent by recorded delivery.

e. The objectors state that they have received three sets of recorded delivery packs containing Landowners Notices, each with ten sets of plans showing different areas of land to be compulsorily purchased. They state that they have had no telephone call or visit to explain what is happening and how it will affect them and no consultation or discussion to explain any alternatives.

f. The objectors question the survey approach adopted at a roadshow on the scheme at Tesco in Dalkeith. In terms of consultation results, they state that a poll showing 94% in favour of the railway, quoted in the Promoter’s Memorandum, is a totally insignificant poll. The objector states that, having requested further information on the scheme from the promoter’s representative carrying out the poll at Tesco’s, who assured the objectors that someone would contact them with details of how the project would affect their business, there has been no correspondence, consultation or communication from the promoter other than Landowners’ Notices. The objectors therefore state that comments in the Promoter’s Memorandum that consultation has taken place are untrue.

Promoter’s Response

g. As stated in paragraph 44 of the Promoter’s Memorandum, for the purpose of consulting landowners the promoter sought to identify affected property owners and (as also stated) the letter mentioned in that paragraph was sent to those that had been identified. Consultation is not an exercise in obtaining property ownership information. Accordingly, in undertaking each stage of the consultation the promoter could only make reasonable enquiries regarding ownership and act on what was known at the relevant stage. At the time referred to in paragraph 44, the reference of land had not taken place and the presence of these objectors within the site was not known by those conducting the consultation.

h. Symon of Edinburgh occupy a portakabin, and it is understood may have an interest in other buildings, within a larger complex of buildings forming an enclosed site on private land. Their presence on the site is not readily apparent. As they had not been identified, they did not receive the letters referred to in paragraph 44.

i. The land occupied by these objectors is part of a site owned by K&I Limited (objection no 77). Prior to the submission of the Bill there were discussions with K&I. These discussions have revealed the area of the property about which these objectors are concerned as the gable end and wall mentioned above. As explained above, the promoter has agreed that these structures and the land on which they are built will not be acquired or used for the purposes of the scheme.

j. As regards the survey, the results of the consultation roadshow questionnaire are ‘significant’ in that they have provided an assessment of the general level of support for the rail link amongst the communities along, and to some degree, outside of the main proposed rail route corridor. More than 5,000 ‘On Track’ information leaflets with the questionnaire were distributed, the majority to the 3,300 visitors at the roadshows between 1st July and 3 rd July 2002. Having viewed the initial outline plans as provided in the leaflet and at the roadshows, 1089 responses were received with 94% of those stating that they were “in favour of re-instating passenger rail services between Edinburgh and the central Scottish Borders”. In the event of a lack of response from the promoter, the objector could, having been at the roadshow at Tesco, approached the promoter via the phone number and website enquiry address – which have been ‘live’ since 14th January 2002 and continue to be operational today.

k. The widespread promotion of the Project through national and local newspapers prior to, during and after the public roadshow at Tesco is also designed to encourage as much communication as possible with people living and working near the line.

Objection 9

J B Pendlebury, 3 Dalhousie Mains Cottages, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 3LZ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector states that the Schedule attached to Drawing 1002271/OD04/234 refers to the permanent acquisition and/or rights over some 1849 sq metres of land, but provides no information whatever as to the purposes for the land/or rights of way may be acquired. The objector seeks clarification on this point.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed, they are not intended to provide a justification for compulsory acquisition powers.

c. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the works as affecting the property and have been in contact with the objector by letter dated 19th February 2004, following a meeting on 5th December 2003 and has agreed to reduce land take requirements as a result.

Objection 10

Mr and Mrs Davies, 1 Dalhousie Mains Cottages, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 3LZ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors state that the Schedule attached to Drawing 233 states that the access track from the A7 road to their cottage is required for a construction compound and also working space which could directly affect their own right of access, but that no specific details are provided.

b. The objectors state that a second Schedule relating to another copy of the same drawing refers to possible compulsory acquisition of rights over the same track for construction and thereafter maintenance, but that these papers contained no reference to any financial compensation for this.

c. The objectors state that the Schedule attached to Drawing 234 refers to the compulsory purchase of some 1849 sq metres of land, but does not provide any explanation of the purpose for which this land is required.

Promoter’s Response

d. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed. Following the model form the notices do state that the recipient may be entitled to compensation.

e. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the works as affecting the property and has been in contact with the objector by letter on 24th November 2003, at a meeting on 5th December 2003 and by letter on 19th February 2004. The promoter will contact in the near future in order to ascertain whether further information is required by the objector.

Objection 11

Paul and Christine Baxter, Cowbrae Cottage, Cowbraehill, Tynehead, Pathhead, Midlothian EH37 5XT

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors state that, in respect of the detailed proposal relating to the land in their ownership (map reference 6) and their rights of access via the Tynehead road track to their property (map references 499, 498, 496), there is insufficient detail in the proposal to allow them to understand how access to their property by the bridge over the railway is to be maintained. They state that there is also insufficient detail to understand what the proposal for the crossing is and whether the existing structure will stand or whether it will need to be changed. They state that it would be helpful to understand whether the angle or route of the bridge will remain the same or alter.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed.

c. The full plans show on shoulder notes the purposes for which particular plots of land are to be acquired or used. This information replicates schedules 6 and 7 to the Bill.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

d. In terms of information in respect of land take, the objectors state that they need to better understand how access might be restricted to their house and what alternative access methods are proposed, if any. They do not understand how the proposed use of their ground will be remedied once the work is complete, nor do they understand how much of the entire area will be affected permanently.

Promoter’s Response

e. The objectors refer to plots nos. 496, 498 and 499 in Midlothian. Prior to the submission of the objection by Mr and Mrs Baxter there had been discussion with the assumed owners of this land (Lord Borthwick and Mr Callander). Mr and Mrs Baxter live some distance from the proposed railway line therefore, and the existence of their property was not obvious to those undertaking the consultation.

f. Following the lodging of the objection, letters were sent to Mr and Mrs Baxter on 24th November 2003 and 21st January 2004 offering to arrange a meeting to discuss the issues set out in their objection. The offers were not taken up.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

g. The objectors state that they do not believe that the funding is in place for the railway scheme and are concerned about the project meeting its objectives and the construction having to be halted ‘half way’. that because the final estimated cost of this project is still unknown, the project could potentially have a major impact upon the amount of local tax that will have to be paid. It is submitted that any monetary shortfall will require to be made up in local government taxes, not just to pay for the railway itself but also to cover the envisaged infrastructure costs such as roads, schools, sewerage and water.

Promoter’s Response

h. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

i. In a letter dated 24 June 2004 to Fergus Cochrane of the Private Bills Unit of the Scottish Parliament, the objectors state that the process of consultation prior to the introduction of the Bill was not of the level implied by paragraphs 40, 42, 43 and 46 of the Promoters Memorandum.

j. The objectors state that they were not made aware of the consultation process. They submit that there has been no ‘face-to-face’ meeting with the Promoter at their property and that they have not been made adequately aware of access and environmental issue affecting their property, nor of the details of any proposed compensation scheme.

k. The objectors state that, contrary to the statement in paragraph 46 of the Promoter’s Memorandum, all letters received by them from the Promoters were sent by post, not hand delivered.

Promoter’s Response

l. Those undertaking consultation process on behalf of the Promoter were not aware of the objectors’ interest in the land. Cowbrae Cottage itself is set back from the proposed railway line. It is for this reason that no specific contact was made with the objectors prior to the introduction of the Bill.

m. However, prior to the introduction of the Bill a number of public consultation meetings were held by the Promoter in the vicinity of the objectors’ property. Cowbrae Cottage is approximately 4.5 miles from Heriot and 5 miles from Gorebridge. Prior to the Bill being introduced the following consultation meetings were held in Heriot and Gorebridge:

Heriot

• Public Consultation Roadshow at the McPhie Hall in Heriot in July 2002;
• Subsequent meetings with the Community Council held on 21st August 2002 and 5th February 2003;
• Heriot Community Council hosted representatives from Waverley Railway Partnership at meetings to discuss ongoing progress with the project - meetings took place in the McPhie Hall, Heriot on 23 rd September 2002 and 31st March 2003;
• Meeting at the Heriot Community Council in September 2003 to discuss plans.

Gorebridge

• Consultation Roadshow held in Gorebridge Library on Thursday 25 July 2002.

n. Following the submission of the objection letters were sent to Mr and Mrs Baxter on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004, in which the Promoter offered to set up a meeting with the objectors in order to discuss the issues they raised in their objection. To date Mr or Mrs Baxter have not responded to these letters, and as a result no such meeting has taken place.

o. Mr and Mrs Baxter were sent a further letter on 24th March 2004 in which the Promoter explained why plots 496, 498 and 499 are required for compulsory acquisition. In this letter the Promoter made it clear that it would provide further information or clarification should the objectors so request.

p. As the objectors interest in the land at Cowbrae Cottage was not known before the introduction of the Bill the objectors were not sent early guidance on compulsory purchase and compensation issues. The Promoters are happy to arrange a meeting to discuss these issues with the objectors, or to provide them with a copy of the Compulsory Purchase and Compensation guidance note upon request. However, any information given about compulsory purchase will not contain details of the compensation payable. That is something on which the objectors will need to seek their own advice.

q. For the reasons stated in paragraph l, the Promoter did not contact the objectors until after the Bill was introduced. The objectors were therefore not included in the consultation exercise in February 2003, and Cowbrae Cottage was not amongst the houses to which a letter was hand delivered letter by the Promoters at that time.

Objection 12

Mr and Mrs Banks, 7 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

a. The objectors consider that the current estimate of the cost of re-establishing rail links between Edinburgh and the Scottish Borders, i.e. £130 million, is grossly inadequate. They state that, notwithstanding the fact that it has already increased in the space of the past 3 years by some 78% over the original estimate of £73 million, it is still, in the objectors’ view, wholly unrealistic. They state that they expect the final cost of the project to be in the region of £300 million to £400 million, but they do not provide any numerical or other information to support this expectation.

Promoter’s Response

b. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

c. The cost estimates given in the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement have been prepared using a methodical industry recognised approach. The promoter will be able to explain and justify the figures to the Committee.

Objection 13

Lesley Inglis, 4 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that she is very concerned as to the height and boundary of the new road alignment of the A7 past her property. She states that she has no idea if she is to lose part of her garden as the plans she has seen are not clear on this issue.

Promoter’s Response

b. The Committee is referred to the General Note on Falahill Cottages at the beginning of this Annex 2. If a landowner’s notice had been served it would have shown that the garden was not affected.

c. The proposed road will be at the same level as the existing A7 road at the location of No. 4 Falahill Cottages.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

d. The objector states that the consultation phase on the proposed railway was only in favour of listening to those in favour of the railway and ignored anyone who said otherwise.

e. The objector states that the detail of what is proposed and how it will affect her property is unclear. She states that the promoter has made promises which it has not fulfilled (although these are not specified) and states that the promoter now completely ignores requests for further information.

Promoter’s Response

f. As has been explained above (see response on objection 3) there has been general consultation with the Falihill residents and the scheme was modified to address their concerns (following a suggestion made by this objector). Following receipt of her objection the promoter wrote to the objector on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a meeting but this offer has not been taken up.

Objection 14

Sheila Campbell, Jasmine Lea, Wheatlands Road, Galashiels TD1 1QP

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 15

Nigel Miller Esq, Stagehall and Watherston Farms, Stow (c/o John Sale Chartered Surveyors, 5/7 Bank Street, Galashiels TD1 1EN)

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. In terms of clarity of maps and plans issued, the objector reports that he had a visit from a promoter’s representative in May or June 2003, who brought large scale plans to discuss ownership of the land likely to be affected. Further, the objector received a series of small scale maps and letters from the promoter dated 8th May 2003.

b. The objector’s representatives state that, although the objector received notices from Parkman Land Aspects in May 2003 specifying areas of land to be acquired, they were not accompanied by a plan showing the exact position of the many small parcels of land covered by these letters. The objector’s representatives report that when they complained to Parkman Land Aspects that it was difficult to identify the areas of land to be acquired, they were referred to the local library where a copy of the plan was available. The objector’s representative considers this to be unreasonable.

Promoter’s Response

c. The documents referred to by Mr Miller, received in May 2003 were confirmation schedules issued by Landaspects. These confirmation schedules were issued to Mr Miller in an attempt to confirm his interests in the land within Bill limits. The plans used in the confirmation schedule exercise were plans showing land information extracted from the then current version of the Maps, plans and sections.

d. The Committee is also referred to the response below.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

e. The objector’s representatives report that Parkman Land Aspects stated that formal notification of the project was made to the objector in September 2003 but, at 22nd October 2003, no such communication had been received.

f. The objector had received a series of small scale maps and letters from the promoter dated 8th May 2003. However, he reported that there appeared to be no information with the letters about how to object to the scheme. The objector found such information extremely difficult to come by and found that the arrangements for dealing with landowners affected by land acquisition to be muddled, unsatisfactory and inadequate.

g. However, in additional correspondence which the objector’s representatives reported that they received from Land Aspects on about 27th October 2003, further information was provided with this correspondence including a letter, Notice, Plan Numbers and a series of Landowners’ Notices with small scale plans. This communication contained details of how to object to the scheme.

Promoter’s Response

h. The documents referred to by Mr Miller as having been received in May 2003 were the confirmation schedules mentioned above. They stated that this was their purpose. They were clearly not notices of a proposal to promote the Bill. At this stage the Bill had not been introduced so that there was no question of any communication dealing with how to make formal objections. However, the proposals had been made known in the course of the public consultation, as to which the Committee is referred to the answers given below.

i. The documents referred to by Mr Miller as being received in September 2003 were confirmation schedules issued by Landaspects in August 2003. This second confirmation schedule exercise was required due to the Bill deposit date moving back from June 2003 to September 2003. These confirmation schedules were issued to Mr Miller in an attempt to confirm his interests in the land within Bill limits. The plans used in the confirmation schedule exercise were plans showing land information extracted from the then current version of the Maps, plans and sections.

j. Formal landowner’s notices were sent to Mr Miller on 11th September 2003. It has not been possible to ascertain why they were not received by him. At Mr Miller’s request copies of the notices were sent to Mr Miller on 23 rd October 2003 and copied to his Agents on 25th October 2003.

h. These copy notices were sent with an accompanying letter to Mr Miller’s Agents dated 24th October 2003. The letter clarified the process for obtaining composite Plans and Sections for the scheme, which Mr Miller’s Agents requested on 8th October 2003. The letter mentioned that the notices sent to Mr Miller included mention of the availability for inspection and sale of the overall (composite) Plans. The letter stated that these were available for public inspection at the Libraries referred to in the notices.

i. The information given and the facilities provided for inspection and sale are all as required by the Standing Orders, the Presiding Officer’s Determinations and the parliamentary Guidance.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

j. The objector states that the process of consultation in the proposed railway was inadequate.

Promoter’s Response

k. This objector is among a group of landowners consisting of farmers and estate owners. As a group they were reluctant to discuss the scheme, permit access for survey or provide ownership details except as a group represented by a land agent. The promoter accommodated this by holding two general meetings (on 10th September 2002 and 8th October 2002) at which a number of issues were discussed concerning access for survey work, payment for access, Bill process and timescales. The meetings also allowed for initial discussions on the impact of the scheme on farming operations. Present at these meetings were all the landowners in this group who submitted objections, or their representatives, with the exception of Lionel Litchfield of Bowland Estates.

l. These meetings were followed up by meetings with individual landowners. The meeting with Mr Miller took place on 13th February 2003. The intention of the meeting was to gain an initial understanding of the requirements of farming operations in order what works might be necessary to accommodate these requirements. At this meeting, draft engineering layouts were available for discussion. Copies were not given to the landowner, a policy decision having been made that draft plans should not be released because they were subject to change.

m. Following submission of the objections, on 28th November 2003 letters were sent to all those landowners who had objected, including Mr Miller. offering a further meeting. Following this offer Mr Miller was visited again on 11th January 2004. At this meeting, further discussion was held on the accommodation of farm operations, the Bill process, process for compensation and compulsory purchase, timescales and information requirements. Following this meeting, sets of the finalised engineering layouts were provided by post on 2nd April 2004.

n. The meeting with Mr Miller in January 2003 resulted in the alteration of access points due to potential impact on a Wetlands Scheme. The promoter will continue to discuss the impact of the scheme with the objector.

Objection 16

Mr and Mrs Allison, Stagebank Cottage, c/o Thompson Chartered Surveyors, 76 Overhaugh Street, Galashiels TD1 1DP

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors’ representatives have stated that it has not been shown that the public acquisition of the clients’ land is needed for the scheme to proceed.

Promoter’s Response

b. The objectors’ concern is with plot no. 148 in Scottish Borders. The land was included in the limits of deviation because the promoter believed this to be necessary for the scheme. The promoter will have to justify this and satisfy the Committee that it is consistent with the promoter’s aim of minimising land take. If it becomes apparent that the land is not after all required, it will not be acquired and the promoter will provide the objectors with a binding undertaking in this respect.

c. The promoter wrote to the objector on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a meeting to discuss their concerns but this has not been taken up.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

d. The objectors’ representatives state that it is felt that insufficient research has been carried out by the promoter to find the best-fit route for the railway.

Promoter’s Response

e. This is a matter for evidence at the Preliminary stage.

Objection 17

Helen Foster, 8 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that the height of the proposed railway line appears from the plans to contradict information that residents were given at the Heriot Community Council meeting in September 2002. She states that, at this meeting, residents were informed that, if the railway line were to be routed to the West, it would be sited in a cutting. She notes that, on the plans, the proposed line appears to be level with the road as it passes the south end of the cottages.

b. The objector reports that the minutes from the Heriot Community Council Meeting indicate that the railway would cross the road considerably further North than the current plans suggest and that it would be on the far side of the field rather than just the other side of the A7.

c. The objector states that for those residents living towards the North end of the cottages, the plans indicate that the road would be on a higher lever than it is at present, bringing it closer to the level at which these residents actually live. However, she states that it is impossible to determine how high the road would be, as the plans give no clear indication of levels or gradients.

d. The objector states that the plans are unclear and difficult to assess. She notes that there is no key to the shading used to depict different sections of the route and it is not possible to determine heights or gradients. She reports that some of the house numbers also appear to be incorrect.

Promoter’s Response

e. As has been explained in the note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2, the alignment was changed following consultation with the Falahill residents. The Heriot Community Council meeting to which the objector refers took place when options were being considered and before the scheme had been finalised.

f. The proposed road will be at the same level as the existing A7 road at the location of No. 8 Falahill Cottages. The plans deposited in connection with the Bill and the plans submitted with the landowners’ notices show by means of shading the individual plots of land. The shading is not meant to depict the proposed use of land.

g. The sections deposited with the Bill show gradients and heights of the proposed works above a ­datum line. A vertical scale is shown for the section which enables heights to be measured.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

h. The objector states that she, along with a number of other residents, did not receive any notification that the Bill was about to be introduced. Whilst some others did receive notification, she believes there to be no logic in respect of who was informed.

Promoter’s Response

i. Please see the note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2 with regard to the failure to serve a landowner’s notice on this objector. A meeting has was held with the objector on 13th January 2004 at which further information was provided and her concerns were discussed

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

j. The objector states that, despite repeated requests, none of the residents of Falahill were provided with copies of the plans for the proposed route of the railway as it affects their homes. She states that some residents have had to obtain copies of these plans at their own expense.

k. The objector states that the Waverley Railway Project has consistently ignored letters and emails requesting further information. She reports that the project team has failed to provide answers to questions raised, nor has it entered into a dialogue regarding the concerns.

Promoter’s Response

l. As has been explained above (see the response on Objection 3) there has been general consultation with the Falahill residents and the scheme was modified to address their concerns.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

m. The objector states that the current estimated cost of £130 million for re-establishing the railway gives a false picture of the actual cost as it makes no allowance for inflation. She states that even this figure represents a near doubling of the £73 million estimate given in the original feasibility study undertaken by Scott Wilson in 2000. In light of the massive underestimates originally stated for other transport initiatives and the construction of the Scottish Parliament, the objector believes that it is likely that this initiative will commit the taxpayer to provide funding at a level of several times this figure.

Promoter’s Response

n. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

o. The cost estimates given in the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement have been prepared using a methodical industry recognised approach. The promoter will be able to explain and justify the figures to the Committee.

Objection 18

Mr R Bull and Ms M MacPhee, 2 Heriot Way

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. In a table containing comments specific to the Environmental Statement, the objectors make general comments on the consultation process, which they say has shown an unacceptable degree of variability.

b. The objectors report that in 2002, the Turner Townsend Project Manager attended an introductory meeting in the houses at number 2 and number 3 Heriot Way. The objectors state that draft plans of a proposed route were displayed. They report that, over a meeting of 90 minutes duration, the Project Manager was left in no doubt as to the total opposition to these draft plans. They state that an offered return visit by the Project Manager with revised plans never materialised.

Promoter’s Response

c. As regards the general approach to consultation the promoter refers to the response to question 3 in Annex A1.

d. An initial meeting involving Mr Bull and Mr and Mrs Smith was held in September 2002. At this meeting Turner & Townsend on behalf of the promoter discussed a number of issues and answered questions. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was their understanding that any further questions would be forwarded by Mr Bull. Following a letter of 24th November 2003 inviting further discussion a meeting was held with Mr Bull, on 5th February 2004 at which the objection was discussed in great detail. Following that meeting more detailed information with regards to compulsory purchase was sent to Mr Bull by e-mail on 9th February 2004.

Objection 19

D E W Kibble & Sons, Farmers, Falahill Farm, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. In respect of information on land take for the section of the railway that will run through Falahill Farm, Heriot, the objector states that details of what is actually proposed and how the railway may affect his farm are unclear and have lead to confusion.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed.

c. The Promoters have taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the works as affecting the property. Letters offering a meeting were sent on 24th November and 29th January and engineering plans were sent on 2nd April 2004.

Objection 20

Scott Murray, The Old Railway Cottage, Falahill, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector states that, in respect of the section of railway line which will run past his property, The Old Railway Cottage, the details of what is actually proposed, and how it may affect this property, are unclear.

Promoter’s Response

b. Please see note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2 with regard to the failure to serve a landowner’s notice on this objector. However the notice would not have contained details of the works. As required by the Standing Orders the promoter has made copies of the Bill plans and sections and the other accompanying documents available for public inspection.

c. As has been explained above (see the response on Objection 3) there has been general consultation with the residents of Falahill and the scheme was modified to meet their concerns. A letter was sent to this objector on 24th November 2003 inviting him to a meeting and a meeting was held on 22nd January 2004.

Objection 21

James Muir, Torquhan, Stow, Galashiels TD1 2RX

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that the maps that he has been sent by the promoter are incorrect and, as a consequence, negotiations with the promoter in the event of a compulsory purchase order will be impeded. However, he does not specify the respect in which the maps are incorrect.

b. The objector states that the Book of Reference is incorrect and, as a consequence, in the event of a compulsory purchase order, his position is already compromised. However, he does not specify the respect in which the Book of Reference is incorrect.

c. The objector states that, from the incorrect maps, it is not clear what land the promoter intends to use permanently and what land temporarily. He states that the maps suggest use of land, both permanent and temporary, which he believes has no relevance to the project.

Promoter’s Response

d. All information relating to Mr Muir’s land ownership (plot nos. 250, 251, 254, 255, 256, 256b, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 262a, 264, 265, 273, 274 and 275 in Scottish Borders) was supplied by his Agent, Mr Kenneth Robertson. Confirmation schedules were sent to both Mr Muir and his Agent for checking in May and August 2003 but these we not returned.

e. Confirmation schedules with plans are sent to landowners inviting them to confirm that the information is correct, or, if incorrect to amend the details. The confirmation letter intimates that if no response is sent back, the information will be taken as correct.

f. The Promoters are in contact with the objector and held a meeting with him on 8th January 2004 to discuss his concerns. On 2nd April 2004 he was sent engineering plans of the proposals.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

g. The objector reports that the promoter has not contacted him individually about the potential compulsory purchase order, although the proposed railway will split his farm.

h. The objector states that the promoter has failed to inform him of any proposed access for works and site accommodation. In failing to provide this information and not contacting the objector, the objector states that the promoter has not revealed how it is proposed that he access his fields in the event of a compulsory purchase order.

i. The objector also reports that the promoter has not discussed fencing or drainage with him and who will be responsible for these.

Promoter’s Response

j. With regard to consultation with landowners, the objector attended 2 general meetings on 10th September and 8th October 2002 at which a number of issues were discussed concerning access for survey work, payment for access, Bill process and timescales and further opportunities for discussions on the impact of the scheme on farming operations. A further individual meeting was held on 28th January 2003. At this meeting, engineering layouts were available for discussion, although the plans were not given to the landowner at this meeting. The matter of access to the fields cut off by the railway was discussed and it was explained that a policy decision had been taken not to include field to field bridges in the scheme. Following the submission of objection, a letter was sent on 24th November offering a further meeting and a meeting was held on 8th January 2004. At this meeting, further discussion was held on the accommodation of farm operations, the Bill process, process for compensation and compulsory purchase, timescales and information requirements. Following this meeting, sets of the finalised engineering layouts were provided by post on 2nd April 2004.

Objection 22

Lionel Lofthouse (farming partnership), Bankhouse Farm, Stow, Galashiels TD1 2SU

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors state that the plans received regarding proposed compulsory purchase orders are incorrect. However, they do not specify the respect in which they believe them to be incorrect.

b. The objectors understand that approximately 1/10th of their farm will be subject to land take for the railway. However, they state that, in respect of this land take, the promoter has not given measurements on many of the areas to be taken by compulsory purchase and that they believe the paperwork to be incomplete.

Promoter’s Response

c. Information relating to land ownership was supplied by the Partnerships Agent. Confirmation schedules were sent to both the partners and their Agent for checking in May and August 2003 but these we not returned.

d. Confirmation schedules with plans are sent to landowners inviting them to confirm that the information is correct, or, if incorrect to amend the details. The confirmation letter intimates that if no response is sent back, the information will be taken as correct.

e. Each of the landowners notices served on the Partnership (notice nos. 1369 to 1412) gives the total area of the plot of land in respect of which the notice is served.

f. A meeting was held on 5th December 2003 at which amongst other things the issue of the extent of the land take was discussed.

Objection 23

James F Barr (owner of Pirntaton Farm, Stow), Cintra, 11 Greenbank Rise, Edinburgh EH10 5RW

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that the plans and drawings provide by the promoter in relation to the railway project and Pirntaton are incorrect, inaccurate, lacking important detail and impossible to understand. However, the objector does not provide specific details about what he believes to be incorrect and inaccurate, nor does he indicate the respect in which he believes the plans and drawings to be lacking important detail.

b. He indicates that it is his understanding that it is a statutory parliamentary requirement that all of the drawings should have been prepared to a 1250:1 [sic. requisite scale is 1:1,250] scale and reports that he has previously raised this point with project consultants Turner Townsend.

c. The objector states that, being unable to understand the plans will affect his ability to negotiate with the promoter, the promoter’s agent and his own tenant.

Promoter’s Response

d. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed, they are not intended to provide a justification for compulsory acquisition powers.

e. The plans and sections deposited in connection with the Bill are drawn on a horizontal scale of 1:1,250. The determination in Annex M to the Guidance on Private Bills is that plans must be no smaller than 1:2,500 and that the horizontal sections must be on the same scale as the plans. The Promoters are therefore satisfied that the plans and sections deposited in connection with the Bill comply with Parliament’s requirements.

f. Information relating to land ownership was supplied by Mr Barr’s Agent. Confirmation schedules were sent to both Mr Barr and his Agent for checking in May and August 2003 but these we not returned.

g. Confirmation schedules with plans are sent to landowners inviting them to confirm that the information is correct, or, if incorrect to amend the details. The confirmation letter intimates that if no response is sent back, the information will be taken as correct.

h. Turner & Townsend do not recall the issue of scales of plans being discussed at any meeting with them.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

i. The objector reports his belief that a new road is to be constructed through Pirntaton Haugh land, but that there has been no consultation by the promoter with the objector or his advisers and no detail has been made available about this by the promoter.

j. The objector also reports that there has been no proper consultation with regard to what areas of his land are required and for what purpose, both on a permanent and temporary basis, particularly those areas outwith the existing disused railway. He states that absolutely no detail has been provided regarding “accommodation works, underpasses, bridges etc.” and that this has made it difficult for him to consider future investment and to engage in meaningful dialogue and communication with his tenant.

Promoter’s Response

k. With regard to consultation with landowners, Mr Barr attended 2 general meetings on 10th September and 8th October 2002 at which a number of issues were discussed concerning access for survey work, payment for access, Bill process and timescales and further opportunities for discussions on the impact of the scheme on farming operations. A further individual meeting was held on 31st January 2003. At this meeting, engineering layouts were available for discussion, although the plans were not given to the landowner at this meeting. The intention of the meeting was to gain an initial understanding of the requirements of farming operations and to explain the likely impact of the Bill. Following the submission of objection, a letter was sent on 24th November offering a further meeting and a meeting was held on 12th December 2003. At this meeting, further discussion was held on the accommodation of farm operations, the Bill process, process for compensation and compulsory purchase, timescales and information requirements. Following this meeting, sets of the finalised engineering layouts were provided by post on 2nd April 2004.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

l. The objector states that it has not been proven that adequate finance has been made available to construct or run the railway and he considers that there to be a strong prospect that the project will lead local authorities into financial difficulties which will in turn affect other planned projects and all rate payers.

Promoter’s Response

m. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

n. The cost estimates given in the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement have been prepared using a methodical industry recognised approach. The promoter will be able to explain and justify the figures to the Committee.

Objection 24

Mr L G Litchfield, Bowland Farms, c/o Davis and Bowring Chartered Surveyors & Land, Sporting and Estate Agents, 6-8 Main Street, Kirkby Lonsdale, Carnforth, Lancashire LA6 2AE

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector’s representatives report that the objector has been served with 109 Notices for acquisition of land, temporary occupation and acquisition of rights over land. However, they also report that the Notices served are insufficiently described for clear identification and would appear to include additional land without any proper explanation as to why those areas of land are required for the construction of the railway.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed, they are not intended to provide a justification for compulsory acquisition powers.

c. Where a notice is served in respect of temporary possession or acquisition of rights only the notices do state the purpose for which rights may be acquired or for which temporary possession may be taken.

d. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the works as affecting the property. It has written to the objectors and a meeting was held with his agent on 4th June 2004.

e. The promoter has some sympathy with the complaint that they received 109 separate notices. The promoter’s preferred option was to send one notice each for acquisition of land, temporary occupation and acquisition of rights over land each notice containing a schedule with details of the land in question. As this would not have been consistent with the model notice in Guidance the promoter put this request to the Non Executive Bills Unit but it was not agreed to.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

f. The objector states that the estimated capital cost of the project is £130 million. He states that, in the absence of supporting evidence, there are grave reservations at to whether this is a realistic figure and argues that alternative estimates should be obtained to make sure the public are fully aware of the total amount of tax payers’ money required for the project. He reports that no details have been supplied as to the cost of operating the railway line and who will fund any shortfall in the cost of operating the service.

Promoter’s Response

g. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

h. The cost estimates given in the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement have been prepared using a methodical industry recognised approach. The promoter will be able to explain and justify the figures to the Committee.

Objection 25

Mr Richard Thompson and Mrs Laura Thompson, Station Master’s House, 37 Station Road, Stow, Galashiels

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors report inaccuracies in Compulsory Notice No. 1877, because the stated strip of land of 173sqm is described as belonging to the owner of 41 Station Road when it fact it belongs to the objectors.

b. The objectors report that the Notice of Proposal to Acquire Land Compulsorily they received is incorrect, in that it shows the ‘complete’ original station buildings as belonging to them, when in fact this is not the case. The objectors report that the original station house and buildings were converted approximately 10 years ago into 2 separate dwelling houses, their house being the Station Master’s House 37 Station Road and the other half, 39 Station Road, belonging to Mr J Kirkness, where access to the dwelling house is from the original track bed of the old railway and not via the objectors’ property.

c. The objectors state that the wording and formatting of the section of the Notice of Proposal to Acquire Land Compulsorily, which refers to the exclusion of section 90 of the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 is unclear in terms of its intentions. (The objectors indicate that if the wording means that the exclusion of section 90 of the Act would allow for part purchase of their property, to the detriment of their house, its amenity and its convenience, then they would object to this amendment.)

Promoter’s Response

d. Mr Thompson was noted as having an interest in the strip of land he refers to in his objection letter. The details for the owners and occupiers of this land in the Book of Reference are correct. The details for the description of the land as being ‘Garden (41, Station Road)’ are incorrect. The correct description should be ‘Gardens (37, Station Road and 41, Station Road)’.

e. Mr Thompson has stated that incorrect information shows the complete original station buildings belonging to him and his wife.

f. The Ordnance survey mapping does not show the internal property boundaries nor does it show the garden boundaries delineating Mr & Mrs Thompson’s property. In cases such as this, the land is parcelled to follow the Ordnance Survey mapping and the relevant interests are added into that parcel.

g. The amended details have been noted and the Master Book of Reference and Database have been updated accordingly.

h. The wording and formatting of the Notice in relation to the exclusion of section 90 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 follows the model notification letter set out in Annex F to the Guidance on Private Bills and clearly sets out the nature of the provision included in the Bill. The intention behind the substitution of this provision for section 90 is explained in paragraphs 107 to 118 of the Explanatory Notes.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

i. The objectors report that, at the initial Waverley Rail Project Roadshow, it was indicated that their land/buildings were within the minimum distance requirement of the proposed track bed, implying that all of the property, not just a significant part of it, would be purchased.

j. The objectors state that they are totally disappointed in the “supposed consultation process”, although they do not detail specific areas of disappointment.

Promoter’s Response

k. As the property occupied by Mr Thompson at Station Road, Stow was identified as a property that could be affected by the railway, letters were sent to Mr Thompson in July 2002, setting out the background to the project and identifying contact telephone numbers and an address. Subsequently, a regular telephone dialogue was held with Mr Thompson in order to provide updates. A letter confirming a discussion was provided to Mr Thompson on 17th October 2003. Prior to this information relating to compensation, compulsory purchase and the Bill process had been sent to Mr Thompson. In addition, public meetings attended by representatives of the promoter were held in Stow on 12th February, 9th July and 5th August 2002.

l. As regards the comments about the Roadshow, this was held at the consultation stage of the project. Accordingly the Bill limits had not been fixed and no definitive indication could have been given as to precisely how much of any property was to be acquired. Following the objection being lodged, a letter offering a meeting to discuss the issues set out in the objection letter was sent to Mr Thompson on 24th November 2003 and a meeting was held on 28th January 2004 to discuss these.

Objection 26

Mrs S Symon and others, 39 Station Road, Stow, Galashiels

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors state that they, as “registered affected landowners”, have never received any statutory notice or consultation in respect of the project.

Promoter’s Response

b. 39 Station road is owned by Mr James Kirkness and occupied by Ms Isobel Myles.

c. Part of the access to 39 Station Road is encompassed within Plot 336 in Scottish Borders on the Plans. This access is over land that comprises the garden of 41 Station Road.

d. Mr Kirkness and Ms Myles have received notification of the Bill in respect of their interests in Plot 336. It is understood that Mrs Symon does not have any interest in 39 Station Road.

e. A number of letters have been sent to Mrs S Symon offering meetings/futher information. There has only been one response to these suggesting that the Promoters of the project stop bothering her and purchase her property.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

f. The objectors state that public input to preparatory work on the scheme has been denied. They state that the claims made in the Promoter’s Memorandum are false and do not bear scrutiny. They argue that paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Promoter’s Memorandum are examples of this and illustrate that the promoter does not know the meaning of the word ‘consultation’.

Promoter’s Response

g. As regards the general approach to consultation the promoter refers to the response to question 3 in Annex A1. A number of public meetings attended by representatives of the promoter have been held in Stow on 12th February, 9th July and 5th August 2002.

h. Mrs Symon was not individually consulted because the promoter was not aware that she might be affected by the powers of the Bill. However, following receipt of her objection the promoter wrote to her on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a meeting, but no response has been received.

Objection 27

Mr James Kirkness and others, 41 Station Road, Stow, Selkirkshire TD1 2SQ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objectors state that the “pro-rail campaign” started in 1994 by Border Transport Futures Ltd has been promoted totally undemocratically making assumptions and using facts and figures which are blatantly incorrect. However, they do not provide specific information in support of this statement.

Promoter’s Response

b. It is difficult to reply to the objectors comments without receiving further details of the complaint.

Objection 28

Mr James Kirkness, 41 Station Road, Stow, Selkirkshire TD1 2SQ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector states that the promoter has not carried out the essential duties incumbent upon it in respect of compulsory purchase regulations. However, no specific information is provided about what the objector believes the promoter has failed to do.

Promoter’s Response

b. The grounds of the complaint are not clear. In this case, where compulsory powers are sought through a Private Bill rather than a compulsory purchase order, it is the requirements of the Parliament’s Standing Orders rather than the legislation governing the making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders that are applicable. The promoter has complied with the relevant requirements of the Standing Orders.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

c. The objector states that many statements expressed as facts in the Promoter’s Memorandum will not stand up to scrutiny. However, he does not identify which statements he is referring to nor does he provide evidence in support of his claim.

d. The objector also states that two million pounds have been squandered without a single public debate or consultation, although no further specifics are provided in support of this statement.

Promoter’s Response

e. The promoter does not accept the assertions made. A general account of the consultation undertaken is given in the response to question 3 in Annex A1. Public meetings attended by representatives of the promoter have been held in Stowe on 12th February, 9th July and 5th August 2002.

Objection 29

Mrs I L Myles, 39 Station Road, Stow, Selkirkshire TD1 2SQ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objector states that the Promoter’s Memorandum is a tissue of mis-statements and lies and that the promoter talks of consultation without knowing the meaning of the word. The objector also states that there has been no public debate on the scheme, no Community Council input and certainly no consultation. She states that she has not been notified or consulted.

Promoter’s Response

b. As the property in question is part of a larger single building, Turner &Townsend who carried the consultation on behalf of the promoter were not aware that Mrs Myles occupied the building. As a consequence consultation letters were not sent to Mrs Myles. However, following receipt of the objection, letters were sent to Mrs Myles on 24th November 2003 and 21st January 2004 offering meetings and further information. Mrs Myles has responded stating that a meeting is not required.

c. Public meetings have been held in Stow on 12th February, 9th July and 5th August 2002 at which proposals were discussed and an opportunity to speak or ask questions was given to members of the public.

d. The Scottish Borders Council's Local Transport Strategy also involved consultation with the local communities over a period of about a year in 1999. The Community Councils were involved in this consultation and the final LTS included Policy 45 to promote the reintroduction of the Waverley Line.

e. Representatives of the Waverley Railway Partnership have also spoke to local Community Councils on details of the project.

f. Mrs Myles was served with notice in respect of her interest in 41 Station Road (plot no. 336 in Scottish Borders).

Objection 30

Mr and Mrs Dunn, 1 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 31

J Walker, 6 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 32

Mr and Mrs Paterson, 7 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 33

Mr and Mrs Joshi, 8 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 34

Mr and Mrs Macdonald, 9 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 35

Mr and Mrs Dalgety, 10 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 36

Mr and Mrs Jackson, 11 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 37

Mr and Mrs Cairns, 12 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 38

Mr D McGlashan, 14 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 39

Mr and Mrs Docherty, 15 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 40

Mrs Hood, 16 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 41

Andrew Reid, 17 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 42

Mr and Mrs Spinks, 18 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 43

Mr B Mayberry, 19 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 44

Mr and Mrs Dodds, 21 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 45

Mr and Mrs Forrester, 22 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 46

Mr D Brown, 23 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 47

Miss J Mitscavitch, 24 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 48

Mr and Mrs Scaife, 25 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 49

Ms C Bracher, 26 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 50

Mr and Mrs Maitland, 27 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 51

Mr and Mrs Wightman, 28 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 52

Mrs A Rooney, 40 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 53

Mr and Mrs McDonald, 41 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 54

Mr and Mrs Ewing, 42 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 55

Mr and Mrs More, 20 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 56

Mr and Mrs Chalmers, 46 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 57

Residents of Victoria Gardens, Newtongrange, Midlothian

(No 7: Mr B W Meijer; No 9: Mr J Turner; No 11: Mr A and Mrs L Birrell; No 13: Mr T and Mrs A Spears; No 15: Mr G and Mrs L Leslie; No 21: Mr J and Mrs A McDonald; No 23: Mr M M Ball; No 27: Mr J and Mrs C Brown)

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objectors state that they are not aware of any public meetings having been held, as specified in paragraph 36 of the Promoter’s Memorandum. They consider that they could expect to have been personally invited, as they are affected by the proposal. They note that the Memorandum mentions that the consultation process “accepted all other offers to attend public meetings in relation to the project”.

b. The objectors state that it took them one year and an intervention by Rhona Brankin MSP to arrange a meeting with the Waverley Railway Project team. Further, the objectors state that, despite having received a written promise from a representative of the WRP team to reply to questions raised in the meeting, the objectors are still waiting for the answers. The objectors have written to the WRP asking them for written information about how they plan to address the issues raised in their objection. The objectors state that no reply has ever been received.

Promoter’s Response

c. The Waverley Project Roadshow was held in Newtongrange Library on 22nd July 2002 and at Tesco at Eskbank on 24th July. Personal invitations were not offered to affected parties to attend public meetings.

d. Letters were hand delivered by Turner & Townsend on behalf of the promoter in July 2002 to all residents of Victoria Gardens offering meetings. A list of questions were sent to Harrison Cowley by a Mr Forrester in August 2002. These questions were promptly answered. Subsequently, a meeting was held with the residents of Victoria Gardens on 4th June 2003 at which a number of questions, similar to those asked by Mr Forrester, were answered.

e. Following the submission of the objection a letter was sent on 21st November 2003 to the resident leading the group offering a meeting. Subsequently it has been mutually decided through e-mail correspondence that the questions raised in the objection letter and in a subsequent e-mail dated 1st August 2004 that a meeting was not required and a response to their queries was sent in a letter of 19th August 2004.

Issue/concern: Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement

f. The objectors state that the estimated cost for environmental mitigation is £1,654,917 or 1.3% of the total cost estimate. They state that, from the promoter’s documentation, it is not clear what has to be covered by this. They consider that, assuming that the total cost estimate has to cover mitigation in all areas of environmental impact addressed by the Environmental Statement, the estimate is very low.

g. The objectors state that compensation for loss or property values due to construction of the railway can be expected to form a considerable cost component. However, they note that this is not mentioned as a separate cost estimate, nor does it appear to be addressed elsewhere in the proposer’s documentation, so that it is not clear to what extent such compensation has been taken into account.

h. They report that a question about the money reserved for such compensation in the project’s cost estimate was raised at a meeting with the project team in Newtongrange on 4 June 2003 but was not answered.

Promoter’s Response

i. The promoter has submitted an Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement which complies with the Standing Orders of Parliament. The promoter will need to satisfy Parliament as to the viability of the project and provide evidence at the Preliminary Stage in relation to the business case for the scheme and anticipated funding.

j. The cost estimates were provided by ERM based on the mitigation measures proposed within the Environmental Statement.

Objection 58

Residents of Deanpark, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4T

(No 37: Miss L A Deans; No 41: Mrs L Davidson; No 43: Mr and Mrs H Murray; No 46: Mrs G Storrie; No 47: Mrs E Scott; No 48: Mr Sherridan)

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors state that there is concern from the people living nearest to the line as to whether their houses will be compulsorily purchased.

Promoter’s Response

b. The Bill will only authorise the compulsory acquisition or use of land within the limits shown on the plans. All the properties are outwith the limits and none abut them.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

c. The objectors state that the people living next to the line are concerned about the extent of the disruption the building work will create if the project goes ahead, although no specific complaint is made about consultation and the provision of information.

Promoter’s Response

d. Having considered this objection the promoter does not consider it raises any further issues on the accompanying documents.

Objection 59

Peter and Margaret Dubickas, Damside Cottage, Lothian Bridge, Newtowngrange EH22 4TP, c/o Stuart and Stuart WS, 7 High Street, Bonnyrigg EH19 2DA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 60

Mr Angus Pretswell and Mrs Carol Pretswell, c/o James S Miller, Ironside Farrar Environmental Consultants, 12 Gayfield Square, Edinburgh EH1 3NX

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors’ representatives state that the land plans attached to Notices Nos. 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441 and 1442 (Drawing Title: Confirmation Schedule) do not accurately represent the actual land ownership of these objectors. They report that the inaccuracies include land in other people’s ownership and incorrect boundaries. They consider that the Notices should be reissued with correct and accurate land plans.

Promoter’s Response

b. Mr & Mrs Pretswell were noted as owning the property known as 13 Lothianbridge, Midlothian. This property falls within Plots 244, 245 and 246.

c. The Ordnance survey mapping does not show the internal property boundaries which form Mr & Mrs Pretswell’s property. In addition, the viaduct known as ‘Newbattle Viaduct’ is located above their property; this is shown on the Ordnance Survey base mapping which is used as the basis for the Maps, Plans and Sections. The mapping used is limited by its two dimensional nature when illustrating multiple levels of varying interests and different acquisition types.  However the details provided are accurate given the two dimensional nature of the medium employed. In cases such as this, the land is parcelled to follow the Ordnance Survey mapping and the relevant interests are added into that parcel. Mr & Mrs Pretswell have been notified correctly.

d. A letter was sent to the agent acting for Mr and Mrs Pretswell on 24th December 2003 offering a meeting to discuss their concerns. A further letter was sent on 24th March 2004 setting out the project engineers response to the issue raised in the objection letter. The promoter is currently progressing this matter through contact with the objectors’ agent.

Objection 61

Mr and Mrs Wightman, The Granary, Fushiebridge, Midlothian EH23 4QF

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors state that the only correspondence that they have received from Land Aspects was in May 2003 in the form of a Confirmation Schedule which was “strewn with errors” asking the objectors if they could confirm ownership of land. However, the objectors do not specify what those errors were.

b. The objectors state that Notice No 1664 gives notice that their neighbours land and their garage will be taken temporarily for a construction compound, working space and access for construction. However, they report that no indication has been given to them of the level of compensation for loss of amenity from this temporary possession.

c. The objectors report that they have received Notice No 1666 to take possession of the remainder of their neighbour’s garden and that they do not understand why they have received this.

Promoter’s Response

d. Mr & Mrs Wightman have been included in the Book of Reference as being the joint owners and occupiers of Plots 422,423,424 and 425 (Midlothian) and have been notified correctly in respect of their interests in these Plots.

e. The plans accompanying Mr & Mrs Wightmans’s notices are based on the Ordnance Survey mapping which was used as the basis for the Maps, Plans and Sections. The detail of existing buildings and features can only be as accurate and complete as that Ordnance Survey mapping. Both Mr & Mrs Wightman and their neighbour, Mr Biggar have been notified for plots 423 and 424 (included in notice nos. 1664 and 1666 served on Mr Wightman) as it was not possible to split the land on the data provided due to lack of Ordnance Survey detail.

f. It would not be appropriate in the landowners notices to assess the level of compensation payable. This is a matter on which the landowner should seek separate advice. In the case of any dispute over the level of compensation payable the matter would be referred to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

g. The objectors note that the non-technical summary of the Environmental Statement states that “From the earliest stages, consultation has played an important role in the evolution of the Waverley Railway” and that information has been provided to landowners and their views have been sought. However, the objectors state that at no point have they received any written consultation, nor has anyone directly sought their opinion on the line, despite repeated e-mails requesting that someone contact them.

h. The objectors state that, in one brief telephone message, they were assured that someone would be coming to see them, but that this was followed by a brief phone call, received by their 14 year old son, who was told that no-one was able to come to see them but that the promoter’s representatives had obtained all the information that they required from their neighbours. The objectors state that they do not consider that a telephone conversion with a 14 year old boy constitutes adequate consultation.

i. The objectors report that they visited a ‘travelling roadshow’ in Gorebridge library to promote the railway line. They state that the representative of the railway partnership did not have any plans with him of the line passing their property, despite them living 1 mile from the proposed Gorebridge station. They describe the representative as seeming to be unaware of their situation and unable to comment, except to explain that no one from the promoter’s team had contacted them because the promoter’s team was involved in dealing with the owners of properties which were ‘seriously affected by the route’. They report that the promoter’s representative suggested that they go to the Stow roadshow to see if they had plans for their stretch of the line.

j. The objectors note that paragraph 44 of the Promoter’s Memorandum states that “Once the households were identified, a letter was sent to all, setting out information on the Waverley Project, information on the parliamentary process and information on compulsory purchase and compensation”. The objectors state that, at the time of writing the objection, they had received no such letter and had been omitted from the consultation.

k. The objectors note that a survey of land 250m either side of the proposed railway line was carried out. They presume that someone must have been present on their property at some point to carry this out, but that this was done without their knowledge or permission.

l. The objectors conclude that, as far as they are concerned, the “so-called consultation” has not taken place and their views have not been taken into consideration during the planning stages of the project.

Promoter’s Response

m. A letter offering information, meetings and contact details were sent to this objector in July 2002. Subsequent attempts to arrange a meeting were unsuccessful, despite a number of telephone calls. Following the submission of the objection, a letter was sent on 24th November 2003 offering a meeting to discuss the issues raised in the objection letter. A further letter was sent on 21st January 2004 reiterating the offer to meet. To date the objector has not taken up this offer. On 24th March 2004 the promoter wrote again to the objectors explaining why the land was required and giving information about compensation.

n. As regards the comments about the Gorebridge Roadshow, this was held at the consultation stage of the project when detailed plans of the route had not been prepared.

Objection 62

Mr Charles Callander, Tynehead Farm, Tynehead, Pathhead EH37 5XS

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that the plans and drawings so far provided relating to the Waverley Project appear to be inaccurate, incorrect, lacking important detail and extremely difficult to follow and understand, with no reference key provided. He states that this in turn renders the Book of Reference incomplete.

b. The objector states that the detail of what is actually proposed and how it will affect his farm is unclear from the promoter’s plans. He states that the plans have been submitted with varying scales, contrary to parliamentary regulations. He also states that the plans are not full size as they have been submitted on a great number of A4 sheets. He notes that he has raised this point previously with project consultants Turner & Townsend, but that it has not been addressed or resolved to his satisfaction. He states that he is unable to understand the plans and that this will affect his ability to negotiate with the promoter and its agents.

Promoter’s Response

c. The plans and sections deposited in connection with the Bill are drawn on a horizontal scale of 1:1,250. The determination in Annex M to the Guidance on Private Bills is that plans must be no smaller than 1:2,500 and that the horizontal sections must be on the same scale as the plans. The promoter is therefore satisfied that the plans and sections deposited in connection with the Bill comply with Parliament’s requirements.

d. The plans submitted with the landowners’ notices are computer generated extracts showing by means of shading the individual plot in respect of which the notice relates. The purpose of these plans is to identify the land. Generally these were 1:1,250 scale plans but where these covered a large area some of the plans were reduced to a more convenient size.

e. The promoter has some sympathy with the complaint that Mr Callander received a number of A4 plans but each notice served needed a separate plan to identify the plot of land in respect of which the notice was served.

f. As regards inaccuracies information relating to land ownership was supplied by Mr Callander and his Agent. Confirmation schedules were sent to both Mr Callander and his Agent for checking in May and August 2003 but these we not returned.

g. Confirmation schedules with plans are sent to landowners inviting them to confirm that the information is correct, or, if incorrect to amend the details. The confirmation letter intimates that if no response is sent back, the information will be taken as correct.

h. Mr Callander’s Agent requested engineering plans in Januray 2003. He was told that at that time the engineering plans were in development and not available. As noted below following a meeting held with Mr Callander after he lodged his objection, engineering plans were sent to him on 2nd April 2004.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

i. The objector states that, if the project proceeds, some parts of his farm will be difficult to access, but that there has been no invitation from the project consultants to discuss how or what access to affected areas will be provided should the project go ahead. He states that there has been no consultation with him with regard to the areas of his land that are required, both on a permanent and temporary basis, and is particularly concerned about land required which lies outwith the original railway track bed. He states that no detail has been provided by the promoter about accommodation works.

Promoter’s Response

j. Turner & Townsend on behalf of the promoter attended 2 general meetings with landowners hosted by Mr Callander on 10th September and 8th October 2002 at which a number of issues were discussed including concerning access for survey work, payment for access, Bill process and timescales and further opportunities for discussions on the impact of the scheme on farming operations. Further meetings were held with individual landowners in 2003 except for Mr Callander who could not attend a meeting due to a hospital appointment. Following the submission of objections, letters were sent on 24th November to all those landowners who objected, offering a further meeting and a meeting was held with Mr Callander on 5th December 2003. At this meeting, further discussion was held on the accommodation of farm operations, the Bill process, process for compensation and compulsory purchase, timescales and information requirements. Following this meeting, sets of the finalised engineering layouts were provided by post on 2nd April 2004.

Objection 63

Mr Michael A Radford, Granary Cottage, Fushiebridge, by Gorebridge, Midlothian EH23 4QF

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector reports that plans from the promoter provided with Notice Nos 1491 and 1492 are inaccurate in referring to his property as ‘The Granary’, whereas in fact it is called ‘Granary Cottage’.

b. The objector notes that the plan provided shows a distinct lack of detail, with no existing buildings or features on his garden ground being shown and no measurements being provided to indicate how much of his garden ground will be affected by the proposal.

Promoter’s Response

c. Mr Radford has been included in the Book of Reference as being the owner and occupier of Plot 426 (Midlothian) and has been notified correctly in respect of his interest in this Plot.

d. The plans submitted with Mr Radford’s notice are based on the Ordnance Survey mapping which was used as the basis for the Maps, Plans and Sections. The detail of existing buildings and features can only be as accurate and complete as that Ordnance Survey mapping.

e. The area information relating to each plot of land to be acquired is detailed in the extracts from the Book of Reference that are referred to in the landowner’s notices. These areas are stated in square metres.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

f. The objector states that there was a lack of consultation with him by the promoter, the first consultation or correspondence having been received by him in mid September 2003. He reports that local farmers and large landowners were not only consulted much earlier in the process, but were also paid a fee of £30 to attend various consultation meetings that have taken place, along with a much larger fee paid to them for surveyors to have access to their land. He notes that he has received no such fee, although he thinks that representatives of the promoter have had access to his land without his permission or consent in order to undertake survey work. He perceives inconsistencies in consultation practice between larger and smaller domestic landowners.

Promoter’s Response

g. Letters offering information, meetings and contact details were sent to this objector in July 2002. A telephone conversation was held with Mr Radford in July/August 2002. Following the submission of the objection, a letter was sent on 24th November 2003 offering a meeting to discuss the issues raised in the objection letter. A meeting with Mr Radford was held on 8th December 2003, following which a letter agreeing to reduce permanent and temporary land take requirements was sent on 24th March 2004. The promoter is currently seeking agreement that the items set out in the letter are acceptable.

h. Fees were paid to landowners for the purpose of obtaining access and information. No fees were paid for the purpose of consultation. Access for surveying purposes would not have been required to the objector’s land.

Objection 64

Residents of Harvieston Villas, c/o Mr Ian MacPherson, 5 Harvieston Villas, Gorebridge, Midlothian EH23 4JY

(No 1: Mr and Mrs Smith; No 2: Mr and Mrs Scott; No 3: Mr and Mrs Mitchell; No 4: Mr an Mrs Glen; No 5: Mr and Mrs MacPherson; No 6: Mr and Mrs Wilson; No 7: Mrs McGuinness; No 8: Mr Kingstone)

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

Promoter’s Response

a. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 64 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections. However, having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify such issues or concerns within the objection and no additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns these objectors have in this regard.

Objection 65

Mr J R Paterson and Mrs L J Paterson, 6 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. In relation to the section of railway proposed to run past Falahill Cottages, the objectors state that detailed plans showing elevations of the proposed railway and changes to the A7 have not been provided by the promoter and so it is unclear as to how the scheme might affect their property.

Promoter’s Response

b. Please see the note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2 with regard to the failure to serve notice on these objectors. However the notices would not have contained detailed plans or elevations. As required by the Standing Orders the promoter has made copies of the Bill plans and sections and the other accompanying documents available for public inspection.

c. As has been explained above (see the response on Objection 3) there has been general consultation with the residents of Falahill and the scheme was modified to meet their concerns. A letter was sent to these objectors on 24th November 2003 inviting them to a meeting to discuss the proposals but this invitation has not been taken up.

Objection 66

Mr F G Wood, 2 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. In relation to the section of railway proposed to run past Falahill Cottages, the objector states that detailed plans showing elevations of the proposed railway and changes to the A7 have not been provided by the promoter, although the objector thinks that he will lose his current access to the A7 to the front of his property.

Promoter’s Response

b. Please see the note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2 with regard to the failure to serve notice on these objectors. However the notices would not have contained detailed plans or elevations. As required by the Standing Orders the promoter has made copies of the Bill plans and sections and the other accompanying documents available for public inspection.

c. As has been explained above (see the response on Objection 3) there has been general consultation with the residents of Falahill and the scheme was modified to meet their concerns. A letter was sent to these objectors on 24th November 2003 inviting them to a meeting and a meeting was held on 13th January 2004 at which further explanation of the Bill was given.

Objection 67

Mr David M Cowan, 9 Falahill Cottages, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. In relation to the section of railway proposed to run past Falahill Cottages, the objector states that details of what is actually proposed under the scheme and how the scheme might affect his property are still unclear.

Promoter’s Response

b. Please see note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2 with regard to the failure to serve notice on these objectors. However the notices would not have contained detailed plans or elevations. As required by the Standing Orders the promoter has made copies of the Bill plans and sections and the other accompanying documents available for public inspection.

c. As has been explained above (see the response on Objection3) there has been general consultation with the residents of Falahill and the scheme was modified to meet their concerns. A letter was sent to this objector on 24th November 2003 inviting him to a meeting but this offer has not been taken up.

Objection 68

Lord Borthwick, Crookston, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YS

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector states that the plans and drawings so far provided by the promoter relating to the Waverley Line project appear to be inaccurate, incorrect and totally inappropriate for the purpose for which they are required. However, he does not provide any specific examples in support of this comment, nor does he identify the respects in which he believes these documents to be inaccurate, incorrect and totally inappropriate.

Promoter’s Response

b. The promoter does not accept these comments but would be happy to respond to any specific complaint.

c. Information relating to land ownership on the plans and drawings is based on information supplied by Lord Borthwick and his Agent. Confirmation schedules were sent to both Lord Borthwick and his Agent for checking in May and August 2003 but these were not returned.

d. Confirmation schedules with plans are sent to landowners inviting them to confirm that the information is correct, or, if incorrect to amend the details. The confirmation letter intimates that if no response is sent back, the information will be taken as correct.

Objection 69

Mr Colin N Barnett and Mrs Doreen A W Barnett, Sandyknowe, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YB

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors state that the notification process has been inefficient. They report that their land and property was originally included in a notification letter sent to their neighbour, Mr Adam Marshall of Hangingshaw Farm. They state that they first became aware of a compulsory purchase order over their land on 17 September 2003 when their neighbour notified them of the letter he had received, which they report as Mr Marshall having received on 11 September 2003.

b. The objectors state that they contacted project consultants Turner & Townsend and spoke to Andy Rosher, informing him of the situation. They report that he seemed surprised but that he promised to arrange a meeting between them, himself and an un-named engineer for the week beginning 22 September 2003. The objectors report that they had heard nothing further by 26 September 2003 and, after several further telephone calls with Bruce Rutherford of Scottish Borders Council and Robert Denholm of Turner & Townsend, a date for a meeting was set for them, Andy Rosher and an engineer for 1 October 2003. The objectors report that this meeting did not take place due to an earlier meeting of Andy Rosher’s in Galashiels overrunning. The objectors’ meeting with Andy Rosher did eventually take place on 7 October 2003, but no engineer was present. To that date, the objectors report that they had still received no official notification of the compulsory purchase of their property.

c. The objectors report that, after making further calls to project consultants Turner & Townsend and Land Aspects, Notices relating to compulsory purchase orders eventually arrived on 31 October 2003, having been posted recorded delivery on 24 October 2003. On opening the Notices, the objectors found that they contained Site references 100, 107 and 116 of which they knew nothing, but no Site reference 117 which pertains to their land. They report that Site reference 107 does in fact belong to their neighbour, Mr Adam Marshall.

Promoter’s Response

d. Notices were incorrectly served in respect of the property known as Sandyknowe, Heriot on Messrs Marshall of Hangingshaw Farm. This arose from information received from them and their Agent which was unclear or incorrect but which none of them changed on the confirmation schedules.

e. This was identified by Andrew Rosher of Turner & Townsend via email to Landaspects on 20th October 2003. In this email, Landaspects were informed of the plots of land in which Mr & Mrs Barnett had an interest and, consequently, Messrs Marshall did not have an interest.

f. Landaspects then contacted Mr Barnett on the 23 rd of October and recorded their details via telephone on to a land interest questionnaire. The Database and Master Book of Reference details were then amended accordingly and the notices were sent to Mr & Mrs Barnett on 24th October 2003 in relation to plots 100, 101,107,116 and 118 (Midlothian).

g. Mr & Mrs Barnett have been served notices for Plot 107 in error. The reason for this appears to be an error in the communication of the information over the telephone where Plot 107 has been confused with Plot 117. Messrs Marshall were correctly served with notice in respect of plot no. 107.

h. These details have been incorporated into the Master Book of Reference and the Database.

Objection 70

Andrew Peter Caunt, Sunnyside, Heriot, Midlothian EH38 5YE

Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector notes that, at present, there is a back lane that runs parallel to the railway on the East side, linking many of the houses in Heriot. The objector stated that there are currently vehicular crossings at Shoestanes, Heriot station, Hanginshaw, Stagebank Crossing and Halltree. The objector reports that, at a public meeting, the promoter stated that all of these crossings would be maintained. However, the objector states that, from the published plans, this does not appear to be the case.

Promoter’s Response

b. All existing at-grade crossings will be closed on railway safety grounds with alternatives being provided by new grade separated crossings or by utilising existing alternative routes. The Bill does not provide an alternative for the Stagebank crossing or a new bridge in relation to the Halltree Crossing. Following the submission of the objection, Turner & Townsend wrote to the objector on 24th November 2004, offering to meet to discuss the issues set out in the objection and a meeting subsequently occurred in January 2004. A request at this meeting to consider the provision of a further footbridge across the railway to allow access to the A7 is currently being considered.

Objection 71

Gordon Richardson and Fjordhus Ltd, per Alistair MacDonald, Property Consultant, The Strone, Longnewton,st Boswells TD6 9ES

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 72

Messrs S & I Thomson, per Alistair MacDonald, Property Consultant, The Strone, Longnewton,st Boswells TD6 9ES

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 73

Beechbank Place Proprietors Association c/o Miss J Haldane, 3 Beechbank Place, Galashiels TD1 2BH

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 74

Reverend John Creanor, Parish Priest, Our Lady and Saint Andrew Roman Catholic Church, Market Street, Galashiels

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

Promoter’s Response

a. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 74 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Promoter’s Statement. However, having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify such issues or concerns within the objection and no additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns the objector has in this regard.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

b. The objector states that the promoter has taken decisions relating to the compulsory purchase of Parish Church land without consulting the objector, the Parish Council or the Parishioners. The objector states that the promoter resolved to promote this Bill in its present form on 5 March 2003.

c. The objector reports that a meeting relating to options for the proposed road scheme held in September 2003 left a Parish Council representative in attendance with the distinct impression that the favoured option did not include Parish Church land.

d. The objector states that the consultation process by the promoter was misleading and only embarked upon after decisions had been taken by the promoter to include Parish Church land as intended for compulsory purchase. He states that no prior consultation was undertaken with him by the promoter prior to this decision being taken.

e. The objector believes that the promoter’s decision to include this land in the Bill as intended for compulsory purchase was taken without having regard to material considerations, such as the fact that the Parish Church land intended for compulsory purchase by the promoter was land previously given to the Parish Church as compensation for a previous compulsory purchase.

Promoter’s Response

f. No consultation was undertaken with this objector prior to the submission of the objection due to a late decision to include additional land within the limits to allow working space for construction of the proposed new roundabout. A meeting on 28th October 2003 was held with the Archdiocese responsible for the church grounds to discuss likely impact of the works on the Church. Following objection submission, a letter was sent to the objector on 24th November offering a meeting to discuss the issues raised in the objection letter. A meeting was held with the priest and parishioners on 10th December 2003 at which a clear way forward to progress resolution was agreed. A meeting with the Archdiocese on 15th January 2004 and a meeting at the Church with their solicitor in May 2004 have progressed the resolution of this objection to a stage where subject to final legal agreement it is hoped that the objection will be able to be withdrawn.

Objection 75

Mr Andrew Brown, Plumtreehall, Plumtree Brae, Galashiels

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. In respect of the Landowner’s Notice (Temporary Possession Only) reference 972 and 973 received by the objector, the objector states that nobody has provided him with an explanation of what happens to his land should it be acquired and what compensation he would receive for the temporary use of his land.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

b. The objector implies that there has been no consultation with him, stating that he objects to the promoter acquiring part of his land without consultation with him.

Promoter’s Response

c. An initial meeting was held with Mr Brown in July 2003. A further meeting was held on 14th January. At each of these meetings the temporary access requirement was explained to Mr Brown by reference to an engineering layout. The process for claiming compensation and the compulsory purchase process was also discussed.

Objection 76

Sustrans, 162 Fountainbridge, Edinburgh EH3 9RX

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 77

K & I Limited, Hardengreen Coachworks, Dalkeith, c/o Bonar McKenzie WS, 9-11 Hill Street, Edinburgh EH2 3JT

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 78

Dr David Wyllie and Dr Jane Wyllie, 5 Westfield Bank and Mr David Combe and Mrs Elaine Combe, 6 Westfield Bank, both Eskbank, Midlothian EH22 3DN

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 79

Mr Roy L Martin and Mrs Fiona F Martin, Kilduff House, Athelstaneford, North Berwick EH39 5BD re: land at Hardengreen, Dalkeith

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors state that they have not received a description of the works which are proposed by the Bill. They also state that they have not received any notice that the route over the former bridge is to be closed or that a level crossing is to be created. The objectors assume that it is intended to re-excavate the former cutting and replace the former bridge with a bridge over the new railway.

b. The objectors refer to notices nos. 1342, 1343, 1345, 1346, 1347 and 1348 relating to temporary possession of land. They also refer to notice nos. 1344 and 1349 relating to the acquisition of rights over the same land.

c. In respect of notice nos 1345 and 1349, the objectors do not understand why these notices seek powers to acquire rights in the land comprising the access track to Hardengreen Steading and adjacent land for construction, as they understand that these rights have already been sought in terms of notices 1344 and 1348. In respect of the rights sought for access for maintenance after construction is completed, the objectors do not understand why such access is required permanently and consider that such rights are not reasonably required.

Promoter’s Response

d. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed. They are not intended to provide a justification for compulsory acquisition powers.

e. Where a notice is served in respect of temporary possession or acquisition of rights only the notices do state the purpose for which rights may be acquired or for which temporary possession may be taken.

f. As regards the apparent duplication of notices, the promoter has sought both powers of temporary occupation and powers to acquire permanent right over the same area of land. These powers are sought in the alternative. If the promoter is able to restrict the use of land to the construction phase only the temporary powers will be exercised. If, however, it becomes clear that a right of access for maintenance is required the promoter will exercise the power to acquire permanent rights.

g. Following receipt of the objection a meeting was held with the objectors on 8th February 2004 to explain the proposals and discuss their concerns and correspondence is continuing.

Objection 80

Mr Vincent Lamb and Mrs Maureen Lamb, Glenarch House, Melville Road, Eskbank, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 3NJ

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors state that Notices 1305, 1306, 1309 and 1310 describe the land covered “Land and Scrub”. However, the objectors state that this area is garden, with many features including retaining stonewalls, steps, paths, central stone planted/sitting area, borders, trees, shrubs, flowers and lawn.

Promoter’s Response

b. An appropriate correction has been made in the Master Book of Reference and database.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

Promoter’s Response

c. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 80 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Promoter’s Memorandum. Having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify clear issues or concerns within the objection relating to this document. No additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns the objector has in this regard.

Objection 81

Mr S Lyon and Miss L Jackson, 14 Newtongrange Place, Newtongrange, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 4PA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 82

Grange Estates (Newbattle) Limited, c/o Bell and Scott Solicitors, 16 Hill Street, Edinburgh EH2 3LD re: land at Murderdean Road, Newtongrange

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 83

Grange Estates (Newbattle) Limited c/o Bell & Scott Solicitors, 16 Hill Street, Edinburgh EH2 3LD re: land at Hardengreen

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

Promoter’s Response

a. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 83 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections. Having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify such issues or concerns within the objection and no additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns this objector has in this regard.

Objection 84

Trustees of the Newbattle Trust, c/o Turcan Connell, Princes Exchange, 1 Earl Grey Street, Edinburgh EH3 9EE

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors’ representatives state that these objectors own the areas of land in plots nos. 208, 209 and 210 in Midlothian referred to in notice nos. 490, 491 and 1632. The representatives of these objectors state, that of the three mentioned notices, two were incorrectly addressed to the Marquis of Lothian and a further Notice was incorrectly addressed to Grange Estates (Newbattle) Limited, although these were subsequently brought to the attention of the objectors.

Promoter’s Response

b. Newbattle Trust were identified as owning plot nos. 208 and 209 in Midlothian by the Property Factor for the Trust. The notices for plot nos. 208 and 209 were served on Newbattle Trust on 11th September 2003 care of Grange Estates (Newbattle) Limited.

c. These notices should have been addressed to ‘The Secretary, Newbattle Trust…’ but were incorrectly addressed to ‘Marquis of Lothian, Newbattle Trust…’ at the correct address. Newbattle Trust have been notified in respect of their interest in plot nos. 208 and 209 and are shown in the Book of Reference for these plots correctly.

d. The notice for plot no. 210 has been incorrectly served on Grange Estates (Newbattle) Limited, this should have been served on Newbattle Trust. All other notices to these organisations have been served correctly.

e. The amended details have been noted and the Master Book of Reference and the Database has been updated accordingly.

Objection 85

Mr M McCloskey and Mrs C McCloskey, 17 New Star Bank, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4NT

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 86

Residents of New Star Bank, Newtongrange and 24 Redwood Walk, Newtongrange, Midlothian

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 87

CPL Distribution Limited, Mill Lane, Wingerworth, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S42 6NG re: Coal depot at Monkton Hall Colliery, Newton Village, Midlothian

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector has received Notice Nos. 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114, which together provide for temporary possession of land, acquisition of land and the acquisition of rights. The objector has stated that, from the limited amount of information provided it is difficult to see how it will be able to gain access to and from its premises, noting that free and unencumbered vehicular access is essential to its operation but that the promoter’s proposals appear to make this impossible.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed.

c. The Bill provides for access to the property to be maintained and an access road is shown as Work No 1B on the plans submitted with the Bill. The promoter wrote to the objector on 24th March 2004 explaining this.

Objection 88

Youngace Limited, c/o Joyce Bain, Madeleine Smith House, 6/7 Blythswood Square, Glasgow G2 4AD

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

Promoter’s Response

a. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 80 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Promoter’s Memorandum. Having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify clear issues or concerns within the objection relating to this document. No additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns the objector has in this regard. The objection was, however, withdrawn by the objector on 19th August 2004.

Objection 89

Dr Walter Alexander and Mrs Victoria Alexander, Lothian Cottage, Lothianbridge, Dalkeith EH22 4TS

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 90

Miller Oils Limited, Hillside Oils Works Rastrick, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 3DP c/o Russel and Aitken Solicitors re: land and property at Craigesk, Dalkeith, Midlothian

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 91

Mr Gordon Douglas and Mrs Jill Douglas, 2 Standpretty, Gorebridge, Midlothian EH23 4QG

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors report that, in correspondence received from the promoter’s consultants Parkman Land Aspects, a Confirmation Schedule was sent to them containing what they say was a very poorly drawn plan, showing no measurements whatsoever. At the time of lodging their objection, the objectors state that they still did not have actual measurements of the area of their land which was to be taken for temporary possession.

Promoter’s Response

b. Mr & Mrs Douglas are the owner/occupiers of the property known as Standpretty, Gorebridge, plot no. 415 in Midlothian.

c. Mr & Mrs Douglas were referenced by Landaspects by means of site visit and land interest questionnaire. The information was added to the database and, subsequently used in the Book of Reference and notices.

d. Mr & Mrs Douglas were sent confirmation schedules to confirm their interests in their property at Standpretty. These confirmation schedules were duly returned and signed as correct. The plans which are used for the confirmation schedules were plans showing land information extracted from the then current version of the Maps, Plans and Sections which accompany the Bill. The confirmation schedule plans do not have details of measurements on them, they are used to confirm interests in specific areas of land which have been referenced and input into the database.

e. The area information relating to each plot of land to be acquired is detailed in the extracts from the Book of Reference that are referred to in the landowner’s notices. These areas are stated in square metres. Mr & Mrs Douglas were notified correctly in respect of their interest in Standpretty on 11th September 2003.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

f. The objectors state that they object in general to the way the consultation process has taken place. They refer to that statement in paragraph 43 of the Promoter’s Memorandum that “the main access and operational issues have been identified and have been discussed with the relevant landowner”. The objectors state that they have not been approached by anyone in regard to the railway at all. They then say that they received nothing in writing until May 2003 when Parkman Land Aspects sent a Confirmation Schedule containing a plan. They state that they were unaware of how far plans on the railway had gone and were not aware of any local consultation meetings. They state that someone should have written to them or telephoned them.

g. The objectors note that the Promoter’s Memorandum at paragraph 44 states that “Once the households were identified, a letter was sent to all, setting out information on the Waverley Railway Project, information on the parliamentary process and information on compulsory purchase and compensation”. The objectors state that they did not receive such a letter, unless this was the Notice to Take Temporary Possession, which they received in September 2003.

h. The objectors report that the first document they received from the promoter was in May 2003, although they understand from the Promoter’s Memorandum (paragraph 46) that “the final major consultation exercise took place in February 2003”. The objectors state that they feel left out of the consultation process totally.

i. The objectors understand that local farmers were consulted and also paid £30 to attend each consultation meeting and that money was paid to them to allow surveyors to access their land. The objectors do not know if surveyors access their land but they assume from comments made in the Environmental Statement that they did so.

Promoter’s Response

j. Following the initial identification of affected properties in 2002, this property was not considered to be affected. Subsequent work by the project engineer and land referencer identified a part of the ground owned by Mr and Mrs Douglas to be required temporarily for construction purposes. This subsequent requirement was identified when Land Aspects contacted Mrs Douglas in May 2003. Having been informed by Mrs Douglas that the area of land identified was required for the construction of a new garage the promoter reconsidered its requirements and agreed that the land would not be taken. By this stage the Bill plans were already finalised but the promoter will enter into an undertaking not to exercise the powers of the Bill over this property. The promoter met the objectors on 16th January 2004 to discuss their concerns and is working towards producing an appropriate undertaking.

Objection 92

Tony Stovin, c/o Warners Solicitors, Notaries and Estate Agents, 22st Patrick Square, Edinburgh EH8 9EY re: Garage and Building Plot at Station Garage, Station Road, Gorebridge

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objector’s representatives state that in Drawing 12271/OD04/387 version A, Number 9 is the objector’s garage and MOT station. The objector’s representatives understand that this is the area wherein it is proposed to take temporary possession of the land, but is not certain of this and seeks confirmation of this from the promoter.

Promoter’s Response

b. The garage and MOT station are not within the Bill limits. Access to the garage and MOT station is via a private access road, which is within the limits (plot no. 387 in Midlothian). The promoter has sought both powers of temporary occupation for the use of plot 387 as a working site and as access for construction and powers for the permanent acquisition of this plot for the purpose of road improvements and landscaping. It is intended that the access road would be the main access to the proposed station at Gorebridge. It is not intended to deprive the objector of access to his property and following receipt of his objection meetings have been held with the objector to discuss his concerns. The promoter is progressing an undertaking intended to address these.

Objection 93

Mr David Swift and Mrs Lynn Curran (Swift), 60 Main Street, Gorebridge, Midlothian EH23 4BY,

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 94

Scottish Mining Museum Trust, Lady Victoria Colliery, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4QN

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 95

Bridie Thompson, c/o Domus Limited, 24 Winton Terrace, Fairmilehead, Edinburgh EH10 7AP re: land off Vogrie Road, Gorebridge

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 96

Kenneth Scollan, c/o Domus Limited, 24 Winton Terrace, Fairmilehead, Edinburgh EH10 7AP re: land off Vogrie Road, Gorebridge

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 97

Mr and Mrs Silvagni, c/o Domus Limited, 24 Winton Terrace, Fairmilehead, Edinburgh EH10 7AP re: land off Vogrie Road, Gorebridge

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 98

Mr Andrew Smith and Mrs Dawn Smith, 3 Heriot Way, Heriot EH38 5YN, c/o Archibald, Campbell & Harley WS, 37 Queen Street, Edinburgh EH2 1JX

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors’ representatives state that the objectors are the proprietors of a house shown on a Land Aspects plan but omitted from Sheet No 36 plan showing areas directly affected by the Bill. The objectors’ representatives note that, despite it being clear from the Sheet No 36 plan that no dwelling in Heriot could be closer to the proposed railway line, the objectors’ property is omitted from the plan. They state that the objectors’ property is less than 3 metres from the railway line and that the roadway to the property is to be subject to compulsory purchase and temporary possession. In addition, they state that the platform of the former Heriot station lies adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the objectors’ land. However, as a result of not being mentioned in the Bill, the objectors’ representatives state that the objectors’ house will not be compulsorily acquired.

Promoter’s Response

b. The objectors concerns have been noted but the promoter considers that the objection does not raise any issues or concerns relating to the book of reference, maps, plans or sections.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

Promoter’s Response

c. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 98 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Promoter’s Statement. Having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify clear issues or concerns within the objection relating to this document. No additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns the objector has in this regard.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

d. The objectors’ representatives report that the objectors have not be consulted about the scheme, except by newspaper, and that they themselves made contact with the promoter’s consultants, Turner & Townsend, whose representative they say took advantage of their hospitality and then subsequently and consistently ignored them.

e. They noted that the Promoter’s Memorandum states that “The promoter has sought to identify those property owners that would be affected by the Waverley railway. This exercise identified households along the full length of the line…”. The objectors’ representatives state that this exercise was not carried out with sufficient thoroughness and that a cursory examination of the existing track bed would show that the objectors’ house lies as close to the line as it is possible to be without encroaching onto the track bed. They note that, despite it being clear from the Sheet No 36 plan that no dwelling could be closer to the proposed railway line, the lack of consultation with the objectors has led to their omission of their property from the list of areas to be acquired by compulsory purchase.

f. The objectors’ representatives believe that a lack of consultation with the objectors resulted in the omission of their property from the list of areas to be compulsorily purchased.

Promoter’s Response

g. Further to an initial letter sent to this objector on 31st May 2002, a meeting involving Mr and Mrs Smith and Mr Bull (objection no. 18) was held in September 2002. At this meeting Turner & Townsend on behalf of the promoter discussed a number of issues and answered questions. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was their understanding that any questions would be forwarded by Mr Bull. Following a letter of 24th November 2003, inviting further discussion a meeting was held with Mr and Mrs Smith on 8th January 2004 at which the objection was discussed in great detail. The Objectors’ land was not included in the Bill because it was not required for the works, not as a result of a failure to consult. However the promoter is currently considering the formulation of discretionary purchase policy under which the objectors may be eligible. This was explained at the meeting on 8th January.

Objection 99

Mr and Mrs R Kew, 5a Falahill Cottages, Falahill, EH38 5YG

Issue/Concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. In relation to the section of the proposed railway line running past Falahill Cottages, the objector states that what is actually proposed and how it affects her property is unclear.

Promoter’s Response

b. Please see the note on Falahill Cottages at beginning of this Annex A2 with regard to the failure to serve notice on these objectors. However the notices would not have contained details about the works. As required by the Standing Orders the promoter has made copies of the Bill plans and sections and the other accompanying documents available for public inspection.

c. As has been explained above (see the response on Objection 3) there has been general consultation with the residents of Falahill and the scheme was modified to meet their concerns. A letter was sent to these objectors on 24th November 2003 inviting them to a meeting to discuss their concerns but this has not been taken up.

Objection 100

Heriot Community Council, c/o Felix Otton, Coice lea, Borthwick Hall, Heriot EH38 5YE

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 101

Mr Douglas Scott and Mrs Margaret Scott, Allanshaugh Farm, Fountainhall TD1 2SZ

Issue/concern: Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections

a. The objectors state that they have found a number of faults on the promoter’s maps, although they do not specify what these are.

Promoter’s Response

b. The promoter is happy to deal with any specific complaints. It should be noted however that that the plans are based on Ordnance Survey mapping. If any discrepancies are noted from site visits and surveys requiring updating of the mapping this is done.

c. The land ownership information that was used for Mr & Mrs Scott’s land was supplied by their agent, Mr Kenneth Robertson, on 20th February 2003 to Landaspects on annotated plans of the scheme. This information was then interpreted by Landaspects and entered into the database and CAD systems. According to this information, Mr & Mrs Scott have been notified correctly in respect of their interests in plots nos. 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 205, 208, 208a, 212, 213, 215, 216, 221, 222, 222a, 222b, 222c, 223, 223a, 224, 224a and 228 (Scottish Borders).

d. The combination of poor quality plans supplied and misinterpretation of the information has lead to the information for their land ownership being entered with one parcel omitted (plot 229) and several extra unessesary parcels included.

e. Landaspects were made aware of the omission following receipt of information from the Parliamentary Agents for the Project in June 2004 which originated from an objection by Messrs Samuel & Llewellin who are adjacent land owners.

f. Following receipt of this new information, the Database and Master Book of Reference were amended accordingly to rectify the omission. The Objectors are being sent a further notice in respect of plot 229.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

g. The objectors complain that at no time did any surveyor for the promoter contact them to do a survey of their land, although they are aware that other landowners have been contacted and have received a fee to have their land surveyed.

Promoter’s Response

h. At the time that the surveys were being carried out, those responsible for doing this were not aware of the objectors’ interest in this land.

Objection 102

Messrs G H Stirling and Sons, Bow Farm, Stow, Galashiels

a. This objection was withdrawn by the objectors on 4 June 2004.

Objection 103

R Wilson, 80 Earlston Road, Stow TD1 2QT

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 104

DSG Retail Limited, 3 Comely Bank Mill Retail Park, Galashiels c/o Robin H G Mitchell, Solicitor for the Objector, Archibald, Campbell and Harley WS, 37 Queen Street, Edinburgh EH2 1JX

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector reports that certain Notices have been served on it, including Notices Nos. 136 and 137 indicating the promoter’s intention to take temporary possession of parts of the objector’s car park and internal roadways (which include routes to the service yards at the property and the vehicular bridge of Gala Water). The objector states that neither of these notices, nor any other communications received from the promoter, have given any indication of the details, nature, extent or duration of the proposed temporary acquisition of access rights and occupation. The objector notes that details also remain to be provided in respect of the sorts of traffic and materials that the promoter intends to be brought onto and through the objector’s property.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served and, in the case of notice in respect of temporary possession, to indicate the purpose for which possession may be taken. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed, they are not intended to provide detailed information about the proposed use of the property.

c. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the proposed use of the property. It wrote to the Objector on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a meeting. This has not yet been taken up.

Objection 105

Gala Fish Farming Limited, Torwoodlee, Galashiels TD1 1TZ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 106

Torwoodlee and Buckholm Estates Co Limited, Torwoodlee, Galashiels TD1 1TZ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 107

Liberty Galashiels Limited, Comelybank Retail Park, Galashiels c/o Neil Amner, Solicitor for the Objector, Biggart Baillie Solicitors, Dalmore House, 310st Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5QR

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector reports that certain Notices have been served on it, including Notices Nos. 188 and 189 indicating the promoter’s intention to take temporary possession of parts of the objector’s car park and internal roadways (which include routes to the service yards at the property and the vehicular bridge of Gala water). The objector states that neither of these notices, nor any other communications received from the promoter, have given any indication to the objector or its occupational tenants of the details, nature, extent or duration of the proposed temporary acquisition of access rights and occupation. The objector notes that details also remain to be provided in respect of the sorts of traffic and materials that the promoter intends to be brought onto and through the objector’s property.

Promoter’s Response

b. The purpose of the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served and, in the case of notice in respect of temporary possession, to indicate the purpose for which possession may be taken. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed, they are not intended to provide detailed information about the proposed use of the property.

c. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the proposed use of the property. It wrote to the Objector on 24th November 2003 and 29th January 2004 offering a meeting. This has not yet been taken up.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

Promoter’s Response

d. Correspondence from the Clerks of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to the promoter dated 2 July 2004 identifies objection 107 as containing issues or concerns regarding matters relating to the Promoter’s Memorandum. Having scrutinised this objection, the promoter is unable to identify clear issues or concerns within the objection relating to this document. No additional correspondence has been supplied to the promoter by the Clerks to explain what concerns the objector has in this regard.

Objection 108

Eildon Housing Association Ltd re: properties at Wheatlands Road, Galashiels

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objector states that there has been insufficient information on the specific proposals of the new railway line in relation to its design immediately adjacent to the objector’s Wheatlands Road development. The objector is uncertain about how the line will cross Gala Water and whether the precise position of a new bridge has been decided. The objector is uncertain as to the level that the track will take as it passes its Wheatlands Road development.

Promoter’s Response

b. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the works as affecting the property and has been in contact with the objector and held a meeting with the chief executive and the director of development of Eildon Housing on 13th July 2004. Engineering plans were viewed at the meeting and a set of such plans is currently in preparation to be sent to the objector. It is the intention of both parties to investigate jointly means by which the impact of the proposed railway on the residents of Wheatlands Road can be dealt with properly. The promoter is in close consultation with the objector with regard to re-siting houses in new locations in Galashiels. The individual owners and occupiers of properties in Wheatlands Road were sent letters in January 2002 enclosing a guide outlining their rights as regards compulsory purchase.

Objection 109

Ostle Tyres, Currie Road Industrial Estate, Galashiels c/o Collie Solicitors and Estate Agents, 70 High Street, Galashiels TD1 1SQ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objectors’ representatives state that, although the objectors are severely adversely affected by the Bill, at the time of making their objection no-one from the promoter’s team had contacted the objectors to discuss what, if any, ground belonging to them might be required on a permanent basis and what would be required on a temporary basis. The objectors’ representatives state that the temporary notice to take possession of the objectors’ land, namely a building and hardstanding, will result in the complete cessation of their business. However, they report that no indication has been given to the objectors as to the time period over which such temporary possession is intended to be taken.

Promoter’s Response

b. Those carrying out consultation on behalf of the promoter were unaware of the objectors’ newly built premises. Following submission of the objection a meeting was held with Mr Ostle and his agent Mr Macdonald on 29th October 2003 to discuss the issue of land take. At this meeting, it was agreed that the requirement to temporarily occupy their site for use as a construction compound would be removed. In addition, the availability of land to replace the area of ground belonging to Ostle Tyres which was to be permanently acquired was considered. The promoter is currently in the process of identifying land in the vicinity of the Ostle Tyre depot in order that the objector can be accommodated and a further meeting with the Agent for the objector is now arranged to finalise this matter.

Objection 110

Glenfield Residents Association c/o Mr A Hegarty, 45 Glenfield Road East, Galashiels, Selkirkshire TD1 2UE (Nos 1 –52 Glenfield Road East)

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objectors state they have been informed that the proposed re-opening of the Waverley Line has been “on-going” for several years. However, they state that nobody from Scottish Borders Council has consulted with the residents of Glenfield Road East to canvass their opinion on the proposed re-opening of the railway line.

b. The objectors report that they were invited to a public meeting on 19th August 2002, the purpose of which they say was to witness the unveiling of the Waverley Rail Project and to be informed of how it would affect them. They state that they were presented with a fait accomplit and point to a lack of consultation by the promoter.

Promoter’s Response

c. The promoter considers that the meeting held on 19th August was part of the consultation process. On the basis of comments made at that meeting and at a site meeting held on 6th September 2002 further work was done on various options to address the objectors’ concerns including a re-alignment of the route of the proposed railway that would have increased the distance between their homes and the railway. Since September 2002 there has been correspondence between Cllr David Parker (the residents local Councillor) and the Waverley Railway Project as well as further public meetings held on 10th December 2002, at which revised plans were made available, on 16th June 2003, when local residents were updated about the proposals, on 24th June 2003, when the residents of 21 properties on the south side of Glenfield Road East were updated on specific issues as affecting their properties, and on 25 August 2003, when the proposals were generally discussed.

Objection 111

Borders Health Board, c/o John Glennie, Borders General Hospital, Melrose, Roxburghsire TD6 9BS

Issue/concern: Promoter's Statement

a. The objector considers that, in respect of the land at Galashiels Health Centre identified for compulsory purchase in the Bill, such land is not needed for the development of the railway nor for the construction of a road and other works necessitated by the railway. The objector states that the land identified for compulsory purchase in the Bill is not required for purposes of the railway but is being purchased for non-railway purposes. The objector also states that, as it is currently in negotiations with the promoter, there is no need for compulsory purchase of the land identified in the Bill.

Promoter’s Response

b. Lengthy discussions have taken place with the objector. As a result, terms have been agreed in principle involving an exchange of land and an alteration of the configuration of the road works at Currie Road as to avoid the objector’s property. They have not been finalised because they interrelate (and are dependent on) the development of an adjoining property. Planning permission for that development having been given on 26th July 2004, it is anticipated that a formal agreement will be concluded in the near future. The agreed alteration in the works will call for amendments in the Bill and plans and (the promoter anticipates) further advertisement. The agreement with the Health Board will be subject to these revisions being approved by the Parliament.

Objection 112

Royal Mail Group plc, 148 Old Street, London EC12V 9HQ and Post Office Limited, Palmerston House, 80-86 Old Street, London EC1V 9NN

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 113

BRB (Residuary) Limited, c/o Neil Amner, Solicitor for the Objector, Biggart Baillie Solicitors, Dalmore House, 310st Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5QR

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objectors have been served with a number of Notices. The objectors state that, in some respects, the Notices inaccurately state the nature and/or extent of their interest in the land to which they refer, although no specific details are provided in the objection. The objectors state that they have provided information in respect of their land interests to the promoter’s agents prior to their receipt of the Notices and further information can be supplied to the promoter on request.

Promoter’s Response

b. The information that was used to identify the BRB (Residuary) Limited land was supplied by BRB (Residuary) Limited in plan format to Landaspects. This information was entered into the database and CAD systems.

c. The information that was entered into these systems was included in the May and August 2003 confirmation schedules exercises prior to the Bill introduction in September 2003. BRB (Residuary) responded to these confirmation schedules and supplied further details clarifying their interests.

d. Following receipt of this new information, the Database and Master Book of Reference were amended accordingly and the notices were duly served on 11th September 2003.

Objection 114

Scottish power, Avondale House, Phoenix Crescent, Strathclyde Business Park, Bellshill ML4 3NJ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 115

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited c/o Geoff Cook, Network Rail Scotland, Commercial Department, 7th Floor, Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow G4 0LQ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 116

Transco plc c/o Bircham Dyson Bell, Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents, 50 Boradway, London SW1H 0BL

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 117

Archdiocese ofst Andrews and Edinburgh, Diocesan Offices, 113 Whitehouse Loan, Edinburgh EH9 1BB

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Memorandum

a. The objector does not believe that it has been demonstrated that the land identified in the Notices relating to Our Lady andst Andrew Church in Galashiels is essential to the realisation or success of the Waverley Railway Project. The objector states that no explanation has been given as to why this land is necessary or whether an alternative is available. The objector also states that it has been impossible to determine whether the land identified in the Notices represents the minimum ‘land take’ necessary to implement the project. The objector notes that, at the time of making its objection, it was in negotiation with the promoter’s agents, Turner & Townsend, with a view to resolving the potential difficulties.

Promoter’s Response

b. Please see the response in relation to the objection of the Parish Priest at this church (objection 74).

Objection 118

Railway Paths Ltd, 35 King Street, Bristol, Bs1 4DZ

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 119

C J A Samuel and J M Llewellin, Braeside, Fountainhall, Galashiels TD1 2SY

Issue/concern: Book of Reference and maps, plans and sections

a. With regard to Notice 1773, the objector states that the map is incorrect and that it displays considerable areas which are not part of the objector’s property. The objector states that he owns the stream, banks and bed outlined on the map, but does not own the track or its verges. The objector states that these objections also relate to Notice No 1774.

b. With regard to Notice 1777, the objector states that the full area of the objector’s property is not included on this map. The objector states that he owns the small strip between the line of the stream and the boundary fence to the North East. The objector is concerned that this is marked as belonging to another proprietor in the maps.

Promoter’s Response

c. The land ownership information that was used for the area of land affected by notice nos. 1773 and 1774 (plot no. 229 in Scottish Borders) was supplied by their agent, Mr Kenneth Robertson, on 20th February 2003 to Landaspects on annotated plans of the scheme. This information was then interpreted by Landaspects and entered into the database and CAD systems.

d. The combination of poor quality plans supplied and misinterpretation of the information lead to the information for this area of land being entered in the above systems incorrectly.

e. Having re-examined the original information it would seem clear that Mr & Mrs Scott of Allanshaugh Farm own the track at the area in question (plot 229) and Mr Kerr of Fountainhall Farm and Messrs Samuel & Llewellin have a servitude right of access over it.

f. Mr Samuel was sent confirmation schedules on 7th August 2003 in order to confirm that the information Landaspects held was correct. No response from him was received.

g. Notice no. 1777 relates to plot no. 235 in Scottish Borders. The objectors having drawn attention to the fact that they own part of the adjacent plot (plot no. 232), that part of that plot ought to have been included within plot no. 235.

h. Landaspects have amended the master copy of the book of reference to reflect these changes and have amended the database accordingly. Mr & Mrs Scott of Allanshaugh Farm and Mr Kerr of Fountainhall Farm who had been notified for lands elsewhere on the scheme but not in respect of plot no. 229 will now receive a further notice in respect of plot 229.

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

i. With regard to Notice 1773, the objector is concerned that future use of the adjacent track remains unspecified and that this could affect the property. The objector states that these objections also relate to Notice No 1774.

j. With regard to 1775, the objector states that there is no indication given as to what this land would be used for. The objector is concerned that there are no guarantees that the use of this land could not result in pollution of the watercourse. With regard to Notice 1776, the objector states that it is unclear why it has been separated into a separate Notice and alleges that the area has no access, covers seventeen square metres and it could not be used for anything constructive.

Promoter’s Response

k. The purpose of the plans provided with the landowners’ notices is to identify the land in respect of which the notice is served. The plans do not show details of the works. The notices follow the model form of notice in the parliamentary Guidance and state where the full documentation, including the plans and sections can be inspected and purchased. The notices also give contact details (including the direct telephone number of the Agent for the Bill) where questions can be directed, they are not intended to provide a justification for compulsory acquisition powers.

l. Where a notice is served in respect of temporary possession or acquisition of rights only the notices do state the purpose for which rights may be acquired or for which temporary possession may be taken.

m. The promoter has taken note of the request in the objection for clarification of the works as affecting the property. It wrote to the objector on 24th November 2033 offering a meeting to discuss the proposals. A response is awaited.

Objection 120

Mr David Flynn, 9 Strawberry Bank, Eskbank, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 3AZ

Issue/concern: Promoter’s Statement

a. The objector states that there has been no information regarding the effect of a railway on wildlife and also how many trees will require to be felled in the process. The objector bought the property in May 2003 and was notified of the proposals on the 10th October 2003. The objector assumed from the wording of the letter received in October 2003 that there were 60 days in which to object thereafter and did not realise that thirty days of this period had already elapsed. The objector therefore only had thirty days in which to lodge an objection.

Promoter’s Response

b. 9 Strawberry Bank, Eskbank, is outwith but abuts the limits for the scheme shown on the maps and plans. Landaspects originally served an affected persons notice on Mr Thomas Lean as owner and occupier of this property. The information was supported by both the Land Registers Copy Deed and the entry in the Register of Sasines. Landaspects also sent a confirmation schedule to Mr Lean at the property asking for him to make any changes to the details. This was not returned to Landaspects requesting any changes. However, following service of the notice Mr Lean advised that he had sold the property and the ownership had changed. A new affected persons notice was duly created and served on the new owner and occupier, Mr Flynn, on 9th October 2003.

Objection 121

Mr and Mrs Sherriffs, 29 Hardengreen Lane, Eskbank, Dalkeith, Midlothian EH22 3NA

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 122

Tesco Stores Limited, c/o Semple Fraser WS, 130st Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5HF

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

Objection 123

Nicholas Watson (no address contained within objection)

Promoter’s Response

a. The promoter has scrutinised the content of this objection and considers that the objection does not contain any issues or concerns relating to the Book of Reference, maps, plans and sections, the Promoter’s Statement, the Promoter’s Memorandum or the Estimate of Expense and Funding Statement.

PROMOTER’S MEMORANDUM ON FURTHER QUESTIONS ON PROMOTER’S STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this Memorandum is to answer the Committee’s questions in part B of the Annex to the Clerk’s letter to Parliamentary Agents dated 31 January 2005.

2. In this Memorandum references to the Promoter’s responses to numbered objections are to the responses given in the Promoter’s Memorandum answering the Committee’s questions of 2nd July 2004 on the accompanying documents.

PROMOTER’S STATEMENT

Question

3. Has the promoter clarified with the owners of the properties at 37 and 41 Station Road, Stow the correct ownership of the strip of land of 173sqm?

Promoter’s response

4. The strip of land in question is plot no. 340 (Scottish Borders). The details in the Book of Reference of the owners and occupiers of this plot are correct and accord with the information supplied to referencers. The question raised by Mr and Mrs Thompson (obj 25) results from this plot comprising both land within their ownership as part of 37 Station Road and land owned by Mr James Kirkness as part of no. 41.

5. As explained in paragraphs f, and g. of the Promoter’s response to objection 25, the reason for this is that the Ordnance Survey mapping does not show the garden boundaries delineating the property boundary between 37 and 41 Station Road. Referencers are not in a position to determine matters of title. Where the Ordnance Survey does not provide information, the correct course is (as in this case) to parcel the land to follow the Ordnance Survey mapping with all the relevant interests being recorded against the parcel..

6. The description of the land in the Book of Reference as being ‘Garden (41, Station Road) is inaccurate. The description of the plot has been changed to Gardens (37, Station Road and 41, Station Road).

7. Details of the extent of ownership of the plot as between nos. 37 and 41 will fall to be determined when the Act is implemented, at the point at which land acquisition commences. As in any comparable procedure, prior to serving notices to treat it is necessary to re-reference all the land along the route so as to obtain details of the precise extent of ownership and the interest of each landowner as the first step in the land purchase process.

Question

8. Has the promoter clarified the position with the residents of Deanpark, Newtongrange who are concerned that their properties will be subject to compulsory purchase?

Promoter’s response

9. Following a letter sent on 24th November 2003, offering a meeting, on 8th January 2004 the promoter met with the residents of Dean Park (obj 58). At that meeting each of the points raised in the objection letter was clarified, in particular that they had received notice as affected persons and were not subject to compulsory purchase. In a letter dated 24th March 2004 the promoter confirmed clearly that the Bill would not be used to purchase compulsorily any of the houses owned by the residents of Dean Park.

Question

10. Has the promoter clarified with Dr & Mrs Wightman at Fushiebridge why a notification letter, no. 1666, was issued in respect of land plot 424?

Promoter’s response

11. The Committee is referred to paragraph e. of the Promoter’s response to objection 61. Where, as here, it is not possible accurately to identify the extent of an owner’s title, the proper course is the prudent one of serving notice on both potential owners, which is what occurred.

12. For the reasons given in paragraph 7 above, no fur ther steps have been taken to clarify the position at this stage.,

Question

13. Can you confirm that a correct notification in respect of plot 117 has now been issued to Mr & Mrs Barnett of Sandyknowe, Heriot and, if so, when was this served?

Promoter's response

14. The position regarding notice to Mr and Mrs Barnett in respect of plot no. 117 (Midlothian) is detailed in paragraphs d. to h. of the Promoter’s response to objection 69. Notice in respect of this plot has not been served. The reason for this is that in February 2004 the Promoter agreed not to acquire this land. Fur ther notices in respect of a Bill about which Mr and Mrs Barnett already knew and to which they had objected was not considered appropriate as respects land that was not after all to be acquired.

Question

15. Can you confirm that correct notifications in respect of plots 208, 209 and 210 have now been issued to the Newbattle Trust and, if so, when were these served?

Promoter's response

16. The position is as stated in paragraphs b., c. and d. of the Promoter's response to Objection 84. The objectors having made clear that the correct but incorrectly addressed notice relating to plot no. 210 (Midlothian) had been passed to the correct landowner, with whom the addressee is connected, no fur ther notice was considered necessary.

Question

17. Can you clarify whe ther the notices issued to BRB (Residuary) Ltd accurately identify BRB’s interest in the land referred to in the notice?

Promoter's response

18. In their objection BRB (Residuary) say that there are inaccuracies in the nature of the land as described in the notices. The essence of the notice is to show what land is affected, which appears on plan. The description of the land is not relevant to this and does not affect understanding of the notice.

19. As stated in the Promoter's response to Objection 113, the information that was used to identify the BRB (Residuary) Limited land was supplied to referencers in plan format by BRB (Residuary) Limited. The data based on referencers' interpretation of these plans was adjusted to reflect information supplied in the returned confirmation schedules. The Promoter has not ascertained the inaccuracies to which these objectors refer, in particular as to the extent of ownership. That is a matter of title which, as explained to the Committee elsewhere, will be dealt with when the compulsory purchase powers are being implemented.

PROMOTER’S MEMORANDUM ON FURTHER QUESTIONS ON MAPS, PLANS AND SECTIONS, AND BOOK OF REFERENCE

INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this Memorandum is to answer the Committee’s questions in part C of the Annex to the Clerk’s letter to Parliamentary Agents dated 31 January 2005.

MAPS, PLANS & SECTIONS AND BOOK OF REFERENCE

Question

2. Has the promoter undertaken any follow-up with land agents when confirmation schedules issued to landowners, such as James Muir, James Barr, Lionel Lofthouse, Charles Callander, and o thers, were not returned and what reasons have been given as to why these schedules were not returned?

Promoter’s response

3. The return, or o therwise, of confirmation schedules is a purely voluntary matter for each landowner. Consequently, it is not appropriate for land referencers to follow up, or be seen to press for a response, particularly where, as here, the majority of the landowners in question had co-operated with some reluctance and then only through land agents.

4. No reasons have been given for the failure to respond. Landowners are not obliged to assist referencers and these landowners made clear at an early stage that they would do so only on a basis i.e. via agents.

Question

5. Was the procedure followed for issuing confirmation schedules and the information requested in line with accepted practice?

Promoter’s response

6. Landaspects consider confirmation schedules to form a useful additional safeguard in the collection and processing of data accurately. Whilst not part of all referencing contractor’s practice, the use of confirmation schedules is a practice always followed by Landaspects.

Question

7. What commitment can the promoter give that it would be willing to meet and discuss with any objector who requires clarification of land take and use?

Promoter’s response

8. Following receipt of objections, the promoter contacted each individual objector by letter on 24th November 2003, offering meetings and/or fur ther information. Where an objector did not contact the promoter requesting a meeting, a fur ther letter was sent out on 29th January 2004. In each of these letters, it was made clear that information would be available to discuss at the meeting. In the case of landowners, requests were made for engineering layouts, which to the date of bill submission had not been available. Following requests for these layouts, engineering layouts were sent out to all of the objecting landowners during April 2004. Meetings, telephone contact and correspondence have been carried on throughout the period.

Question

9. Concern has been expressed by residents in areas such as Falahill Cottages over the accuracy of the plan extracts enclosed with the notification letter. Have correct plan extracts been issued to residents at Falahill Cottages and what recent discussions has the promoter had with residents there on this issue?

Promoter’s response

10. The plan extracts with the notices are taken from the Maps, Plans and Sections. The Maps, Plans and Sections comply with the Parliament’s requirements and show the necessary details regarding the Falahill section of the proposed route. They are based on Ordnance Survey mapping: any house numbers shown on the plan will be from that source, not added by the promoter.

11. The concerns expressed by the Falahill residents are thought to relate not to the plans attached to the notices but to the preliminary engineering layouts and o ther information provided during consultation before the Bill was introduced.⁵⁷ These did differ from the Parliamentary plans, reflecting adjustments some of which were made to accommodate the residents’ concerns. The Committee is referred to paragraph f. of the response to Objection 3.

12. Since the promoter last reported to the Committee in July 2004, meetings were set up following a letter from the promoter dated 11th November 2004. A series of meetings followed in the New Year with the Falahill residents when representatives of the Promoter explained the proposals. At those meetings residents were provided with current engineering layouts. These reflect and build on what is in the Parliamentary plans. and addressed the residents’ concerns.

Question

13. Also, can the promoter comment on whe ther the house numbers for Falahill Cottages as shown on the maps, plans and sections, sheet 34, are complete and correct?

Promoter’s response

14. The OS base mapping appears to be incorrect in this area. The house numbers are incomplete and incorrect in the case of some properties at Falahill Cottages.

Question

15. Has the promoter held a meeting with the objector Symon of Edinburgh regarding its concerns over the accuracy of the plans which appeared to remove the gable end of their building and what conclusion was reached at this meeting?

Promoter’s response

16. Following the receipt of Mr Symon’s objection, a letter was sent on 24th November 2003 offering a meeting or fur ther information. A fur ther letter was sent on 29th January 2004 as Mr Symon had not requested a meeting or any fur ther information. To date Mr Symon has not contacted the promoter. A letter setting out the proposed solution to the objection will be sent out by 14th March 2005. However, on 9th December 2003 a meeting was held with K&I Coachworks Ltd, the owners, of the building Mr Symon claims to occupy. At that meeting the land take issues were discussed. and the promoter gave a commitment to review the land take in this area. Following this review carried out with the project engineer, a commitment was made verbally by telephone and in a letter to the objector’s solicitor, dated 2nd April 2004. In this letter it was confirmed that adjustments would be made so that the removal of the gable end of the building would not b required. To date the promoter has not received a response to this commitment.

Question

17. What progress has been made with addressing the concern regarding the accuracy of the Book of Reference and the maps, plans and sections as raised by the objector James Muir?

Promoter’s response

18. As explained in paragraphs d. and e. of the response to Objection 21, the land ownership information accorded with the information provided by Mr Muir’s agent, and there was no response to the confirmation schedules. The letter to Mr Muir of 2nd April 2004 sending him engineering drawings specifically invited him to contact the Promoter if he wished for clarification or to discuss the Bill fur ther. Mr Muir has not taken up this offer.

Question

19. Why is the property of Mr & Mrs Smith at 5 Heriot Way not shown on the maps, plans and sections?

I

Promoter’s response

20. The property is not within the Bill limits. It is shown on the base mapping.

PROMOTER’S MEMORANDUM ON QUESTIONS ON CONSULTATION

Introduction

1. The purpose of this Memorandum is to answer the Committee’s questions contained in the Clerk’s letters to Anderson Strathern, dated 11 March 2005, in respect of consultation.

Question 1: What guidance or remit was given to the promoter on how to consult, with whom, on what, and when?

Promoter’s response

2. In embarking on consultation in relation to the proposed railway, the Promoter recognised the importance of a positive, multi-strand approach to consultation, tailored to providing detailed information about the scheme on a pro-active basis, in accordance with the character of the area and the geographical location of the population. The Promoter recognised the importance of providing clear and concise documentation as part of the consultation, to enable the public to have a substantial input through the consultation process, rather than just an opportunity to seek clarification of the details. The Promoter’s approach to consultation was summarised in the Promoter’s Memorandum submitted to the Parliament on introduction of the Bill.⁵⁸

3. In accordance with both good industry practice and recognised guidance on consultation, reference was made by the Promoter and its representatives to the Code of Practice on the Dissemination Of Information during major Infrastructure Developments and the Transport and Works Act 2001 Guidance.⁵⁹ This guidance informed a strategy that provided guidance for the project team in consulting with, and informing, a wide range of affected and interested parties. In addition, Turner and Townsend produced a steering document and strategy for consultation in May 2002, prior to the consultation process commencing.⁶⁰ The consultation strategy document is attached at Appendix 1 to this Memorandum.

4. Decisions by the Promoter about whom to consult were driven, firstly, by the proximity and possible level of impact and, secondly, through development of contacts with other affected parties, for example where people had considered themselves affected by attendance at a ‘Roadshow’. The wider ‘public’ consultation was carried out after contact had been made with those considered to be most seriously affected by the scheme, to ensure that this group were aware of the project prior to it becoming public knowledge. Contact with the remainder of the ‘neighbours’ to the railway was made during the consultation roadshow period, which took place between 1 July and 25 July 2002. This allowed the project to differentiate between those in respect of whom the scheme was likely to have a real impact on their lives, such as property purchase, environmental impact or direct property price reduction, and those who were generally interested in the project through attendance at roadshows.

5. Following initial contact with neighbours and affected parties, consultation on the outline proposals was carried out with those who requested further information through informal telephone conversations, provision of information or meetings. The aim of this consultation was to understand the issues that affected those who lived/worked in close proximity to the proposed alignment, to discuss severance issues with landowners, process and compensation, and, wherever possible, to use the engineering layouts to discuss the impact of the proposals.

6. It was considered that consultation with affected parties should take place early in the development of the scheme to allow both the Promoter and the consultees to understand the issues that needed to be addressed. The decision to carry out consultation in this way was made in accordance with the general guidance identified at paragraph 3 above. The timings of the approach to consultation were discussed and agreed at Waverley Project team meetings and through discussions between the Promoter and the Consultation Manager, Andrew Rosher of Turner and Townsend. The appointment of a Consultation Manager was a decision made at a Joint Committee meeting in May 2002 by the Promoter and its Waverley Railway Partnership partners.

7. The communications programme in respect of the scheme began on 14 January 2002 with the launch of a public ‘hotline’ and website. The official public consultation exercise was launched on 1 July 2002 and is still running to this day. Consultation has continued throughout the process of development of the scheme and continues to date. In summer 2004, 20,000 Project newsletters were issues, with a further 20,000 ‘On Track’ leaflets issued in January 2005 and 20,000 more in February 2005. Between January 2002 and March 2005, over 63,283 visits have been made to the Project website, with 2099 registered votes of support on the website. In the same period, 630 newspaper articles have been published on, or referring to, the Project.

8. There has been extensive consultation between the Promoter and the statutory consultees (SNH, SEPA, Historic Scotland and the River Tweed Commissioners).⁶¹

9. The Promoter considers that the consultation process has successfully informed the design of the project, as demonstrated by the list of project changes resulting from consultation attached as Appendix 2 to this Memorandum.

Question 2: The promoter states at paragraph 36 of the Promoter’s Memorandum that it accepted offers to attend public meetings on the project. How many such offers were made, accepted and subsequently attended, where did these take place and what was the public attendance at each meeting?

Promoter’s response

10. Over 628 consultation meetings have been held with interested groups and individuals. Over 300 of these meetings have been with residents groups, community groups and public meetings. Over 170 meetings have taken place with objectors, as well as 50 technical team meetings, 20 politician briefings and 12 media briefings. A full list of all public consultation meetings is contained in the itemised report at Appendix 3 to this Memorandum. It includes a chronological list of every meeting at which the Waverley Railway Project was discussed in an official capacity by a member of the Project team. The list runs from 2000 to the present day. Meetings held with other groups of interested parties and individuals, together with dates, are set out at Appendix 4 to this Memorandum.

11. Public meetings included Borders Rail Forums, Waverley Railway Partnership, Joint Committee meetings, Community Council meetings, the official Roadshow exhibitions, Section 82 Council meetings and a number of other public meetings held for “interested parties”, such as residents groups and organisations such as the Borders Construction Industry Forum.

Question 3: Which affected community groups were involved in the consultation process?

Promoter’s response

12. Details of the affected community groups and residents groups closely involved in the consultation exercise are provided at Appendices 2 and 3 to this Memorandum. As an indication, these groups included: Stow and Fountainhall CC; Heriot CC; Beechbank Residents Association; Glenfield Road East Residents; Loanhead Community Forum; Gala and Langlee Community Council; Tweedbank CC; Falahill residents group; Harvieston Villas residents group; Esk Valley Community Forum; Newbattle Community Forum; Hardengreen residents group; Midlothian Community Council; and Victoria Gardens residents group.

13. The three Councils in their capacities as planning authorities for their respective areas have a duty under the Planning Act⁶² to consult with the public in respect of their promotion of both local and structure plans. Adopted local plans will also have been tested at a public local plan inquiry. In the context of consultation with the public on the railway this will include consulting with community groups. The railway is identified as an important transport policy in all of the three Council’s existing and emerging development plans and transport strategies. In particular, it is identified in the Approved Edinburgh and the Lothian’s Structure Plan 2015, the Finalised South East Edinburgh Local Plan and Edinburgh’s Local Transport Strategy, the adopted Midlothian Local Plan, the adopted Shawfair Local Plan, Local Transport Strategy for Midlothian, the Approved Scottish Borders Council Structure Plan and Scottish Borders Consultative Draft Local Plan and Scottish Borders Council Transport Strategy. Extensive consultation was undertaken by all three councils in respect of all of these development plans and further information may be submitted if requested by the Committee.

Question 4: In paragraph 37 of the Promoter’s Memorandum you refer to a two-month display of display boards. How long were these in each place?

Promoter’s response

14. A schedule of the official Waverley Railway Project roadshows is attached at Appendix 5 to this Memorandum. It provides the locations, dates and times at which members of the public could attend an exhibition involving display boards and gather information on the project.

15. In summary, the roadshow was on display on at least 30 occasions throughout Edinburgh, Midlothian and the Scottish Borders. It covered all the main towns in the area, including Galashiels, Hawick, Melrose, Kelso, Selkirk, Dalkeith, Loanhead, Penicuik, Bonnyrigg, Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Eskbank.

16. The roadshow comprised 6 exhibition boards with accompanying literature, showing suggested station locations and providing background information on the project. A static display was set up in Edinburgh’s city council planning office over two weeks in July 2002. Additionally, a series of one-day and two-day exhibitions toured locations in the Scottish Borders and Midlothian.

Question 5: How and where did you advertise that the consultation roadshows were taking place?

Promoter’s response

17. Consultation roadshows were advertised nationally in The Scotsman newspaper and locally through local newspapers in circulation along the route of the railway corridor. A full list of advertisements and dates are provided in Appendix 6 to this Memorandum.

18. In summary, between 25 June 2002 and 30 July 2002 at least 19 adverts were placed in national and local newspapers and a further 14 news items were generated throughout that time in the national and local press highlighting the roadshow events.

19. The Promoter produced and circulated 20,000 ‘On Track’ Roadshow leaflets/station plans. Additionally, posters were distributed around Council outlets such as community centres and libraries, highlighting the dates and times of the roadshows in particular local areas. In total, 500 ‘On Track’ Roadshow posters were produced and distributed.

QUESTION 6: Who staffed these roadshows and what experience and information did the staff have to hand to answers questions?

Promoter’s response

20. Staff from the Waverley Railway Project Communications Office handled the management and manning of the roadshows. As the Promoter’s elected PR consultancy, Harrison Cowley (formerly Carnegie PR then Atlantic PR) staff were well informed about the details of the proposed scheme. They have been involved in the scheme since November 2001.

21. The staff of Harrison Cowley had an excellent working knowledge of the scheme and had directed the entire marketing strategy for the launch of the Project (January 2002) and, thereafter, the launch and management of the public consultation exercise at the end of June 2002.

22. These staff were well prepared to answer questions from the public about the scheme and had helped the client develop ‘Question and Answer’ documents and all the relevant public information materials. The information available to the public at each roadshow included a 4 page information leaflet with reply paid card, and six individual station location cards.

23. More than 5000 information leaflets and 5000 sets of proposed station locations were distributed from 1 July 2002 to October 2002. Maps were provided for guidance purposes to visitors to roadshows, to supplement the information contained on the station location boards. Draft route plans of the railway relative to the location of each roadshow were also available to view, in order to help people assess how the railway might impact upon them individually.

24. For the period of July, August, September and October 2002, over 3,300 people visited the roadshows and 1089 ‘response cards’ were returned. In addition, 12,038 ‘visits’ were made to the project’s website, with 94 email inquiries generated through the website and 140 information line calls received.

Footnotes:

⁵⁵ Letter from Andrew Rosher to Mr and Mrs Street, 19 February 2004

⁵⁶ Section 8, and schedule 3, Part 1, fourth entry.

⁵⁷ See pargraphs c. and d. of response to obj 3.

⁵⁸ Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Promoter’s Memorandum, paras 32-46, 11 September 2003, SP Bill 8-PM

⁵⁹ Department of Environment, Transport and Regions

⁶⁰ Waverley Railway Project, Consultation Strategy, May 2002

⁶¹ Refer to Table 1 of the Promoter’s Memorandum No. 2 in respect of Appropriate Assessment, 4 March 2005

⁶² Sections 8 and 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997