Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

Appendix 1: consultation strategy document

Consultation Strategy

1. Consultation

Consultation is an essential tool in establishing public opinion and support for any major infrastructure scheme. There are various types and methods for consultation on a scheme such as the Waverley Railway Project. Consultation typically falls into 3 main areas all of which expected, these are

• Statutory consultation
• Affected parties/land/property consultation
• Public Consultation

2. Statutory consultation

This is as prescribed by the Bill. This includes serving pre-specified documents and notices on the statutory consultees as defined. This task is typically done by the Parliamentary Agents and Land Referencers. Both are retained to do this under their current agreement

3. Specific land/property consultation

This is the personal contact with people directly affected. This would typically be done by the promoter with technical support from the consultant team. Scott Wilson are already looking at some options were specific land interests are affected which will be used by the promoters when contact is made. Land Aspects will identify interests and ownership prior to visits by the relevant authority. This clearly needs to done in advance of more general Public Consultation.

4. Public Consultation

This is the more general consultation were the public are consulted on the scheme. Typically this consists of setting up a contact point (already done by Atlantic), followed by a launch of the project with local exhibitions. The timing of this is essential and must not be undertaken too early as this may cause necessary blight however it should be done whilst there is still some flexibility in the design so concerns can realistically be addressed and mitigated where appropriate. It is acceptable to consult on a preferred alignment although options should be shown were they have been considered, this approach is encouraged.

5. Proposed Methodology for Public Consultation

It is intended that the consultation will follow the guidnace outlined in “Code of Practise on the Dissemination of Information during major Infrastructure Developments” provided by the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions and “Transport and Works Act 2001 Guidance”. These documents will form the basis of the consultation approach and allow all parties involoved in consultation to develop a fluid approach to successful, open and inclusive consultation.

The “Code of Practise on the Dissemination of Information during major Infrastructure Developments” clearly states what level of information should be available, and encourages openness. It also states,

“that at the earliest opportunity, and subsequently maintain a contact point within the organisation which will respond to enquiries speedily and with courtesy”

This requirement has already been met. All the work currently being undertaken will be used to inform public consultation and a strategy will be agreed with Atlantic.

The importance of consultation is stressed in the ‘Guidance on Private Bill, Directorate of Clerking and Reporting, April 2001” and our approach will be included in the Promotors Memorandum, Kennedys will advise on exact requirements.

As with all schemes that have been in the public domain for some time considerable consultation will already have taken place. In addition it is included within relevant Statutory Planning documents which will also have undergone various consultation exercises.

The first task is to prepare a position statement detailing any consultation to date either directly relating to the project or via other sources such as associated or Structure Plan. We will also quantify consultation to date with Statutory and Non-statutory consultees identified in the Guidance. Once complete the strategy can be developed further in line with that succesfully implemented on other major infrastructure projects. This involves a launch, to be led by Atlantic PR and officers, followed by local public consultations in the form of exhibitions at key population centres along the route staffed by officers at specific times. An information pack supported by the website is to be preapred by Atlantic to assist with this. Leaflet drops along the route may also be appropriate. Depending on the results of these surgerys it may be necessary to do smaller consultations on specific issues.

The consultation exhibition should ideally be at a venue for two or three days and needs to be open when working people can attend: thus opening hours might sensibly be 12 noon to 8pm. The exhibition format allows a relaxed opportunity for interface between the public and those involved with the scheme.

Again, the resource commitment required will be obvious. Ideally two officers/advisors with knowledge of the scheme should be present. A member presence can add political weight to exhibitions however this is a decision for each authority.

We would strongly recommend consultation meetings such as with Parish and Town Councils, the business community, disabled groups and environment groups. These would be by invitation only and the work would include: drafting of invitation lists, arranging dates and venues in conjunction with members and officers, arranging venues, drafting invitations, formatting meetings, designing and production of presentations. We do not encourage open public meetings as these can be hijacked by a small minority often leading to a combative atmosphere and negative result.

In addition we would also recommend the setting up of a website as aide to consultation. This is now common practise on major public transport projects and is utilised by many of the Authorities already awarded Centre of Excellence for Integrated Transport Planning as effective for the dissemination of information. In addition it can also be used as another medium for comment. This has already been undertaken by Atlantic and is proving successful.

A procedure needs to be agreed for press releases including responding to unsolicited press inquiries most local authorities have officers and well established procedures for dealing with these.

The key suggested tasks for Public Consultation include the following but for this project this is given as an example and the strategy is to be agreed by T&T, Atlantic and Kennedys;

• Staffed exhibitions at, at least three locations along the route including an evening and Saturday
• Publicize exhibitions in local press, local radio and possibly television
• Hotline set up, with answer machine for back up only
• Preparation for consultation
• Print stationary, business cards, compliment slips etc ASAP
• Notify owners of any CPO properties ASAP in person
• Notify affected persons ASAP in person
• Draft text for detailed brochure
• Arrange for artists impression (liase with ERM /LA’s)
• Arrange copyright
• Draft text for A4 leaflet
• Book venues
• Arrange staffing
• Arrange newspaper adverts
• Laminate relevant plans
• Draft standard answers to queries
• Prepare visitors book
• Aerial photographs if possible
• Prepaid questionnaire to be drafted for incorporation into brochure

The above list is intended to promote discussion and form the basis of the consultation strategy which will continue to be based on the guidance provided by DETR and DOT.

Appendix 2: Alterations through consultation

Shawfair Developments Ltd. - Changes to level, alignment, car parking, station etc.

Various Developers - Changes to access road alignments at Millerhill.

Historic Scotland and Sustrans - Removal of proposed access path between A68 and Glenesk Viaduct.

Historic Scotland - Retention of former footbridge at former Eskbank station.

Drs Wylie and Mr & Mrs Coombe, Westfield Bank - Re-location of proposed footbridge at Westfield Bank, Eskbank.

Hardengreen Lane residents/objectors - Closure of path from Hardengreen Lane to proposed Eskbank station.

Hardengreen Lane residents/objectors - Proposed relocation of station platform, footbridge and car park.

Victoria Gardens, Newtongrange - Agreement to erect noise barrier adjacent.

Newtongrange Bowling Club - Provision of footbridge.

Harvieston Villa residents Location of car park at Gorebridge station.

East Cottage, Tynehead - Reduction of land-take at following discussion with householder.

Falahill – major re-alignment.

Glenfield Road East – flexibility built in to allow for vertical re-alignment.

Mr and Mrs Barnett – Sandyknowe – reduction in temporary and permanent land take.

The Scottish Mining Museum – reduction in land take.

NHS Borders – reduction in temporary and permanent land take and major road realignment.

The Roman Catholic Church in Galashiels and Gorebridge – major reduction in temporary and permanent land take in Galashiels, reduction in temporary and permanent land take in Gorebridge.

Miller Oils, Newtongrange – reduction in temporary land take.

Mr and Mrs Dubickas, Newtongrange – offer to restrict working periods, reduction in temporary and permanent land take.

DSG Retail – offer to reduce land take and restrict working times to allow unencumbered Saturday trading to retail park in Galashiels.

Scottish Power - agreements in progress.

Network Rail - agreements in progress.

Royal Mail - agreements in progress.

BRB Residuary – agreements in progress.

Messrs Stirling, Bow Farm – reduction in temporary and permanent land take.

K&I Coachworks/Symon of Edinburgh – reduction in temporary and permanent land take to ensure retention of gable end to building.

Mr Roy Martin QC – reduction in temporary and permanent land take and restriction on construction access arrangements. Offer to restrict bridge access to pedestrians on consultees request.

New Star Bank residents – relocation of footbridge and alterations to pedestrian footpath arrangements.

Grange Estates – reduction in temporary and permanent land take at Hardengreen. Discussion on relocation of builders yard at Newtongrange.

Mr White, Station Brae, Galashiels – reduction in temporary land take.

Ostle Tyres, Galashiels – reduction in temporary land take and excambion of land to replace permanent land take.

S&I Thomson, Galashiels – major reduction in temporary and permanent land take.

Mr Pendlebury, Mr Davies, Mr Street, all of Dalhousie Farm Cottages – removal of access requirements.

Mr Pendlebury, 1 Dalhousie Farm Cottages – removal of permanent land take requirement to allow for location of a domestic oil tank.

Mr and Mrs Wilson, Dalhousie Station House – removal of access requirements.

Mr Lamb, Glenarch, Eskbank – restriction on working hours and types of vehicles using his access road.

Mr Samuels, Fountainhall – offer to reduce temporary and permanent land take.

Mr Bridie Thomson, Gorebridge – removal of requirement for temporary and permanent land take.

Mr Tony Stovin, Gorebridge – removal of requirement for temporary and permanent land take.

Mr and Mrs Swift, Gorebridge – reduction in temporary and permanent land take.

Dr Alexander, Newtongrange - removal of access requirements.

Mr Hugh Bain, Galashiels – reduction in temporary land take.

Fjordhus, Galashiels – relocation of business premises.

Moffat Builders, Newtongrange – reduction in land take to allow for future housing development.

Mr Wood, Falahill – provision of new parking area and access road at front of house to replace.

Asda – major realignment to allow for superstore development.

Appendix 3: public consultation meetings

Appendix 4: other meetings with interested parties and groups of individuals

Appendix 5: location, dates and times of waverley railway project roadshows

Appendix 6: Advertisements and dates of roadshows

victoria gardens residents’ response to promoter’s memorandum on questions on consultation

3 May 2005

On 17 March the promoter produced its “Answers on behalf of the Promoter in respect of the Committee’s Request of 11 March for Additional Written Evidence on Consultation”. I do not know when this document was placed on the Parliament’s website, but it was not until last weekend that I accidentally came across it. Looking for references to the "Residents of Victoria Gardens" objectors, I notice a worrying number of inaccuracies and overly optimistic representations of facts. Without being able to judge the correctness of the presented information in relation to other groups, this does not give a lot of trust in the overall accuracy of the document.

Please bring the following comments on this document to the attention of the Committee for the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill.

1. In paragraph 12 the “ Victoria Gardens residents group” is mentioned as one of the groups closely involved in the consultation exercise. This is an incorrect representation of the facts. We have been chasing the Waverley Railway Project for information and for a reply to our comments on the noise and vibration section of the Environmental Statement since 2002, largely without success. Maybe this is the promoter’s definition of close involvement; it is not ours.

2. Appendix 2 mentions agreement to erect a noise barrier adjacent to Victoria Gardens. In fact, the proposed barrier only extends along half of the affected houses. We are still waiting to hear the motivation for this, as well as for information about the residual noise levels. Until this information becomes available we cannot express an agreement or disagreement with the proposed barrier.

3. Appendix 3 mentions a meeting with myself on 28 August 2004. Such a meeting has never taken place. Peculiarly enough, the meeting between the Waverley Railway Project and a number of residents of Victoria Gardens that did take place on 4 June 2003, is not mentioned at all. Perhaps WRP prefer to forget about this meeting, as they never followed up on its actions.

4. In appendix 4 a meeting on 24 January is mentioned (meeting 57), together with actions following from the meeting. In this meeting the promoter proposed to erect a noise barrier at Victoria Gardens, but was unable to give details. They promised to provide further information by the end of February, together with additional information about vibration. Although a memo from ERM’s noise and vibration consultant was received on 8 March, it contained little more information than had already been provided earlier. The current situation is that we are still waiting for information about residual noise levels and the motivation behind the proposed dimensions of the barrier. It also has not yet been confirmed that a noise barrier at this location does not conflict with railway safety requirements.

My apologies for the late date of these comments. As mentioned before, I did not see the promoter’s document until last weekend.

still haugh residents’ response to promoter’s memorandum on questions on consultation

I refer to the promoter's Memorandum in respect of the Committee's Request of 11 March for Additional Written Evidence on Consultation -

In Appendix 3; Public Consultation Meetings (Page 19) they state that on 21 Oct 2004 there was a Still Haugh meeting - NO  public consulation meeting or any other meeting has ever taken place with the residents of Still Haugh.

In Appendix 4; Other meetings....... (Page 43) no. 128 - As mentioned in our previous replies the Noise Study undertaken by ERM was not satisfactory as the noise receptors used were place in totally the wrong locations, one not even on site but half a mile away, (still awaiting a response to this), Promoters representative (Andrew Rosher) did meet with us and some other residents on 3rd March 2005 and as stated in our previous reply we were no further informed than before we had the meeting, his flippant remarks were as stated in our response of 15 April 2005,  he did as stated on page 43 agree to issue further information to us but to date we have heard from or spoken to, no-one.

Please could you pass this on to the committee.

promoter’s memorandum on notification: comparison with channel tunnel rail link bill

5 March 2005

NOTICES: COMPARISON WITH CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK BILL (“CTRL”)

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill (“CTRL”) is the only recent comparator with the Waverley project (“ Waverley”). CTRL comprised a new railway approximately twice the length of Waverley. Like Waverley, CTRL goes through both rural and urban areas.

CTRL gave rise to 6,953 notices to landowners served on 17 th, 18 th, 19th and 21st November 1994. On 6th December 1994 compliance with Standing Orders was formally proved to the Parliamentary authorities at Westminster. Detailed figures concerning returned, etc notice accordingly relate to the 14 day period between 21st November and 6th December. There were undoubtedly further returned notices after 6th December, but because of the way the Westminster rules work those figures have not been published.

The nearest equivalent figures for Waverley cover a much longer period, from the date of service of notice on 11th September 2003 to the expiry of the 60 day objection period. On 11th September 2003 4,537 notices were served on behalf of the Promoter.

The following breakdown table is of the figures for returned or similar notices relating to each Bill.

John Kennedy & Co

5th March 2005

TABLE

¹. Served on Bill deposit (CTRL)/introduction (Waverley).
². See para 4 (CTRL), para 3 (Waverley). Periods regarding late notices are actual dates.
³. Returned by the Post Office marked as undelivered. Further addresses had to be ascertained for re-service.
⁴. Returned marked ‘not called for’ because the Post Office had been unable to deliver or, after leaving an advice note at the premises, the notice had not been collected from the Post Office.
⁵. Enquiries revealed that the interests in the property had ceased to exist since the date of the reference.
⁶. Notices could not be served because the recipients had gone away and their whereabouts were unknown or information requested from others was withheld.
⁷. Returns attributable to incorrect or incomplete addresses.
⁸. Notices returned during objection period. Re-served.
⁹. Notices returned during objection period. Re-service unnecessary.
¹⁰. Figures are number of notice recipients. CTRL notices were prepared on the basis of one per landowner, with a single notice covering several plots. Waverley notices were one per plot with owners of several plots getting more than one notice. What is comparable in the context of late notices is therefore numbers of recipient landowners rather than the numbers of notices.
¹¹. Numbers of landowners.
¹². Number of landowners. This figure includes all the 251 notices served in September 2004. (Total number of notices 260 served on 217 landowners.)