Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

Summary

Table 15 summarises the potential noise impacts identified in the ES and the noise barriers required to mitigate them.

Table 15: Potential Impacts Identified in the ES.

This study has shown that in some of the locations in the ES where potential noise impacts were predicted noise barriers will not be needed, ei ther because in fact train noise will not significantly elevate ambient noise levels, or because natural screening where the tracks will be in cutting provides adequate noise screening. In o ther locations, as described, noise barriers will be needed to mitigate the predicted impacts. Approximate dimensions of these barriers have been specified, and a preliminary engineering review has confirmed they are expected to be feasible. In one location, High Street, Buckholmside (R48), a noise barrier is not considered to be feasible and a (4dB) residual noise impact is expected.

Table 16: All Measured Survey Results

CASELLA STANGER RESPONSE TO PROMOTER AND OBJECTOR COMMENTS

I write in response to your email dated 13 August 2003 requiring further commentary following comments received from the promoter of the Waverley Bill and two objectors following submission of our peer review on noise and vibration and air quality chapters of the Environmental Statement.

For convenience the following comments are provided in respect of the two chapters. Commentary is provided in respect of the comments made by the promoter of the Bill. Responses to the comments made by the two objectors follow those made in response to the promoter. These are provided in detail below in the order in which they have been raised in Anderson Strathern’s report dated 13 August 20004 entitled “ Promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum”.

Noise & Vibration

1. Promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum

5.2 Construction Noise

Section 5.2.1 Sources: par 2

No comment required.

Section 5.2.3 Criteria: par 3

The promoter has confirmed that the 45 dB L Amax criterion has been derived from the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. It is also accepted that although there are no readily available data to enable the prediction of L Amax levels, it would be possible to use L Amax levels as a control limit.

5.2.4 Predicted Noise Levels and Assessment: par 4

Additional work has been carried out to address this point and is included as Annex A to the promoter’s response.

5.2.5 Mitigation: par 5

No comment required.

5.2.6 Residual Impacts: par 6

This is merely a different interpretation of the word residual and the promoter’s response is accepted.

5.3 Operational Noise

5.3.1 Sources: par 7

No comment required.

5.3.3 Criteria: par 8

The typing error has been corrected.

5.3.4 & 5.3.5 Predicted Noise Levels and Assessment: par 9

Additional work has been carried out by the promoter to address this point and is included as Annex A to the promoter’s response.

5.3.6 Mitigation: par 10

Additional work has been carried out to address this point and is included as Annex A to the promoter’s response.

5.3.7 Residual Impacts: par 11

Additional work has been carried out to address this point and is included as Annex A to the promoter’s response.

5.4 Construction Vibration

5.4.1 Sources: par 12

No comment required.

5.4.2 Criteria: par 13

No comment required.

5.4.3 Predicted Vibration Levels and Assessment: par 14

The promoter’s comment is accepted.

5.4.4 Mitigation: par 15

The promoter’s comment is accepted.

5.4.5 Residual Impacts: par 16

This is merely a different interpretation of the word residual and the promoter’s response is accepted.

5.5 Operational Vibration

5.5.1 Sources: par 17

No comment required.

5.5.2 Criteria: par 18

No comment required.

5.5.3 & 5.5.4 Predicted Vibration Levels and Assessment: par 19

No comment required.

5.5.5 Mitigation: par 20

No comment required.

5.5.6 Residual Impacts: par 21

No comment required.

Annex D Draft Code of construction Practice (CoCP)

The Draft CoCP is to be amended such that the limits agree with those proposed in Chapter 5 of the ES.

Conclusions on Noise & Vibration

Are the findings robust, appropriate and defensible? Par 23

No comment required.

Does the chapter have any deficiencies or errors? Par 24

No comment required.

Are there recommendations for improvement in the chapter? Par 25

The ambient noise survey and indication of numbers of receptors has now been undertaken and has been provided in Annex A.

If errors are evident in the chapter, what would be the difference in the results and/or conclusions if the assessment were done correctly? par 26

No comment required.

What is the significance of the predicted impacts? par 27

Table 1 of Annex A provides sufficient information on numbers of receptors to enable significance of the impact to be assessed.

Is additional work required? Par 28

The promoter has carried out the additional work recommended and is committed to carrying out further additional work during the detailed design stage.

Annex A of the Promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum

The Annex has been reviewed in the light of our previous comments and it has been concluded that it now provides sufficient information to rectify the deficiencies previously identified.

2) Objectors comment’s on peer review

The following relates to comments made on the peer review of the noise and vibration chapter by two objectors. Whilst not requested to comment on the peer review of the noise and vibration chapter comments have been received by two objectors (i) Mr and Mrs Street of 4 Dalhousie Mains Cottages, Dalkeith and, (ii) Mr Robin Bull of Crewe Toll House, 2 Crewe Road North, Edinburgh. The following provides a response to these comments.

Comments received from Mr and Mrs Street

Comments received by Mr & Mrs Street are provided in their letter dated 3 rd August 2004 (ref. RWS & RIS/SP004). In response, the following is provided:

Section 5.2.1 (of the peer review) Sources.

It is agreed that wherever work may need to be carried out at night it is important that adequate mitigation measures are put in place to both reduce the periods involved and disturbance caused.

Section 5.2.3 (of the peer review) Criteria

Whilst it is agreed that an L Amax criterion can be useful as a control measure to avoid sleep disturbance it should not be recommended as a replacement to an L Aeq criterion but as supplementing and L Aeq criterion. It should be pointed out that there are in fact some difficulties in monitoring an L Amax particularly in ensuring the level monitored is due to construction activities and not unrelated sources.

Section 5.3.4 & 5.3.5 (of the peer review) Predicted noise levels and assessment

The failings have now been addressed in Annex A of the Promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum. It is agreed that mitigation should be reassessed if new developments and new impacts are identified.

Section 5.3.6 (of the peer review) Mitigation

This point is agreed. See above response.

Comments received from Mr Robin Bull

See general comments in Air Quality section.

Air Quality

1) Promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum

Section 6.1 Introduction: par 29.

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

Section 6.2. Assessment Criteria: par. 30

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

Section 6.3. Baseline Environment: par. 31

The response provided by the promoter does not recognise that Figures 6.1 – 6.6 define only the background pollutant concentrations along the propose route. These are shown to vary with higher pollutant concentrations in the north of the route (with closer proximity to Edinburgh) when compared to the south of the route. Moreover, their inclusion ignores the emission contribution from local sources on top of background pollutant concentrations, which may lead to air quality objectives being approached or, as is the case with the centre of Edinburgh, breached. Thus, whilst it is acceptable to state that all relevant objectives are met at the nearest 1km x 1km grid square to Gorebridge Station, the assessment does not recognise the differences in pollutant concentrations occurring along the route corridor. For example, the assessment does not recognise that an air quality management area exists in Edinburgh. This should be clearly stated and the implications for the scheme on whether this is likely to impose a constraint, recognised.

Section 6.4. Construction Impacts: par. 32

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

Section 6.5. Operational Impacts: par. 33

The response provided by the promoter is accepted. Further transparency in the assessment would have been achieved had this response been included in the assessment.

Section 6.6. Carbon Dioxide Emissions: par. 34

The promoter’s response cross-references to Table 7.1 (baseline northbound traffic flows). This emphasises the lack of linkage between the air quality chapter with other relevant chapters within the ES as highlighted in the peer review. That said, it is acknowledged that the changes in road traffic are negligible (here defined as less than 10%) and do not warrant a detailed consideration to predictions in air quality at the local level.

The promoter’s response in respect of the calculation of CO 2 emissions derived from the passenger kilometres is accepted.

The promoter’s response in respect to consideration to mitigation measures and offsetting of CO 2 through landscaping (assumed to mean planting) is accepted.

Section 6.7. Summary & Conclusions: par 35

In light of the increased transparency in CO 2 calculations and the accepted methodology the conclusions of the statement do not need to be changed. The promoter’s response is accepted.

Annex D: Draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP): par. 36

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

Conclusions on Air Quality

Are the findings robust, appropriate and defensible? par. 37.

The response provided by the promoter is accepted in part. Casella Stanger still believes that the air quality chapter would benefit through increased transparency and cross-referencing with other relevant chapters and supporting information in the ES. That said, the results are defensible.

Does the chapter have any deficiencies or errors? par. 38

The responses provided by the promoter is respect of paras 33 and 34 above are accepted.

Are there recommendations for improvement of the Chapter? par. 39

The response provided by the promoter is acknowledged and is accepted as being down to differences in approach and reporting styles.

If errors are evident, what would be the difference in results and/or conclusions of the assessment were done correctly? par. 40

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

What is the significance of the predicted impacts? par. 41

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

Is additional work required? par. 42

The response provided by the promoter is accepted.

2) Objectors comment’s on peer review

The following relates to comments made on the peer review of the air quality chapter by two objectors. Whilst not requested to comment on the peer review of the air quality chapter comments have been received by two objectors (i) Mr and Mrs Street of and, (ii) Mr Robin Bull of . The following provides a response to these comments in more detail.

Comments received from Mr and Mrs Street

Comments received by Mr & Mrs Street are provided in their letter dated 3 rd August 2004 (ref. RWS & RIS/SP004). In response, the following is provided:

Section 2.2 (of the peer review) Site Visit.

Comment: Clarification of the exact extent of the site visit would be welcome.

Response: During the course of the site visit, Casella Stanger visited as much of the route alignment as could be made out from the maps contained within the ES. Whilst Lasswade may not fall within the alignment of the proposed route it is referred to in the peer review as a way of indicating the northerly most part of the area visited during the course of the site visit. Subsequent regeneration of the former railway line on the urban fringe of Edinburgh has meant that the exact route alignment was not followed during the course of the site visit at certain locations. The authors of the peer review acknowledge that this is a potential constraint to the commentary made in respect of the northern part of the alignment between the urban fringe and Waverley station.

Section 6.4 (of the peer review). Construction Impacts.

Comment: Given the mitigation measures written into the ES, dust should not then create a problem during construction . . . .

Response: Proper implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and assessment of their effectiveness will indeed greatly reduce the chances of dust creating a problem during construction. Mr & Mrs Sweet provide an example of where this has proved to be the case in previous works in the vicinity of the Hardengreen roundabout. No further commentary is required.

Section 6.5 (of the peer review). Operational Impacts.

Comment: As commented in Section 7 of the ES no consideration appears to have been given to the change in traffic type, i.e. increase in HGVs resultant from the expansion of the Borders region.

Response: This has not formed part of the ES air quality chapter and, as such, Casella Stanger is not able to comment further.

Report Statement

Comment: This paragraph of the report indicates that it was carried out to a[n] brief and scope agreed with the Project Manager, the limitation of which are not noted in the PR.

Response: The Report Statement forms part of Casella Stanger’s quality assurance requirements under its business accreditation ISO BSEN 9002. The Statement does not form part of the peer review of the ES and should not be considered in this way.

Comments received from Mr Robin Bull

Comments received by Mr Robin Bull are provided in his email dated 29 July 2004. In response, the following is provided:

Casella Stanger do not accept that the peer review of the ES is ‘bizarre and unacceptable’, nor does the document ‘not meet the criteria set out by the committee, or indeed by the document’s own criteria’. The comments are not substantiated and by Mr Bull’s own admission are largely the result of the direct effect of the scheme on himself. Casella Stanger make no further comment on the efficacy of the peer review other than to state that the report has been well received by the Private Bills unit for its clarity and concise approach to the review.

With regards to the main issue that Mr Bull raises in respect of the peer review, the fact that Tynehead was specifically visited was not intended to imply that other areas were not sensitive receptors. The ES correctly identified Station House Herriot (receptor R31) as being 6 metres from the track and also that there would be exceedances of the noise criteria that would need mitigation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Richard Maggs / Paul Freeborn
Principal Consultant Air Quality / Technical Director Noise & Vibration

Comments by residents of Victoria Gardens, Newtongrange

Comments on the Environmental Statement for the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill and the Promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum

1. Following your invitation for comments on the Environmental Statement and the promoter’s Supplementary Memorandum, the "Residents of Victory Gardens" group of objectors to the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill would like to bring the following to your attention.

2. In our objection to the bill we have addressed our concerns about various aspects of the Environmental Statement’s section on Noise and Vibration (section 5). In the Supplementary Memorandum we find no new information to alleviate our concerns.

3. Paragraph 2.2 of the Supplementary Memorandum indicates that fur ther work on noise assessment is currently carried out, in order to specify preferred noise barrier locations. However, paragraph 2.4 indicates that there is no intention to address the assessment criteria themselves. From this we conclude that the promoter does not see the need for noise mitigation in most places where the railway passes close to existing residential dwellings.

4. In this document we will comment in detail on various aspects of the noise assessment. The main conclusions are that the noise assessment in the Environmental Statement is incomplete, and that it presents an overly optimistic view on the noise impacts of the railway operation.

PAN 56

5. The noise assessment criteria in the Environmental Statement are taken from PAN 56, “Planning and Noise”. The Environmental Statement’s threshold of noise impact values match the upper limits of PAN 56’s Noise Exposure Category (NEC) A. The unacceptable impact values match the upper limits of NEC B.

6. The Environmental Statement uses the 82 dB L A,max limit from PAN 56 as the sleep disturbance limit. This is a misinterpretation. PAN 56, annex 1, paragraph 2, states that 82 dB L A,max forms the upper limit of NEC B, which is used in the Environmental Statement as the limit for unacceptable impact. PAN 56 does not give an upper L A,max limit for NEC A, which could with more right be used as the sleep disturbance limit.

7. PAN 56, annex 1, paragraph 2, states that the NEC limits should be adjusted, based on existing background noise levels. In particular, it mentions a reduction by 3 dB for tranquil areas. We believe that most, if not all, of the railway’s route falls in this category.

8. PAN 56, paragraph 52, states that “ the Noise Exposure Categories apply only where consideration is being given to introducing new housing development into an area with an existing transport noise source and not in the reverse situation”. It also states that “ the differing attitude and sensitivity towards noise between those who choose to live in a relatively noisy environment and those who are subjected to new noise sources also prohibits the use of the NEC method in reverse”.

9. For the Waverley Railway this means that PAN 56’s NEC method is not applicable. The above quotation from PAN 56, paragraph 52, indicates that noise limits derived from the NEC method are higher than should be used for a new railway.

Guidelines for Community Noise

10. The Environmental Statement does not refer to the World Heath Organisation’s (WHO) “Guidelines for Community Noise”. Yet, given the lack of legislation in relation to acceptable noise levels from the operation of new railway lines, this appears to be the best source to derive noise limits from.

11. “Guidelines for Community Noise” gives the following acceptable noise limits that are relevant for residential areas.

12. To avoid sleep disturbance the indoor limits are 30 dB L A,eq and 45 dB L A,max. The related outdoor limits are 15 dB higher², i.e. 45 dB L A,eq and 60 dB L A,max. From the phrasing of the “Guidelines for Community Noise” it is clear that these are façade values. To convert the limits to free field values, as used in the Environmental Statement, a 3 dB correction must be applied. This gives free field limits of 42 dB L A,eq and 57 dB L A,max.

13. The limit for moderate annoyance on balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas is 50 dB L A,eq. In our opinion gardens fall in this category. As before these values appear to be façade values, so that a 3 dB correction should be applied. This gives a free field limit of 47 dB L A,eq.

14. “Guidelines for Community Noise” does not give a value that can be used as daytime L A,max limit. It seems not unreasonable to apply the common practice of using a daytime value that is 10 dB higher than the equivalent nighttime value.

The Noise Insulation (Railways and O ther Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996

15. The Environmental Statement refers to these regulations as a source for setting its assessment criteria.

16. The explanatory note for these regulations states: “The procedures to be used for predicting noise levels from guided transport systems are those described in a technical memorandum, Calculation of Railway Noise 1995. They are based on conditions which represent the noisiest traffic flows expected to occur within a period of 15 years of the date on which the works in question are first used.”

17. Although the Environmental Statement does specify the frequency of operation and train length that have been used for the noise assessment, it does not state if these parameters refer to year 1 or year 15. The only prediction over a 15-year period we have been able to find is in appendix 2 of the Business Case, which indicates an increase of 140% for the fare box revenue over the first 15 years of operation. If this reflects an equal growth in patronage, noise levels will work out very different for year 1 and year 15.

General comments

18. L A,eq is not a good parameter, in particular not for the assessment of nighttime noise levels. Nighttime L A,eq represents the noise level, averaged over the 8-hour night period (23:00 to 07:00). The fact alone that in the Environmental Statement it is assumed that there are no trains running between 00:30 and 05:55, gives a reduction of 5 dB in L A,eq, obviously without making each train passage less noisy.

19. Even for daytime the use of L A,eq as a noise assessment parameter is questionable. The assumed low frequency of operation (four train passages per hour) leads to low L A,eq values, that do not very well indicate the annoyance caused by each individual train passage.

20. In our view L A,max should therefore be the main parameter for the noise assessment.

21. Although the Environmental Statement indicates the need to relate the predicted noise levels to the baseline levels, it does not actually do this. In our opinion the predicted values for L A,eq as well as L A,max should be compared against the current situation as part of the noise assessment. Where ei ther value increases significantly due to operation of the railway, mitigation is required, regardless of the absolute value of the predicted noise level. This is in line with the principle of PAN 56, as mentioned in paragraph 0.

22. The predicted noise levels in the Environmental Statement do not take into account the effects of train acceleration, adverse gradients, and embankments. All of these can be expected to increase noise levels. Proper noise assessment is not possible without taking these parameters into account.

23. The noise assessment in the Environmental Statement does not pay attention to resonance effects, which can increase the sound level dramatically for certain frequencies of the sound spectrum. Resonance occurs in (partially) enclosed spaces, where sound waves bounce between, for instance, house façades, railway embankments and o ther reflecting surfaces. With typical distances between reflecting walls of 10 metres or more, the resonant frequencies will be found at the low end of the audible spectrum, or will be subsonic. Such frequencies may be perceived more as vibration than as sound and can lead to feelings of physical discomfort.

Conclusions

24. The following table summarises the limits from the foregoing sections. All values in the table are expressed in dB(A) and, where necessary, have been converted to free field values.

25. In our opinion the noise limits from the WHO guidelines, in particular L A,max, should form the basis for a proper noise assessment. Noise mitigation is required in all locations where these limits are exceeded, to bring the residual noise within the limits.

26. In our opinion noise mitigation is also required at locations where one or more of the L A,eq and L A,max values increases significantly due to operation of the railway, regardless of whe ther the absolute value lies above or below the limit.

27. When the limits from the WHO guidelines are applied to the train noise predictions in table 5.6 of the Environmental Statement, it is found that the daytime L A,eq limit is exceeded at 42 of the 60 locations, the nightime L A,eq limit at 41 locations, the daytime L A,max limit at 56 locations, and the nighttime L A,max limit at 59 locations. The nighttime L A,eq and L A,max values for one location are not available.

28. For the 60 evaluated locations the 57 dB limit for nighttime L A,max is on average exceeded by 19 dB, with a maximum excess of 33 dB for receptor R33.

29. The fact that for all evaluated locations the nighttime L A,max value lies above the limit, indicates that most likely there are more, not evaluated, locations where the noise level requires mitigation.

30. As mentioned in paragraphs 0 and 0 to 0, relevant information is missing from the noise assessment in the Environmental Statement. Without this information the noise assessment is incomplete.

comments by drs wyllie and mr & mrs combe

Background

A s stated in our original objection to the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill our properties are located at 5 and 6 Westfield Bank, Eskbank, Dalkeith, Midlothian. As was stated in this objection, our properties are not mentioned in the Environmental Statement. It is therefore even more unbelievable that, despite the fact that the Promoter has been given ano ther chance to supply the Committee with information, they appear to have yet again failed to take account of our homes. We thus can only assume that the Promoter is not interested in dealing with the concerns of residents whose homes are as close as any o thers to the proposed route (with the exception of those properties actually built on the solum). To re-state the situation: We met with Mr Andrew Rosher of Turner Townsend and officials of Midlothian Council in June 2002 to raise concerns about the proximity of our properties to the proposed route.

We have read Supplementary Memorandum to the Environmental Statement (SMES) and Supplementary Memorandum to the Project Description (SMPD) and will briefly outline why we feel these two documents in no way deal with the objections we raised in our original objection.

1. Noise and Vibration

The SMES states that 17 receptor points were identified where noise and vibration mitigation measures needed to be taken – none of these pertain to our properties. Once again the Promoter has failed to take account of our properties in this supplementary memorandum. Does the fact that none of these ‘receptor points’ are located at our properties mean that the Promoter does not consider it necessary to reduce noise and vibration at our site? Fur thermore, only if it is “practically possible” to install these will this be done. Therefore can we assume that if it is not “practically possible” that we have to put up with this impact? Of course the Promoter has only within the recent weeks undertaken a more detailed survey and the results of this survey we await with interest – though why this is only now being done and did not form part of the original ES beggars belief. To us it seems that the original ES was a ‘half-baked’ document and the Promoter is taking liberties by submitting essential information piece-meal. In their response, the Promoter states that “ the threshold levels used are not specifically relevant to new rail developments and there is no statutory requirement to achieve them. Instead they are considered generally desirable noise levels and are commonly used in new railway projects. ” Thus residents who are affected by this proposal may have no protection in law against this development. We note, however, that while the Promoter says that they will consult with affected residents, they do not say when this will occur and it would appear that no guaranteesare given that any noise and vibration mitigation measures will reduce these to acceptable levels. No timescale is given as to when such works might be carried out. Will this be at the same time when the track is being re-instated or only after the railway is operational and after fur ther assessments have been carried out to determine the impact on our properties and our daily lives? Notwithstanding the fact that we will be disturbed at day and night by noise and vibration, we will also experience a loss of privacy. As trains pass our property, passengers will have a clear view into both our front and rear gardens.

2. Operation Issues

The SMPD states that “operational issues are out with the scope of the Bill”. This, we assume, is the equivalent of saying that authority is sought to build a new airport but details of flight frequencies, types of aircraft etc are not relevant. Thus it is unclear to us what the Bill will actually permit and importantly what re-course we have, if the Bill is passed, to object to the impact on our lives and property when an operational timetable is sought. We also note that the Promoter is very careful in their choice of words when explaining the effect of running a dual track. They do not actually state that this is not something they would like to seek in the future, they merely state that the impact of such “dualling” would have significant impact on costs and environment.

3. Conclusion

We feel that both the SMES and SMPD do not address our concerns raised in our earlier objection and we would ask that this objection is allowed to stand. Thus to re-state our summary points of objection:

We object to the plans detailed in the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill on the grounds of:

• First, significant safety risks and significant consequences of these risks to both residents and railway customers,
• Second, the loss of amenity cause by noise pollution and intrusion to our residential privacy,
• Third, the potential for significant property damage caused by vibration,
• Fourth, the loss of property value if these plans are approved, whe ther or not the plan goes ahead

As stated in our earlier objection, we would contend that quantitative measurements as they pertain to our properties and the consequences of re-opening the line have not been made specifically in a location where residential properties are likely to be affected to a greater extent than the vast majority of properties that bound the railway line. This is despite the fact that Turner Townsend and Midlothian Council were made aware of our concerns in June 2002.

David Wyllie - Jane Wyllie - David Combe - Elaine Combe

(principal signatory and on behalf of others)

20th July 2004

comments by glenfield residents association

SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

We, the Residents Committee of Glenfield Road East, Galashiels, have reviewed the above referenced document, and would like to make the following comments: -

1.0 Ref. Question 2- Noise and Vibration

We are concerned with regard to the types of Noise Barriers now being proposed.

The Bill, proposes that the rail track will pass our houses as close as 6 to10 metres from our existing garden boundaries, and at a level consistent with our upstairs bedroom windows.

If these Barriers are to be utilized on the ELEVATED stretch of line between Galashiels and Tweedbank, they will seriously affect the amount of natural daylight available to the residents adjacent to the proposed line.

2.0 Ref. Question 4 – Mitigating Measures

With our properties being within 20 meters of the proposed elevated line, we believe that additional insulation solutions shall be required. We would prefer that these solutions be discussed with the Promoter prior to Assessment.

3.0 Ref. Question 6. Type and Weight of trains

We are now, very concerned that the Promoter is proposing train lengths of 6 units (91.4 tonnes per unit), traveling along an elevated stretch of track. What Safety measures are being proposed to prevent a catastrophe in the event of a possible derailment?

4.0 Additional Bodies

We note, that additional Bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage, River Tweed Commissioners and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are now declaring an interest in the proposed Waverly Line. Are these ‘Bodies’-?

1. Self Financing
2. Executive Funded
3. Projected Funded, and if so, has adequate funding been budgeted for in existing proposals

5.0 In Conclusion

Having read the Supplementary Memorandum, we are of the opinion that it does not fulfill the Requirements placed upon it by your Committee. i.e. it does not answer the Committee’s questions, but states that Assessments are not yet complete, Reports are not yet written, and failing these “ Trust Me I’m a Promoter”

We believe that the Executive should make no final Assessment until these questions are answered.

Yours faithfully

On behalf of the residents of Glenfield Road East
Galashiels.

comments by robin bull

Thank you for your letters referenced above. As you have pointed out, several objectors have already made comment on the ES in their objection letter. I have read all submitted objection letters it is clear that many letters contained objections to the adequacy and methodology employed in compiling the ES.   My letter contained the most detailed response in a 'compliance matrix' format to the ES.  I submit that my objections do in many instances pertain to the adequacy of information and the methodology employed in compiling the ES and therefore are valid for consideration by the committee in this preliminary stage.  Having read the Supplementary Memorandum, I submit it does nothing to remove these objections.  I do not propose to use this letter to go into detail, but I wish to register my interest in supplying pertinent supplementary information, either in person or in writing to the preliminary stage committee.  I ask you to consider this request. May I give one example below, which I fully realise has more consequential impact for the detail stage committee hearing, but demonstrates a basic deficiency or disjoint in the WRP submitted proposal:

The proposed line through Heriot (impacted receptor R31) is untenable.  This was explicitly accepted in a minuted meeting  held  with the WRP Project Manager (Mr A Rosher) on 05/02/04.  The Supplementary Memorandum takes no account of this gross untenability in its answers to questions 1 - 4.  Such a disjoint between minuted statements given by WRP on 05/02/04 and their Supplementary Memorandum responses to the preliminary committee do properly pertain to deficiencies in information and methodology.

I further submit that WRP have not met minimum standards relating to project management and public service  in their submission of this Bill.  There are many specific examples of non professionalism which can all be construed to favour WRP in their attempt to bulldoze this Bill through irregardless of value.  I submit this demonstrates a failure in basic process and professionalism and should be considered at preliminary committee stage.  I would be happy to supply details.  I realise some deadlines have passed, but WRP have also missed most of their submission dates.  I fully understand the need for brevity in submissions, either in person or in writing.  If you require further information, or wish to offer advice on next steps, I would be pleased to hear from you.

Yours sincerely

W Robin Bull

29/07/2004

Thank you for your email of 28/07/04.  Firstly can I comment on the Peer Review of Noise & Vibration and Air Quality.  The document is bizarre and unacceptable.  It does not meet the criteria set out by the committee, or indeed by the document's own criteria.  I limit myself to  a few  glaring deficiencies.  There are many more.

• 2.1 - 7, page 2 (Document Criteria) - 'Identification of sensitive receptors...........' 

• 2.2 Site Visit - '..........Tynehead, which was specifically visited.........to....confirm proximity of the receptor at Station House'

• The station house, Tynehead is over 50 meters from the original line.  The station house, Heriot is 6 meters from the proposed track which consumes the garden.  There is no mention in the document of my house being a sensitive receptor. Why was Tynehead Station House identified and Heriot Station House not identified ?

• 2.2, page2 - '.......with much of the route being taken up by the national cycle route.....'

  • Less than 4% actually

• 2.2, page 3 - '....notably housing occurs within 150m of the track..........'

  Notably the proposed track bisects the garden and is less than 6 m from my house at Heriot.

The purpose of this peer review was to independently  identify deficiencies, errors and omissions in the WRP funded ES.  It has failed to do so.  Yes, some of the objections noted above affect me directly and are obviously pertinent at the 'detail' stage, but they demonstrate a failure of adequacy and methodology per se which must be rigorously examined in this preliminary principle stage.  The rationale stated here applies generally to a large number of my objections to the main ES and other WRP documents. I therefore submit that the committee at this stage should not discount objections just because they have a consequential 'personal' effect if the Bill goes ahead.  These objections demonstrate a failure of adequacy and methodology applicable to the principle of the Bill. These objections have necessarily used a detail to demonstrate the point. That point should not bar these objections from being valid and submitted  as objecting to the principle. I believe this is in line with your comments to me in letter dated 14/11/03 and I look forward to having these objections used to demonstrate lack of adequacy and methodology at this stage.

This  paragraph here has a slightly more personal and  subjective slant and is solely to give you a 'flavour' of the  feeling of discontent, stress, and helplessness that is affecting objectors.  Just what is going on here with WRP? Why, in this whole WRP process are 'in the road' (on the railway!) objectors invisible to WRP and their consultants, and conveniently glossed over in surveys and reports such as the ES, whilst other lesser  issues and much less impacted receptors are explored in great detail?   It is almost a 'head in the sand' approach, or may be designed to wear us down by promoting a lack of accountability or accessibility. There is a distinct theme in all the WRP documentation that I do not exist at 2 Heriot Way, Heriot.  Lack of accountability by WRP and open accessible dialogue with WRP is a central theme in most objectors protests - the Galashiels meeting in Volunteer Hall demonstrated this ably to yourself. I would like you to explore mechanisms to impart this 'flavour' of discontent to the committee. I do not know what level of detail you wish at this stage - my inability to get answers from SBC/WRP (ex: 6 emails to Bruce Rutherford, SBC - not the courtesy of one reply), or uncompleted actions by WRP Project Manager (still waiting for promises set in February '04) to review a viable alternative deviation at Heriot, and to deliver a strategy on voluntary Compulsory Purchase schemes) are clear examples of 'promoters failures in basic processes'.

Finally, can you give me some indication of schedule from this point onwards? - preliminary committee hearings, summer recesses, visits to blighted houses, etc. If it means pointing me to a page on your website, please just do that.

Yours sincerely,

W Robin Bull

comments by mr & mrs street

3rd August 2004

Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill

I attach comments on the Environmental Study and Supplementary Memorandum. I appreciate this is later than the date of the 29th July you set for comments, but as indicated in my letter 13 th July I did not receive your letter of the 5 th July until the 13th July. I trust my comments can still be taken into account.

The Supplementary Memorandum proved to clarify / eliminate concerns raised from the Environmental Study itself.

I have not repeated my concerns over bat roosts stated in my original objection letter, Scottish Natural Heritage are better placed to control this issue.

Yours sincerely

Mr R W Street
And for
Mrs R I Street

Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill

• Comments relating to the following documents:
• Environmental Statement (ES)
• Peer Review of Noise & Vibration and Air Quality Chapters of the Environmental Statement (PR)
• Supplementary Memorandum on the Environmental Statement
• Supplementary Memorandum on the Project Description
• Supplementary Memorandum on the Related Development

General

A clarification of items arising from the Environmental Statement has been carried out in the Supplementary Memorandum, as such comments on the Environmental Statement have been restricted to those items where clarity is not 100%.

Environmental Statement

Table 1.2 – Summary of Consultation Responses to the Waverley Project Scoping Report

It is noted that Midlothian Council had no comment at the 24 th December 2003, has any subsequent comment been received.

Section 2 Project Description

2.1 Need for the Scheme

Two items included “providing new jobs….” and “reduction of road traffic….” The ES fails to establish a the case that these fundamental targets are achieved. See later comments.

Section 4 Land Use and Land Take

4.2.2 Land use within the study area

Alternative footpaths /cycleways are mentioned here and in more detail in Section 7 where comment will be made.

4.2.3 Sensitive receptors

The second paragraph refers to “slight adverse visual impacts during construction and the operational phase of the proposed scheme”, the viaduct over the roundabout at Hardengreen will have significant impact both on the local residents and those travelling on the A7 road.

4.3.2 Temporary land intake & 4.3.4 Construction impacts

Section 4.3.2 refers under Hardengreen A7 bridge to the NE and SW corners being temporarily occupied whilst Section 4.3.4 states that the period will be at least 12months during construction, which is a significant period of disruption.

4.3.6. Migration measures

Alternative footpaths/cycleways

The implication here is that an acceptable alternative ‘Black Path’ route has been proposed for the track from Sheriffhall to Hardengreen. Whereas, the alternatives put forward, detailed in Section 7, all utilise existing A and B class roads and as such can not be considered as safe, particularly for children, as the current facility.

Section 5 Noise and Vibration

The contents of this Section are also covered in the “Peer Review” and comments are collated under that heading.

Section 6 Local Air Quality and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

The contents of this Section are also covered in the “Peer Review” and comments are collated under that heading.

Section 7 Traffic and Transport

General

Except under Construction Assessment the effect of HGV’s on traffic patterns and consequently, the conclusions drawn in sections 5 and 6 may be flawed.

Given that both the population and industry within the Border Region is increased as a result of the introduction of the railway, then freight traffic flow will increase. Statements within the Supplementary Statements indicate that the railway is not being designed to carry freight, and thus the A7 will carry the increased freight.

Reference in this section is to footpath/cycleway, no mention is made of horse tracks which in the main currently follow the line of the footpath/cycleway. Horse riding is seen as an increasing recreational activity and should not be ignored.

Section 7.4 Construction impacts

7.4.1 Traffic Generation

The last paragraph refers to “implications to turning into and out of work sites”. Given that the A7 has few straight sections of road, there is a great implication to safety by the large numbers of construction vehicles that will be entering and leaving the trunk road. This is typified by the road entry at Dalhousie Mains Cottages.

7.4.2 Pedestrians and cyclist conflict

The third paragraph contains phrases “wherever possible” and “Efforts” these words are of little consequence to those whose access to their homes has been precluded.

7.6.3 Footpath/cycleway diversions

A68 at Sheriffhall to Hardengreen

All the alternative routes given to the existing “black path” from Sheriffhall to Hardengreen take in the use of both A and B grade roads, that take vehicle traffic and as such do not provide the same degree of safety to pedestrians/cyclists/horse riders. The current track provides a highly used thoroughfare between Hardengreen/Bonnyrigg residents and Dalkeith, with the loss of the amenity it is likely that residents will revert to motor transport for these local journeys.

11 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

11.6 Assessment of permanent landscape impacts

11.6.1 Introduction

The train service is continually referred to as half hourly service throughout the document. It is in truth proposed as half hourly in each direction, and as such each point along the line

A train will pass at approximately 15 minute intervals, which increases the visual impact.

11.6.2 GSMR Masts

The height of these at 15 - 35metres will have significant impact on the landscape.

11.6.3 Landscape and townscape resources

Along the length of the route

Eskbank station to Brewers Bush Bridge

The bridge crossing of the A7 is referred to as “slight”. The bridge will form a major structure and will have significant impact on road travellers altering the horizon for both South and North motorists. The bridge will not be screened by woodland, as stated, from Dalhousie Mains Cottages.

11.9 Operational impacts

Again reference to ”half hourly service”, this is in two directions and as such 15 minute interval between trains at any one point.

Draft Code of Construction Practice

4.2 Noise Control

The noise levels in a)(I) & (ii) do not agree with than those set out in Section 5 of the Environmental Statement where lower levels are stated as the basis of construction noise impact.

Peer Review of Noise & Vibration and Air Quality Chapters of the Environmental Statement

Sections 3.1 & 3.2 Noise & Vibration

Under this Section the Peer Review covers Section 5 of the Environmental Statement and as such the clause numbers referred to below are those of the ES as quoted in the Peer Review.

5.2.1 Sources

The last paragraph identifies that “bridge works may require road closures and to avoid excessive disruption this work may need to be carried out at night”, it is further identified elsewhere in the document that work at the A7 crossing at Hardengreen roundabout could be in excess of 12 months. Given the possible disruption at night time, it is important that adequate mitigation measures are put in place to both reduce the periods involved and disturbance caused.

5.2.3 Criteria

The argument put forward in the PR for the adoption of L Amax in lieu of L Aeq.1hr as a night-time criteria would appear sound. A maximum level is easier to monitor and control than average level over an extended period, whether it be 8 or 12 hours.

5.3.4 & 5.3.5 Predicted noise levels and assessment

The PR identifies failings in the ES that should be addressed.

The ES bases its predictions on representative receptor locations, which in initial assessment is reasonable, in actuality receptors outside those initially selected may require additional mitigation mesures.

5.3.6 Mitigation

Not only should mitigation measures be further reviewed under the detail design stage, further review should take place in the field. There are a number of variables involved in assessing noise reduction and sound levels that cannot be fully predicted by calculation alone.

3.3 Air Quality

Under this Section the Peer Review covers Section 6 of the Environmental Statement and as such the clause numbers referred to below are those of the ES as quoted in the Peer Review.

2.2 Site Visit

This appears to cover the area south of Hardengreen, Lasswade is referred to as being the most northerly point visited although this does not fall on the line of the proposed railway. Clarification of exact extent would be welcome.

6.4 Construction Impacts

Given the mitigation measures written into the ES, dust should not then create a problem during construction, this was successfully managed during the cutting of the Eskbank By-pass (the section of A7 from Dobies’ roundabout to Hardengreen roundabout.

6.5 Operational Impacts

As commented in Section 7 of the ES no consideration appears to have been given to the change in traffic type, i.e. increase in HGV’s resultant from the expansion of the Borders region.

Report Statement

This paragraph of the report indicates that it was carried out to a brief and scope agreed with the Project Manager, the limitations of which are not noted in the PR.

The answers provided within the Supplementary Memoranda clarify a great many of the issues with the ES.

Supplementary Memorandum on the Environmental Statement

Question 3 Answer:

3.2 The answer here provides a new set of design criteria from that quoted in Section 5 of the ES , The Draft Code of Construction Practice and the PR.

3.4 What constitutes “sensitive properties”?

Question 19 Answer:

It is noted that bridges shall be subject to the “approval of the local planning authority”.

Supplementary Memorandum on the Project Description

Question 3 Answer:

3.3 It is stated the “Bill does not authorise operation after construction”. The ES is based on a number of criteria established from the Class of engine, number of carriages, frequency of service etc. if the Bill does not control operation after construction, what does?

3.5 – 3.6 Whilst the ES is based around a single track, passenger only railway does the Bill limit the railway to this usage? Will another Bill be required for the railway to be upgraded?

Footnotes:

² PAN 56 uses an even stricter value of 13 dB for the difference between indoor and outdoor levels.

³ The Environmental Statement does not explicitly states this limit, but does use it in table 5.5.

⁴ 3 dB correction from the values in PAN 56, annex 1, to adjust for tranquil areas.

⁵ 3 dB correction from the values in PAN 56, annex 1, to adjust for tranquil areas.

⁶ 3 dB correction from the values in the WHO document to obtain free field values.

⁷ Moderate annoyance limit for outdoor living areas.

⁸ Based on the nighttime value, using common practice 10 dB difference between night and day.