EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL

EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL Hearing held at Marriott Hotel, Edinburgh Tuesday, 28 November 2006 Group 20 RATHO AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY COUNCIL (Lead Objector) Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Hearing held on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 Group 20 RATHO AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY COUNCIL Assessor: Professor Hugh Begg For the Promoter: Mr Malcolm Thomson QC For the Objector: Professor Graves (Householder) Witnesses for the Promoter: Mr Kevin Murray, Senior Project Manager, tie Ltd Mr Gary Coutts, Principal Engineer, Scott Wilson Railways Mr Alan Somerville, Commercial Manager (Heavy Rail), tie Ltd Mr Mark Cuthbert, Managing Director, Progressive Partnership Mr Malcolm Bissett, Senior Highways Engineer, Halcrow Mr Steve Mitchell, Technical Director, ERM Mr Steve Purnell, Principal Partner, ERM Ms Alison Gorlov, Partner, John Kennedy & Co Ms Gail Jeffrey, Associate, Scott Wilson [The Hearing resumed at 2.36 pm] Assessor: Good afternoon, everybody. First of all, my apologies to Group 20 for having kept you waiting. I am very much obliged to you for suiting our timetable. Welcome to this session of the Assessor Hearings for Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill. As you know, at the first session of this inquiry, I made a number of remarks and I think those are available to you and so I will not read to them. As usual, for health and safety, there are a few domestic matters. The nearest toilets are through the door to your left. If we hear a fire alarm it is not a drill and we should move, without delay and in an orderly fashion, following the signage which, in this hotel, is very clearly marked. Finally, could I say to everyone in the room that all mobile phones should be shut off throughout this session. I hope we make good progress and we will sit for as long as we can make that progress. I made the suggestion at the beginning of the day that, only in Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 1 exceptional circumstances, would we continue after 4.30pm, but we will see how it goes. We will take short breaks at appropriate intervals on request, for comfort and to arrange our papers. I would just emphasise once again that I have the written evidence before me and there is no reason to repeat the points made there, unless this is required for directly answering questions. Brevity and clarity, as ever, are of the essence. With these preliminary matters out of the way, we can move on with this Group and ask Mr Thomson to begin questioning the witnesses. Mr Thomson: Mr Murray, I wonder if I could ask you the usual first question, and that is to help us identify the relevant plan from the ES drawing. A. Yes, certainly. In the ES drawings, the usual figures are 13.6 G, 13.6 I, both in the landscape section. There is also a useful photo-montage at 13.7G. Q. A. I think 13.8 has also been copied and provided. Yes. Q. Thank you. And at which chord of the railway line are we dealing with this time? A. It is the southwest chord at Roddinglaw. Q. I propose that we move onto the first topic. I have no substantive questions on it. Assessor: Thank you very much indeed. Professor Graves, you have a panel of witnesses here. Please address your questions. Mr Thomson will assist you in direction to the right person, if that is necessary. Professor Graves: The first thing we need to establish is whether this is what will be referred to. [Discussion about which bundle and papers to use] Mr Thomson: The three that you have been handed today come from the environmental statement, and the photomontages are intended to be helpful. It starts with the Promoter’s proposal, and then looks at the various options that have been suggested. Professor Graves: You will excuse me if I am a blunderbuss, pointed vaguely in this direction over here, so I am sure that one of you will have an answer to this. This is not really part of the evidence but it is just something that we have heard recently. I am just wondering whether it would be helpful if you could tell us whether this is true. Is it true that the station will be lower now, underneath the airport? Is that true? And will that have an impact on the Roddinglaw issue? Mr Murray: There is no change. The Bill has limits within it, of course, which we can deviate within, but there is no change to the scheme as it was conceived and as we promote the Bill. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 2 Q. This leads into my other question. Would it be possible to lower the elevated section at Roddinglaw – not necessarily by 5 metres but perhaps by 2 metres or what-have-you? This all ties in with the issue of your inclines and the design criteria. Is it possible? Mr Coutts: Yes, it is possible, but there is an additional cost to that lowering, which is recorded in papers which we have supplied to you. Q. I will go on then, if I may. This is the statement we made which is under the Promoter’s rebuttal, item 66, which is Kennedy, issue 8, or rather issue 7. You say that: “The Promoter has demonstrated that an exponential cost increase would be incurred if the railway was lowered through the grade separated junction.” Is it not true that this exponential increase is beyond 5 metres, and that 5 metres is in fact the point at which this becomes exponential? Mr Coutts: There is an exponential cost increase if we deepen the proposed railway, and that would include going from this current proposed position and drawing a line through 2, 5 and then 10 metre lowering, with 10 metre lowering being the maximum lowering that we could achieve and maintain the geometry for the proposed railway. When you draw it out, there is effectively an exponential cost increase from the baseline, which is what is proposed in the Bill. Looking at the graph that you supplied, I read it that the baseline is £5.6 million. Mr Coutts: Yes. Q. And that then, for 2 metres, that goes up to £6.2 million. Mr Coutts: Yes. Q. And for 5 metres, that goes to £7.5 million. Mr Coutts: Correct. So there is not an exponential increase – there is an increase but, beyond that 5 metre point, that is the point at which it becomes exponential, is that correct? Mr Coutts: If you draw out the graph, it draws out as an exponential graph, and that is what has been provided – I am sorry – I do not understand your answer. Looking at the graph, the curve comes along and then goes up at 5 metres. At that point, it is exponential. Mr Coutts: The whole graph is an exponential curve. Q. Right, but in practical terms, the 5 metres gives you an increase of about £1.8 million beyond your baseline cost. Mr Coutts: Yes, that is correct. Q. On your response 63, you said that Q. Q. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 3 “The Promoter sent a detailed written explanation of the need for a GSJ.” Is it true that you never provided evidence of the timetabling required? Mr Coutts: Could I pass that question over to Kevin? Mr Murray: I think Alan – Mr Sommerville: I do not know what has been supplied to you, but I can run through the arguments of why we need to do it. Q. That was not my question. My question is that we asked, in fact, for the timetabling which underpins your decision in relation to this particular junction. We have never been supplied with that. Mr Murray: I honestly cannot remember, Professor Graves. You may be correct. I think we have provided you with information on timetabling, but whether that has been sufficient or not, I cannot recall. Q. Basically, the issue here is that we would have wanted to have information on the timetabling, to help us understand some of your decisions in relation to why you need the GSJ. We have asked for this a number of times but we have never received this information. What you did offer, in fairness, was to go Glasgow, to see the modelling that was involved, but that is not what we asked for: we asked for the timetabling and the actual demonstration of the evidence for the timetabling, which we never received. Assessor: Professor Graves, as you know, the Bill is about the construction of the railway, but you seem to be talking about the operation of it. Am I missing a point here? You will have to excuse me. Q. Basically, one of the problems we have always had is that we have tried to understand some of the decisions underlying - where the evidence is coming from, to make decisions about the final design, or the design options. What I am trying to illustrate here is that we have asked for different types of information which we have not received and this has therefore made it difficult for us to be able to ask questions about how you can alter the timetable, for example, to reduce the height of the grade separated junction at Roddinglaw. Assessor: So this all relates back to the GSJ, and that is where it fits into the alternative routes that we have identified here. Q. This fits into two things. First of all, in relation to how we can minimise the impact upon Roddinglaw and obviously, if this information had been available, perhaps there might have been options that we could have discussed at the time which, hopefully, might have improved the situation from our point of view. Assessor: Professor, we are where we are today, and that is all I can say to you. You are here to ask questions not about why we are here today, but about Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 4 what the mitigation aspects are. One of the matters that you are raising is the possibility of an alternative route altogether. Q. Yes. Assessor: It would be for you to persuade the Bill Committee that you had an alternative route which would improve the GSJ – I accept all of that – rather than the one which has already go the equivalent of what you and I might call outline permission Q. Yes, but the difficulty we have in practice is that it is difficult to persuade the Committee if we do not have the technical information to be able to argue about the fact that it was 2 metres, 3 metres or 5 metres lower, for example. We also produced a series of options in relation to the Roddinglaw grade separated junction. What criteria did you use to develop those options? Mr Coutts: First of all, the requirement was set out up in the operations information. The requirement for a grade separated junction on the existing Edinburgh/Glasgow line – the criteria for that in terms of the railway itself would be that the mainline speeds on the existing E&G, the Edinburgh/Glasgow mainline, would remain unaltered, i.e., 100mph. The turnout from the junction, i.e., the speed at which the train would go through the junction and leave the existing E&G would also be 100mph, so that set out our requirements for the track and so on, to provide geometry, to inform the design of the geometry. In addition to that, we have also looked at what is the best form of the grade separation in terms of what line would go over which to form the grade separation. We have also looked at minimising the land-take overall, as a consequence of the grade separation, because are obviously diverging from the existing mainline. There is also the concern about the impacts on the local environment, particularly in terms of people in the houses, in terms of proximity to receptors, in picking the line that we have. There are also the cost implications of engineering and mitigation – to mitigate impact as a result of the grade separation. In addition that, the safety requirements must obviously be considered, particularly with regard to land-take and access to and from the railway, as well as the construction works and the impact that they can have on the local communities, as well as the permanent impacts as well. Those are the main themes that we have looked at. To summarise, it is the engineering aspects, the environmental aspects, the safety aspects and the commercial aspects. Q. When was this documented? Mr Coutts: The reports were documented in 2004, as part of work package 1 and work package 2 reports, which were submitted to tie, and these were developed in terms of the engineering, to inform the environmental statement Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 5 and the Parliamentary Bill, particularly the March plans and sections as well as the works clauses. Q. Why was this not available to use in early 2005? Mr Murray: I am not sure that there is a specific need or desire that the entirety of that work package of information was shared with everyone. It is an engineering report that looks at the scheme design at a point in time. It is purely a crystallisation of the scheme design. Where there have been specific queries around elements of the design, because this is a busy junction, we have tried to look very specifically at those queries, and referencing back to the design work that was done in the scheme design. It do not think it was deliberately not given – or I do not think it was something that, by necessity, was not made public, or it was not farmed out. It is it is actually quite a thick report. Assessor: Professor Graves, I understand your position, that the material is both opaque and flawed, in a nutshell, and there is no need to press that matter. That is your view. However, we have the Bill which has been through its preliminary stage now and we are where we are. Professor Graves: Then I would only question what is the point of today, then? This exercise is surely to look in some detail at how the decisions have been made. Assessor: No, the decision has been made. As I understand it, and please correct me if you think I am wrong, the equivalent of an outline permission has been granted and we are here to establish the impact of that on certain objectors. If that impact is so great that the Bill should not proceed, then that is one conclusion that could be reached. However, the principle of the Bill has been accepted. Am I missing your point, Sir? Professor Graves: I think I am missing your point. Assessor: There is little point in pursuing the notion that this procedure is opaque and flawed, because we are where we are today. If you have an alternative route that you wish to promote and demonstrate that it is better than the one that has already received parliamentary approval, that would be one approach that would be open to you. However, to demonstrate that the Parliament should not have brought us to this position is not a particularly fruitful way forward. Professor Graves: Let me put it this way. Part of the problem is looking at how the decisions have been made is that any further decision from an engineering and design point of view will be based upon the same type of criteria. Our argument that some of the judgments have been flawed, based upon poor information, poor evidence and what-have-you, means that we go forward and we hit the same sort of walls in terms of not moving. It is quite clear that tie and the consultants have come to a conclusion on which they are not prepared to move. If they are using the same evidence base, we do not move forward, because there is no apparent technical justification for any change. Any technical basis upon which they are putting forward the existing proposal Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 6 needs to be challenged for us to be able to say that this decision-making here is biased, unbalanced, flawed or what-have-you. Looking from the outside in, what I cannot see is how they came to some of these conclusions. Assessor: Could I suggest that one way forward might be – and I may not have been helping you as much as you may have wished – but let me try this one with you. Perhaps you could ask the engineers whether they are confident that their decisions are sound. Professor Graves: I am sure they are, but that does not mean to say that they have not necessarily made certain judgments which are questionable. Assessor: Can you then just agree to disagree with them, and move forward with the proposals that you have, which I am sure would be interesting to hear and they might be persuasive. Professor Graves: I am still having difficulty with this because, in my line of business, I use science and a good evidence base to make decisions. What I have seen in terms of the decision-making here is that I have been looking for the good evidence and the consistency in the criteria that they have used, so that we could be helpful and hopefully they could be helpful in looking at alternatives. Assessor: I am going to offer a 10-minute recess and you might have a word with the Clerk, who has long experience with this. It may be that she can establish a route forward. I have no intention whatsoever, Professor, of trying to cut off any fruitful line of questioning and I hope you appreciate that, but there is a procedural framework within which we have to operate. We will take a 10minute recess and I will ask you to consult Miss Sutherland. [The Hearing adjourned at 2.57pm] [The Hearing resumed at 3.07pm] Assessor: I am extremely grateful to all concerned for making best use of that time. Could I revert to you, Professor? Professor Graves: You will have to bear with me while I try to work with the new guidance. Assessor: Very few of us, apart from the Clerk, have dealt with private bills. Much of it is new to many of us and we will give as much latitude as possible. Professor Graves: Let us go back to the dawn of time, or rather to October 2004. What road options did you actually assess in relation to doing something about the impact of a grade separated junction? A. First of all, we obviously recognised that the former grade separation would mean that we would not be able to maintain an acceptable highways alignment north of the existing railway, from the existing railway bridge, as a direct consequence of the grade separate. Effectively, what we generate is Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 7 three railways at three different levels and we cannot achieve alignment through that section. We looked at and scheduled a number of options to cross over and effectively bypass Roddinglaw itself and bridge over the existing railway and the new railway, on both the western side and the eastern side. We discounted the eastern side particularly because of the higher elevation of the railway flyover line and so we looked more towards the western side of Roddinglaw itself, to provide an alignment over the railway. In addition to that, we also looked at an option which would not bridge over the railway but which would provide connectivity to the existing road network. This is the option that has been selected and is scheduled to be built. The two options that came out of this process were to bridge over the river on the western side – something very similar to the option that RDDC have mooted, as well as the option which is in the Bill. The decision-making processes as to how we came up with the preferred option were based on a number of criteria and, again, I go back to my previous statement about the engineering aspects and the costs aspects, the safety aspects and the environmental aspects of each option. It is worth noting that the requirement to bridge over the railway adds significant cost to the diversion of the Roddinglaw Road. On balance, we felt that the version not to bridge over would be the prepared solution. Q. A. Did you not consider closing the road completely? No, we did not consider closing the road completely. The basis for providing the road is to maintain connectivity across the railway for, particularly, the people in Roddinglaw, obviously, and other road users, from the north side to the south side of the existing railway. By closing the road, we felt that that loss of amenity would be felt at that point if it had not been retained. Within the supplementary drawings that we have supplied, we have shown what potentially would be the change in the access arrangements if the road was severed, which is contained on drawing 20013. [Document located] It would be easier to label these. I have called these A, B, C, D, E, F and so on. Q. Assessor: I am sorry, Professor, but I will go from the numbers on the bottom of the page, which are perfectly clear to me, in the bottom right hand corner. The reason I am saying that is because that is the convention we have used throughout. A. This first plan illustrates the change in traffic movements, in terms of Roddinglaw itself. It was a public road within Bill and basically Roddinglaw became effectively a cul-de-sac. We are showing the routing that would be required to access the A8 corridor to the north and it would be either to the west through Ratho or probably to the east via Gogarstone Road, to mean connectivity. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 8 Professor Graves: Do you not say that, basically, this is a relatively minor road, in effect? It allows the community to get access to the A8 and I think there is a statement that is made. A. As you suggest, it is a relatively small country road. However, it is a public road which is used not only by residents but by others too. It is a public road. Q. But, in practice, if you were looking at the usage of a road, what you are really saying that this map shows us merely the impact upon Roddinglaw cottages per se, rather than on the rest of the community. It extends to the areas to the south, down at Hermiston, onto Calder Road, and extends to the north as well. The line towards Roddinglaw is obviously – because this is a specific issue with the objector in terms of the issues pertaining to Roddinglaw itself – it extends, as you have just seen, to the main tributaries into the western end of Edinburgh, i.e., the A8 to the north, and the A71 to the south. What I was trying to gather here is who, in practice, will be affected most severely? It is likely to be Roddinglaw Cottages. I would agree with that, yes. In terms of the Ratho community, that is about 100 people, and they will more than easily be able to get a link either through to the south for the existing roads, or to the north to the A8, if the road is closed. Is that correct? Correct. So we have a situation where Roddinglaw Cottages would be the main people being ‘penalised’ by the closing of the road. Not necessarily. Who else would be? There is the Business Park, which is obviously in operation five days a week I would surmise, and SASA as well, and any other residents who use the road, who may be outwith the immediate confines of the area. What is the impact in terms of the extra journey time, to the north in effect, by closing all the – By not providing the route? I cannot tell you that figure. In practice, if we are talking about the Business Park, is it not true that they could easily get either from the south or the north via existing routes? They could indeed, yes. Yes, okay. Going back in time, again to the dawn of history, you came up with two options, one of which was crossing the railway. I am just trying to consolidate my thinking on this. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Assessor: That is very useful, because you are consolidating mine. Professor Graves: The second one was the option of what you called the ‘western diversion’. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 9 A. Q. A. Q. Yes. When you talked about the criteria that you used, you talked about cost, safety, environmental impact and engineering constraints. Yes. Why did you not at this time – if you have a cost model in front of you with option A and option B – you also have the issue about closing the road which, clearly, would have cost implications in terms of minimising costs. We are talking about a saving of about £1.9 million, are we not? Approximately. By closing the road. Okay. Also, by providing this Western diversion, you are in effect introducing two new junctions, is that correct? Correct. Is it not true that, when you introduce junctions, you actually increase safety issues, from a road design point of view? Correct. So, once again, if you are looking at the option of crossing the line, and also the western diversion, then you are talking about a situation where crossing the line should not have all the hazards of the extra junction – am I right, or am I wrong? No, there would still be a junction required with either option, because you would need to tie into the road on the other side, and provide the junction for the turn-back towards the middle land, which would be on the northern side, to the south of the tie-in point of the road, or indeed for a new junction to tie in, to come off to go to the cottages at Roddinglaw itself. So either option would still require a junction. But the benefit of no road, of course, gives you a safety option. It improves safety, because you do not have to worry about the extra junctions. But that is a loss of amenity and access, by not providing a road. I understand, and I will come to that. In terms of reduced cost, the safety implications are improved by not having a western diversion. You then have the question of trying to cost-in the impact from the amenity point of view, yes? Yes. If I said to you that, having asked the Roddinglaw residents, that they were happy not to have a western diversion, and they – on a daily basis they would have this amenity impact – what would you say to that? I am sorry – could you repeat that? Yes. You are talking about amenity. On one side it is business and on the other side it is residents. Clearly, SASA will have their own bridges, whatever happens, so they will have access north to the fields. So we are talking about the Business Park as being possible people who might be affected by it. In A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 10 A. your survey, what was the feeling from the Business Park about the road option not being there? We have not specifically asked the Business Park. I am not aware of what their feelings would be about closing the road. As I said from the start, we have not considered closing the road permanently. We believe that this is a public road that is used by not only the residents and the Business Park but by others, and to maintain that public road and the amenity and connectivity that it provides for not only Roddinglaw but others, we have proposed to divert the road permanently. So you cannot really quantify it. You have a view that it is ‘a good thing’ to have this road, but that is about all. We believe that we are maintaining the connectivity which currently exists and mitigating the impact of the de-separated junction on Roddinglaw Road. But you cannot actually quantify it in terms of an extra x-number of minutes to a journey, one way or another. We can quantify it in terms of providing the additional times provided by the two options that we have looked at, but I cannot provide what the timing would be in terms of not providing the road. By the introduction of the western diversion, would you say that you would have an impact upon the residents at Roddinglaw? I would suggest that we are maintaining connectivity across, in terms of amenity, for the residents specifically, across the railway. Yes, Okay. What about Ratho – do you think that will have an impact upon them in any way? If they use the road, obviously it would maintain the connectivity that perhaps they use at the moment. What do you say to the view of a number of residents of both Ratho and Roddinglaw that they are very concerned about the fact that you are going to have, particularly, the junction at Roddinglaw and also the junction at Freelands Road. They are very concerned about that, from a safety point of view. Any option that we have looked at must be compliant to standards. The work that we have done to date is compliant with standards, and particularly DNRB, as earlier on today, and also any council requirements. When you say that it must satisfy requirements, for example, let us talk about lines of sight. You make a statement – I am sorry, if I could just add, in terms of line of sight safety, that is issue 3, and is probably more for Malcolm Bissett to reply on specific issues with regard to road safety. To me, there is an integrated issue and it is rather difficult, bitting and bobbing about. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 11 Assessor: I quite understand that. The tapestry lends itself to questions to be divided up into the issues and I believe that these issues were agreed through the clerking system. Are you able to reach the point you want through issue 1, or do you want to hold back until issue 3? Professor Graves: I am quite happy to do so but obviously, in terms of the viability of the road, I have raised the issue about safety and one of these will include things like line of sight to traffic and so on. I can pick that up again, if – Assessor: You have the opportunity to draw all these things together – that is the notion behind a closing statement, submissions and so on. Professor Graves: At the time at which you designed the road, were you clear in your mind about what the design speed of the road was going to be? A. Yes, that would have been based on the highway designer’s site visit and making engineering judgment, on which to base their design. That is how it started, yes. Q. A. Can you help me with this question? Is the design speed the same as the actual speed limit? No, it is not. Again, I would suggest that issues related to that should be directed towards Mr Bissett as opposed to me. I will get Paul to make one or two notes there, and I will confer with him when we get on to Malcolm Bissett. Is it not true that, by putting in this western diversion, one of the impacts on the Roddinglaw residents is the fact that they will lose parking beside their houses, and they will have to park their cars elsewhere on that street? No, the affected area that you mention, where residents currently park their cars, is on the opposite side from their houses at the moment, i.e., on the Business Park side of the road. The line of sight, I believe, from Malcolm’s work, is that the sight lines are required to go through that area and therefore parking would have to be prohibited in that area, as well as at the junction itself. But parking would be possible on the other side of the road, directly outside of the houses. The point I am making is that they will be affected and there will be people who will no longer be able to park opposite their houses if they have more than one car, for example. There is a very limited amount of parking there. There will be a change, but I would suggest that residents will not generally have to cross the road to get to their vehicles – which is what they do at the moment. Q. A. Q. A. Assessor: Will a number of on-street parking places be lost? A. We do not believe they will be. Professor Graves: Could I come back to that point later on, because that is an issue which I think the Roddinglaw residents would disagree with. The implication from our point of view is that, if you are not able to park outside your house, then obviously you have to walk further to your house from your Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 12 A. parked car. Particularly in the evenings, that is a potential hazard: you are increasing the hazard by increasing the pedestrian routing effect. As I say, the parking provision will be allowed on the opposite side of the road, i.e., the side were the cottages are located. Assessor: Is that a smaller distance to the residents’ houses than where they customarily park at the moment? A. Yes, as I have mentioned, they would not have to cross the road. Q. A. Is that a safer option? In terms of someone not crossing the road then obviously, yes, it would be. Professor Graves: I suspect that I am starting to come into the next part of the – Assessor: If you feel that you have completed an issue, that is fine. We could ask Mr Thomson if he has any matters and then we could simply move on to issue 2. Mr Thomson? Mr Coutts, questioned by Mr Thomson Mr Thomson: Looking at the plan 20013, if you were coming out of the Roddinglaw Business Park and wanted to go to the airport, do you say that you would have as easy a trip there if Roddinglaw Road was closed, as proposed by the Objector? Or is it preferable now? A. I am sorry – could you repeat the question? Q. If you come out of Roddinglaw Business Park and you want to go to the airport, would you have an easier trip if Roddinglaw Road was closed at the bridge, as proposed by the Objectors, or if you used the road network as it is now? It would be easier to use it as it is now. Would it be easier or more difficult with the Promoter’s proposed solution, after the grade separated junctions? Than closing the road – yes it would be. Would there be more junctions to negotiate using the Objector’s proposal than using the Promoter’s proposal? Yes, there would be. Thank you, Sir. I have no further questions. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Assessor: Thank you very much. We can go on to Issue No. 2, which I am advised is about Access. Mr Thomson: I have no initial questions, Sir. Assessor: Professor Graves? I have Issue No. 2 down as Access. We have ‘box 2’. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 13 Professor Graves: Other than raking over the old coals, I do not really have any questions at this point. Assessor: In this case, we can move on to ‘box 3’. I have that labelled as Traffic Impact/Safety. Mr Thomson? Mr Thomson: Yes, Sir, I would like to invite Mr Murray to give us an update on recent events on this topic. Mr Murray: Just very briefly – and I am sure we will cover this in a little more detail – just to update, there was a site meeting to discuss sight lines at Roddinglaw at the junction. Assessor: Which junction are we speaking about here? We have a couple of junctions. Mr Murray: I am sorry – at Roddinglaw Cottages. There was also a meeting at the junction at Freelands Road as well. There was a meeting and that was specifically to look at sight lines. There is some information that is followed up there, and shared with the Objector. It was a practical meeting to look at the aspects of sight lines and whether those were deliverable. I will leave that there if I may, and perhaps that can be explored in a little more detail. Assessor: Thank you for that update. Mr Thomson, is there anything further? Mr Thomson: I thought there might be an update about the SASA (Scottish Agricultural Science Agency) bridge as well. Mr Murray: I am sorry – I was just going to follow up with that. At a recent meeting with the Ratho and District Community Council, we were asked if we could approach SASA, to see whether their accommodation structure could accommodate pedestrian access. As it was, in the Bill as it stood, it was purely for SASA’s use. We approached SASA and discussed that with them, and we have had confirmation back that we have shared with the Objectors and we have lodged with the Private Bills Unit, to confirm that the SASA bridge can indeed be used for pedestrian access. There will be disclaimers, we are told, so that people need to look after their own safety when they cross the bridge, but that is no more than anyone would expect. However, this means that the amenity aspects of a pedestrian walking down Roddinglaw Road is actually maintained. Rather than going round the longer diversion route as a pedestrian, you actually have the continuity that you have today. Assessor: If those are all the preliminaries, then Professor Graves it is over to you. Mr Cuthbert, questioned by Professor Graves Professor Graves: Part of this covers the issue about how you have surveyed people in relation to this. I need to be back a little bit here. I know that this is Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 14 A. anathema to the powers that be but one of the issues here is obviously that of obtaining views from the local residents, which you were asked to do by the City of Edinburgh Council Director of Planning. You undertook a survey and that survey showed, on that basis, that there was no support for the closing of the road, is that correct? I am Mark Cuthbert, from the research agency who undertook the survey. The closing of the road, which we called ‘Scenario 1’, was overall a route that was favoured by 34 per cent of the individuals who were surveyed. And that 34 per cent included residents from that site and that postal code as well? Yes. Would you say that those were local residents? The definitions are, I suppose, subjective – yes and no. I can tell you what the percentage of the EH28 residents was. Is that a postcode? EH28 is a postcode, yes. For the closing of the road, that is Scenario 1 as we have described it, in EH28, 25 per cent favoured that option, and 35 per cent favoured the westerly diversion route. That is from the EH28 postcode, which is a local postcode. What were the numbers involved? What were the actual responses? From the EH28 region? Yes – the 25 per cent and the 35 per cent? There were 85 respondents. So that was from 85, and what was the breakdown of that? From EH28, with 85 respondents, 25 per cent favoured scenario 1, which was the road closure. How many? Twenty-five per cent. Yes, but how many people? [21] And you say that that is statistically significant, is that correct? The statistical significance of it is only down – there is a statistically significant difference between attitudes to scenario 2, from EH28 residents, and EH129 residents – that is a valid statistical difference in that 35 per cent of those residents who are for the EH28 postcode favoured option 2, but only 21 per cent of EH129 respondents favoured option 2. That was a statistically significant difference between those two perspectives. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Assessor: I will have to interrupt because the Committee, at its meeting of 21 September, has indicated a number of areas where I am not to take further evidence, and one of these is the adequacy of the accompanying documents. Under that particular head, there is the matter of consultation. This clearly falls into that box and, accordingly, I am unable to go forward along this line. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 15 If the question is that you are disputing the results of the survey then so be it, and I have noted that, and then we can perhaps move on. Professor Graves: Okay. It is just that my interpretation of that - and obviously we need to be guided by the Public Bills Unit - is that they may not have disputed the process but, if there is data within that which is questionable then surely that needs to be lifted out. Assessor: The position is that one of the matters, as I understand it, to which weight was given in reaching the particular route that has been taken, was that there was no support for the position that you are adopting. I will decide what weight to give that. We know that you dispute the results of the survey. I understand your line of argument but we are playing a particular game and the rules are clear. If we are to get ahead, I do not want to have to keep blowing the whistle. Professor Graves: All I would do is to ask you in particular to look very carefully at the statistical inference, and at the fact that the sampling was not from local residents in one place and also, in particular, the interpretation of the data, which we say is not statistically significant. Assessor: I will be looking at how the situation might have changed if the results of the survey had gone another way. That is the position. I certainly will not be looking at the data itself, or the adequacy of the consultation or whatever. The analogy is with weights in a pan, and you are asking me to take one weight and put it in the other pan. Professor Graves: I think all I am doing is highlighting some of the issues that we are concerned about, and we would hope that you would look very carefully indeed at the approach taken, and at how valid that approach was. [Looking through documents] Excuse me, but I am trying to find out where I have hidden my other comments. Assessor: I recognise that you had prepared a line and that you may wish to adjust that line. Take all the time you need to make your case. Professor Graves: We are now at the ‘stop off at current road’, and we are still on that, and we are looking at the design of the particular road, and especially the issue of the junction at Freelands Road. What you have said is that: “The RSA will be developed to complement the additional detail. If, however, the process of signalised traffic control is necessary to mitigate any safety risks, which cannot be lowered to a level that is acceptable to the designers of CEC -” Does that mean CEC designer? Is that their designer? I am just reading what you have written. It says ‘which is acceptable to the designer of CEC’. Assessor: That is a typo. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 16 Mr Bissett, questioned by Professor Graves So it means design, does it? So it is ‘and’, okay. How would this work? How can we simplify it from my point of view? You will have a situation where you have traffic coming east to west, under an iron bridge. You will have traffic coming down a slope towards your new proposed junction – that is, the traffic will come from west to east towards the bridge. Then, on the right hand side, at approximately 90 metres – and these are the lines of sight – you will have this junction on the right hand side. How do you think the signalised traffic lights will work there, assuming that they are needed? Mr Bissett: Traffic signals are provided on these bridges, in keeping with what is in the rest of the area, if we look at narrow bridges. That is something that CEC have been looking at historically. Q. I understand that, and I understand that there are other examples of simple bridges. Ratho is one example and down beside the Royal Bank of Scotland there is another one. I am talking about this particular situation and, clearly, from your perspective as a road designer, looking at possibly having to mitigate – assuming the risk analysis and the risk assessment qualification that you talked about earlier on comes into bearing – how do you think you would provide that type of signalised junction? There would be a traffic signal on one side of the bridge and a traffic signal on the other, so it would effectively be what is called ‘shuttle working’. One side would be allowed to go and then they would receive a red, and then the other side would be able to go, and then that would receive a red. What would be the implication be for the people who are coming out of the new junction, coming from Roddinglaw? They will turn out of that junction and either receive a green and progress under the bridge, or receive a red and wait in the queue. So you are not anticipating putting signals on that junction from Roddinglaw onto Freelands Road? It would only be underneath the bridge itself? Would there not be tailbacks and an issue associated with that? Based on the traffic figures, I do not think the tailbacks would be sufficient, but that would be something that would have to be looked at in detail, as regards to the length of the signal timings and phasings. So basically, at some point, if this were to go ahead, you would have standing traffic, either west or east, and obviously people using the junction onto Freelands Road at the same time. That is what would happen in practice, am I right? In practice, you would have the signals at the bridge and then a priority junction onto Freelands Road. In terms of your constraints that you mention here, there was also the issue about lines of sight, which I do not think are referred to here. If I may pick them up at this point, rather than having to go forward, you have said, as a Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 17 A. Q. A. road designer, that the lines of sight with Freelands Road and the Roddinglaw Road junction would be acceptable. Yes. Could you explain your thinking behind that to us, please? Based on the findings, at least in what is written down in the DMRB, we have to provide a certain visibility from either side of a junction. What we have provided is in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. That is a very thick document and I go a little cross-eyed when I look at it, to say the least. But, when I refer to the design manual, what it actually tells us is that there is a whole series of options. If you are talking about the design speed of a major road in kph – I do not know what the kph is in miles per hour, but you are dealing with kph and so we will have to deal with that. What you are saying effectively is that you talk about something called an 85th percentile speed, of the design speed. How do you determine that? To start with, you would design the existing alignment. In this case, it is a junction, so what you are looking at is the design speed of the major road. In this case, it is what dictates the visibility. The engineer assesses that, based on engineering judgment and then that is confirmed by a speed survey. Have you done a speed survey? Speed surveys have been done in these areas, yes, but I do not have the results of that yet. So that is something that you have only done recently? Yes, very recently. Is that within the last fortnight, since our meeting on site, I suspect? If we are saying that the road speed is 60 mph, or approximately 100 kph, or whatever we are talking about, and you talk about your 85th percentile, you do not actually achieve your lines of sight do you, under that situation? If you assume that the design speed is the same as the speed limit – and in this case, our assumption is that the design speed is 60 kph. So clearly, there is an issue in relation to the reality of what people do at that point, and your perception as a designer and whether you can achieve your lines of sight. At the moment, there is a big question mark above that. When, having done your traffic survey of traffic speed, is it as simple as saying that 100 cars have gone through and the maximum speed of those 100 cars was 50 mph and therefore that is the 100th percentile? Am I right and is that how you do it, or is there something more specific in the way that you calculate your percentile? It is taken over a longer period. I am not an expert on specific speed surveys. No, I am just taking 100, for argument’s sake, but it could be 5,000, but 100 being 100 per cent. Would you just take 85 per cent of that to give you the percentile? Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 18 A. Basically, what you do it get rid of the top 15. If it was 100 cars, you would get rid of the top 15 fastest vehicles, and that would leave you with the 85th percentile speed – it would effectively the 85th fastest car out of those 100. So how many cars does it take to have an accident? How many cars does it take to have an accident? Yes. The point I am getting at here is that we have a situation where we have – from my own experience – people turn into – Q. A. Q. Assessor: Are you asking a question? Professor Graves: I am sorry, Sir, I apologise. Is it not true that, when we were on site on that very wet day, that we saw a group of cars coming through very fast indeed? I think Mr Coutts had to move quickly to one side. Would you accept that this is in fact typical of the type of driver who uses that road? A. I could not comment on whether that was a typical driver or not? Q. The point I am making is that there is a big difference between idealised, theoretical predictions and the reality of what we find in practice. Assessor: I think we can accept that. If you want to hammer a nail in, then please do so, but I – Professor Graves: Plainly, there is another big question mark at the moment, in terms of whether you can achieve a safe junction there. A. It has not been confirmed. Q. So there is a question mark? Assessor: I think you have a concession there. Professor Graves: The fact that you actually have a fairly complex arrangement at that point, it is not just a case of people coming through the bridge, but you have at least three players, possibly, potentially, at any one point in time, being involved. Is that correct? A. Three players – as in? Q. A. Q. Road users, cars. Cars coming down from the west, one coming from the east, and one coming from the junction. Yes. So, at any point in time, would it be true to say that it was a relatively complex situation which may – even if you can squeeze out your lines of sight – create safety issues? I would say that it was a simple priority junction on a rural road. Okay. And the examples of the simple priority junction shown here do not show any evidence of having a vehicle coming through in the middle of the A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 19 A. Q. A. road, do they? They all assume, do they not, that you have two lanes on the carriageway. Yes. So you could be wrong, in terms of interpreting a simple junction. I would say that the junction onto Freeland Road, is a simple, rural junction, with limited traffic on it. Going to the Roddinglaw end of the area, do you think that you can achieve a safe junction there? Yes. You are aware of the concerns of the local residents? Yes. What can you say to help overcome these concerns? That the junction has been designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Again, do you have data to support this? Yes. So you have done measurements? You have actually done speed measurements? Speed measurements have been done at that as well. But you do not have them at the moment? No. So we have the same problem, do we not, in relation to Roddinglaw, as we have in relation to Freelands Road? The same, yes. When this data is produced, will it be available to RDCC, for example? Some of it will be, yes. I still do not understand this idea of the 85th percentile. Again, this is a clarification of a technical matter, I suspect, if you can bear with me. Where does it say in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges that you can go to the 85th percentile speed, to allow you essentially a concession in relation to the application of the lines of sight? The speed that you use is the design speed, so the difference between the design speed and the enforceable speed depends on the actual geometry of the existing road and how that ties in with the proposed alignment. In this case, it is purely the assessed design speed of the existing road that we are talking about. The question I asked was where in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges does it allow you to do this – this 85th percentile? Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 20 A. The 85th percentile is a speed that is discussed in TD993 of the DMRB. It is the alignment standard. There is a table in there, and that states all the design speeds. That is what we work to. Assessor: Are you using anything which is unusual? Is this a standard procedure? A. It is a standard procedure in the DMRB. Assessor: Perhaps, outside of the room, you could help the Professor. This is a very interesting area and I am sure you would find it useful. The point that you would be making, were this whole position to be undermined is - ? Professor Graves: The problem I have is that it is a judgmental issue. If you look at the design speed – if you go back to Freelands Road, which is a relatively straight road –by implication, the design geometry will in fact encourage speeding, will it not? That is coming particularly from west to east, along Freelands Road. A. On Freelands Road, we used engineering judgment at the time of assessing that, without any other information, and we have taken that to be 60 kph. Q. The point I am trying to make is that, at the moment, you have not really interpreted it. The table there, as I understand it, is in fact that you look at the various design geometries, and then you interpolate against the speed, to actually get what should be the appropriate the data that you would then use to determine your lines of sight and other factors. Am I right? Yes, everything hinges on design speed. That is the key parameter on which everything else is based. So, if you get that wrong – whether it be at Freelands Road or at Roddinglaw Road – that undermines the whole issue in terms of safety, as far as that is concerned. It means that you would have to reassess that against the next step up or down, whether it ended up. I am sorry to have been long-winded, but I was trying to pull out a better understanding of the thinking process which we are working with, in relation to getting some idea of the judgments being made about safety issues. A. Q. A. Q. Assessor: How are we standing there? Professor Graves: I hope that we can move on, but I am just having a quick check to see whether I can pick up any other issues in relation to that. If we did not have the diversion, it would be true to say that we would avoid some of these potential safety issues. A. If you did not have the diversion, you would not have the junctions, I guess. Q. Yes, that is fine. Assessor: That is exactly the line of questioning that is perfectly okay! [Laughter] Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 21 Professor Graves: That is one out of how many hundreds! When you have a first stage RSA, or was it a second stage – A. Stage 1. Q. Stage 1, the first stage, you say that “mitigation measures shall be designed into the approach to the junction of Roddinglaw Road. Mitigation has been identified as installing appropriate warning signage, informing drivers of the approaching junction and the provision of anti-skid surfacing.” Does that not imply that you are actually building in potential hazards, if you actually have to put into place the mitigation measures such as those? It was a comment made on our design from the Road Safety Auditor. The comment was that we should re-align the roads and put a tighter radius in at the end, to mitigate speeds along the long straight centre, but we looked at an alignment in that area, and the land constraints, it was found that that alignment was not acceptable and so we went back to the original alignment in order to mitigate the Road Safety Auditor’s concerns. We would put in antiskid surfacing, signage and that sort of thing – gateway treatments. A. Assessor: When you say ‘in the mitigation’, does it therefore make the junction safe? A. Yes, as long as it is satisfactory to the Road Safety Auditor, basically. Professor Graves: I think that deals with as much as I can see in relation to these issues. Assessor: Mr Thomson. Mr Coutts, questioned by Mr Thomson Mr Thomson: Yes, again, this is for Mr Coutts. Assessor: We are very grateful you are still here, Mr Coutts. Mr Thomson: When you were considering the proposal to block off Roddinglaw Road, and not to provide an alternative route, did you consider the needs of the Roddinglaw Cottages residents? A. Yes. Q. A. Q. A. Q. And did you consider the needs of the Roddinglaw Business Park? Yes. Did you consider the needs of SASA? Yes. And their employees? Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 22 A. Q. Yes. Did you consider the needs of other residents in the vicinity, who might be using Roddinglaw Road, either as a means of getting from A to B within the vicinity, or for getting in or out of the vicinity? Yes. Did you also consider the needs of people using Roddinglaw Road as some sort of through route from outside the vicinity to another destination outside of it? Yes. Thank you very much. A. Q. A. Q. Assessor: We might be in a position now to move on to Box 4, which is about property value. There is a small change in personnel. Mr Thomson, we are now on Box 4, Property Value. Mr Thomson: I have no initial questions. Assessor: Professor Graves? Professor Graves: I have just one question. We understand that there is a code, if I can just be clear about that. The reality, of course, is that any compensation that is provided may not actually cover the intrinsic value – the financial, for ex-acres of whatever, does not necessarily give you the intrinsic value of the land. It is only compensation in financial terms, am I correct? Ms Gorlov: The compensation is financial compensation, yes. Professor Graves: So anything beyond that in terms of intrinsic value that you may have, in relation to your property and your land and so on, will not be covered by that financial compensation? Ms Gorlov: You do not get a premium for sentimental value, for example, no. It is a very coldly, rational code, which simply says that you are exchanging one asset for another. Professor Graves: Clearly, if there as no diversion, both the farmer and myself and perhaps one or two others would not have to be in a position where we would be looking for compensation? Ms Gorlov: Self-evidently, yes. Assessor: Mr Thomson? Mr Thomson: I have no questions. Assessor: Noise and vibration is our next issue, item 5. Does that require another change? Mr Thomson, do you have anything here? Mr Thomson: No, thank you. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 23 Assessor: Professor Graves? Mr Mitchell, questioned by Professor Graves Professor Graves: The view that you take is that, basically, in terms of Roddinglaw, there will be no practical impact in term of noise from the railway line, is that right? A. Yes, the railway line will increase noise slightly, but not to an extent that could be described as a significant noise increase. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Okay. And these are based upon predictions? Yes. So you have measured a baseline level at Roddinglaw? Yes, we have. Where did you measure that? It is location D in the environmental statement, which is in front of the cottages. It is in front of the cottages – so how many measurements were taken? I would have to check, but I think it was three or four there. We have also measured on Freelands Road. I will move along to that in a moment, but I just wanted to take each location at a time. It has been stated that freight trains on the existing Edinburgh to Glasgow line can wake them up – and this is the Promoter’s comment – in the early hours of the morning. Will not elevated freight trains be more intrusive? That statement was given to me by one of the residents in the meeting in June. I was really paraphrasing some local knowledge that we gained from talking to the residents at that time. Do you have any measurements of freight trains? No, we did not do that at that time. So in fact you cannot really say that the extra 2 dBA, which you have mentioned, in fact is a reasonable prediction in relation to things like a freight train, etc, and that type of noise. We do the assessment for the hours in which the spur will operate, and we have covered the period of time relating to the early morning and during the night – that is the period that we have covered. Could you remind me of those times? I will just check that. It was shortly after midnight – I can check. [Refers to documents] I am just referring to my bundle of statements, so that I get it absolutely correct because I would not want to give you a slightly wrong answer. I was not anticipating that question. It is 0045, at a quarter to one in the morning, commencing again at about 5.15am. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 24 Q. A. Q. A. 05.15? Yes. And this was presumably four measurements taken per day, or was it just four measurements? As I began to answer your question, at location A, there were four measurements taken – sorry, at location D, there were four measurements taken. At location A, there were more, although I cannot remember the exact number there. Can I just deal with Roddinglaw and I will come back to A, which is Freelands Road. But it is relevant, because it is nearby, in terms of predominant noise sources at night, which is the motorway. I am sorry – we are talking about Roddinglaw at the moment. Yes, we are. And Roddinglaw is a fairly substantial distance away from the motorway. Yes, as is Freelands Road. As compared to my location, at Freelands Road, which is very, very close to the motorway indeed. I did not get round to telling you where location A is. It is on Freelands Road, but it is not at your property – it is roughly where the EARL would intercept Freelands Road. It is a broadly similar distance from the motorway as Roddinglaw, in fact, so it is a relevant site to consider for baseline measurements. So you are saying that you took measurements on both sides, in effect, of the existing railway – am I correct? Yes. During that time, were any freight trains going through? There may have been. I would have to check the peak levels that we recorded and the notes that were taken on site at the time. It is important for me to report to you that the assessment of the impact – we say that the noise change would be approximately 2dB at the cottages and that is based on what we call the equivalent noise level, Leq, which is a form of logarithmic average which sums up all the individual events into a single number. I understand that that is the standard against which you are working but the reality of life is that the impact of noise is not in terms of logarithmic averages, but in terms of things like increase/decrease of noise. Something like, for example, a freight train, which is fairly noisy moving through an elevated section, may well have a different impact, perception-wise, in terms of whether it is intrusive noise – that was really the question I am getting to. What is your view on that? Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 25 A. You have several things there with which I am not sure that I necessarily agree. Assessor: Is it the intention to have freight trains on EARL? A. No. Assessor: Does that help at all, Professor Graves? Professor Graves: So freight trains will not travel from Glasgow through to Edinburgh? A. Not via the airport. Q. A. No, they will go by the elevated section, will they not? I am sorry, I thought that was the question. They will go via the elevated section. Yes, and obviously that will be the common route, coming from west to east for any traffic coming from Glasgow. The effect of the section that is elevated to take the – I forget which way round it is – the easterly moving trains, is also rather a lot further from your property than it is currently. So there will be two things that will happen to that freight train noise. First, it will be increased, because it will lift out of the cutting but, secondly, it will be decreased because it is rather a lot further away from your properties than it is now. Do we have an idea what that impact will be? Do you think it is likely to exceed your 2dB average? The 2dB is a different number – it is accumulating all the noise levels from the EARL scheme. So am I correct to say that no individual noise sources, or the impact of that on the residents, has actually been dealt with at all in your assessment? We do look at peak noise levels as well. I would say that the design of this junction is fairly complicated and we have assessed it to the level that we are able to assess it at the moment. As a project, if the project moves forward, we will repeat that modelling as the design develops. We have a noise and vibration policy which commits us to certain noise standards. If those noise levels adjust, then the noise and vibration policy will bite and mitigation will be put in. In terms of the noise levels that you will experience in one of your cottages, you have a good deal of certainty in the increase and the numbers that you will be getting because the noise and vibration policy commits the Promoter to achieving those. So you are basically saying that the commitment is not to exceed the 2dB value that you have mentioned – is that right? No, that is not quite the commitment. If you were able to read the noise and vibration policy, it is actually a 3dB increase that we commit to, providing we are above threshold levels, which we are in this case. There is also a peak noise level in there, to which we also commit – an 82dB number. We commit Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 26 to mitigating that, using all the measures that are practicable to find in the policy. Q. A. Q. A. So what percentage of the population will find that a problem – the 3dB target, or your 82dB max? What percentage of the population would find that a problem? Yes. The 3dB increase in AQ is a very widely accepted threshold for a noticeable change in noise environment. The 82dB number is a threshold which is the onset of significant sleep disturbance. The 82dB max – subjectively, if something was coming past me at 82 decibels, would I have to raise my voice if speaking to someone close to me? Or would it just be a noticeable sound? At 82 decibels, you would have to raise your voice. It is quite a high noise level. Yes, I know that, but I wanted to confirm it with you. If you give me a moment, I will look up the peak noise levels that were measured during the survey, since you were talking to me about the peak noise levels, in case that helps us at all. [Refers to document] Yes, in Roddinglaw, the peak noise levels that we have measured are as high as 84dB. On Freelands, they are similarly 84dB. And this is from what source? We would have to check exactly what the source of the peak was, from the site notes. I am just saying that that is an existing peak level that is currently there. Under the noise and vibration policy, we are committed to a number a little lower than that. So if this contribution was from traffic, for example, how would you mitigate that? We are not going to mitigate road traffic noise. So we were only talking about railway line noise? I was not quite sure what we were talking about, actually. Okay, well it is up to you to clarify, if you are not quite sure. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Assessor: If you could frame the question so that the witness could answer it, that is the way it would work. Professor Graves: Is it the rail noise that we are talking about? A. The assessments concern the rail noise, yes. I think I had slightly lost the drift of what we were talking about, because I was talking about ambient noise when I said that I did not know what it was due to. Q. Obviously, at a very simplistic level, does the ambient noise not consist of rail, road, far roads – is that not the ambient noise? Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 27 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes, everything. That this is about – Everything that is there at the moment. All of that. And then we went on to talk about the impact of rail in relation to the elevated section and, in particular, freight trains. Yes. Then I was trying to clarify with you, I think, what sort of levels you were getting at Roddinglaw in relation to what were the criteria you were using – you were suggesting CDV-Leq and 82 being the sleep disturbance reference that you mentioned. You then talked about, or I asked about, the maximum value you offered to go and look for – and the maximum value was 84dB in Freelands to the north, and 84dB south. The question I was asking was whether that was rail or traffic. My answer was that I was not sure and that I would have to check the site notes. Okay. Given the proposed layout of the junction and given, too, your commitment in relation to vibration and noise, if you do not make your targets, how will these be mitigated? Perhaps I ought to explain the process of how we think we will meet the targets. As I touched on earlier, this would be a detailed design process. There would be further noise modelling of the junction as the design develops, taking on board the detail of that design. There will be repeat ambient noise measurements, to make sure that that has not changed in the intervening years. Then there will be a reference to the noise and vibration policy, to make sure that we set the targets that the design needs to achieve. If it looks as though, for some reason, the levels are higher than we currently expect, then there would be an option for noise barriers on that structure, which we would look into. In terms of the elevated section, is it true that it will be difficult in practice to provide noise barriers because of the engineering design? I think that question probably ought to go to someone who has just left the table, but I can tell you that noise barriers are quite frequently included in elevated railway sections. To my knowledge, they can be built. This is a structure that we can control in its dimensions, within the limits of deviation – we can design that structure as we wish. The reason why I am asking this question is because we raised this issue previously, at previous meetings, and we were told, I understand that, because of the nature of the elevated section, it would be difficult to achieve noise mitigation with physical barriers. I just wanted to clarify that. I can answer in general terms, otherwise someone can help me. It is harder to build a noise barrier, generally, on an elevated structure, because there is less space, and they may need to upgrade the structural strength of the supporting system underneath it, as opposed to being solid ground, but it is A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 28 not impossible. Under the Noise and Vibration Policy, we are committed to looking into that if it is necessary. Assessor: If you want to revisit that with the witness that Mr Mitchell is suggesting, the technical witness, then I am more than happy to revisit next time around. Professor Graves: I can move on from that with just an engineering question. Will this then not potentially increase the cost, if that has to be built in – an increase in approved structure, for example? That, by implication, will increase the cost of the engineering design. Am I correct? Ms Jeffrey: It would depend on the design, but potentially. Professor Graves: Potentially, yes. Potentially, there could be an increased cost. Mr Mitchell: We just need to keep in mind that that part of the railway that we are talking about will be moved roughly twice as far away from the nearest cottage than it currently is. That will reduce the noise. It is not immediately obvious to me whether we will need that barrier – but I am simply saying to you that, under the policy, there is a commitment to investigate that and to build it if necessary. Q. I accept that. I want to be clear in my mind, but I am well aware of the inverse square law. I am also aware that we will have different characteristics with an elevated section as opposed to a sunken section. However, in terms of the potential for extra costs, it may well be that if you cannot achieve your targets, then there may well be extra costs. Is that right? Yes. There may be a change in cost as the detailed design develops, going up or down. A. Assessor: As a total proportion of the grade separated junction – are we talking in percentage terms? A. I cannot say that, because we have not done that analysis. Assessor: Can we assume that it is fairly small? Is it one, or 10? Nearer to one, I would suspect? A. Oh, you mean the cost? Assessor: I am looking for the percentage. The Professor made the interesting point that the cost will increase, and I want to know what proportion of the total cost of the grade separated junction – will it be a one per cent increase, or a 10 per cent increase? Mr Murray: It would be small. It would be closer to one than 10, we suspect. Assessor: And five? Mr Mitchell: I really cannot answer that. I heard just now that the cost of the junction is upwards of £5 million. I think you said earlier on that the base case cost of the junction was £5.6 million. Assessor: Yes, so if it was 10 per cent, it would £50 million for this mitigation. No – A. No, it would be £500,000. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 29 Assessor: It would be £500,000. A. If it were 10 per cent, it would be £500,000. What I do know about noise barriers is that they certainly do not cost anywhere near that. Assessor: Thank you, that is helpful. Professor Graves: But we are not actually talking about noise barriers per se, but we are talking about total structure requirements, because of the layout in relation to the engineering conflicts of the existing line and the position with the elevated section in relation to that. That, as I understand it from previous discussions, is what we are talking about. It is not about barriers per se, but is there the structure designed to enable you to put a barrier there in the first place? Mr Murray: I think we are assuming that that is wrapped into that cost because, indeed, there would be safety parapets and all sorts associated with the structure anyway, which could perhaps serve a dual purpose. Mr Mitchell: It is not as though we are building a lightweight bridge and hoping to hang a rather high noise barrier off of it. This is an earthworks, solid concrete structure. I suspect that if the noise barrier is needed, if the noise barrier is needed, the structural change – I suspect – would not be large. However, as I say, I cannot answer that in detail. Assessor: And the cost implications therefore would not be particularly large? Mr Mitchell: No. Assessor: Thank you very much. Thank you, Professor. Professor Graves: I think I can move on to pollution now – or have I moved too far forward? Assessor: No, but I will not let you out of this box, though. We have come to the third element of the box. Mr Thomson, do you have any questions? Mr Thomson: No, I have no questions, thank you. Assessor: Professor? Questions to Mr Steve Purnell Professor Graves: I understand the issue in relation to particulate size, but is there not also pollution from the construction noise and so on, and the vehicles? What is the provision to take account of the pollution from any of the vehicles that may well be surrounding my property, or other people’s properties? A. Questions related to that subject are more properly addressed to me, although I should say that we also have Roger Barrowcliffe here, who can answer specific detailed issues on air quality and pollution. Assessor: It might be a question of the size of particle here. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 30 A. If it were a size of particle issue here, then that would be Mr Barrowcliffe. Assessor: Is that correct, Professor? Professor Graves: I understand that there is clearly an issue in terms of particle size and the impact upon the long structure and so on. I understand that. This is really looking at the potential pollution from vehicles and so on. A. What I can say – and I am sure that I can perhaps get some help on this later on – is that, as you will hopefully be aware, there is detailed and comprehensive code of construction practice in place, which was first issued in draft with the environmental statement when it was submitted in support of the Bill’s submission. That was at Annex A of the environmental statement, and that has since been updated in respect of a number of issues. Effectively, there will be very stringent measures put in place by tie as a responsible promoter, to ensure that all potential construction impacts will be mitigated during the whole construction period. There will be a detailed local construction plan put in place for a number of locations along the scheme, which will be subject to detailed discussions with local authorities, community councillors, community liaison groups, residents, business users and so on, so that you and others are fully aware of the processes that are in place and the sort of protection measures that can be provided. Q. Can you clarify that for me? While the Code of Construction Practice makes nice bedtime reading, it was not clear to me, in terms of the consultative process, where in fact the community council and the residents came in. I know that there was reference at some point to community councillors being involved but I had the impression that that was pretty far down the pecking order. Could you help me with that. That is not true. I do not know whether Professor Graves has access to the latest version. Yes, I have. I did a quick scan of it yesterday. Right, okay. The consultation process is outlined in one or two places. You have a flow chart, I believe. We do indeed. We have a flow chart at figure 1.2, which relates to the overall Codes of Construction Practice consultation process. There is also one on page 58, much later in the document, at figure 2.1, which refers to the process specifically in relation to the local construction plans. So the first flow chart is for finalising the Code of Practice, as opposed to – what was the other page? There is the much later flow chart at figure 2.1 on page 58, which is to finalise the detailed local construction plans. If you were also to look at page 8, at section 1.13, that describes where tie Ltd – and tie Ltd is taken to mean tie Ltd and any subsequent authorised undertaker – would consult widely on all further drafts of the Code of Construction Practice, including with local A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 31 residents, community councillors, community liaison groups and many other included statutory bodies. I understand and hear what you say. It sounds good in principle but, in practice, having been through the situation where a development was occurring close beside, I as an individual, and also my local councillor, had immense difficulty actually getting the local authority to enforce any issues. Can you tell me whether that will be any better for us in relation to what tie is proposing? A. I could start with one answer, in answer to this. The first thing I would say is that it is entirely possible that the promoter of that development did not have a comprehensive Code of Construction Practice that had been undertaken in such detail as this one has been. Alison can talk about the enforcement much more clearly than I can. Ms Gorlov: Before getting to enforcement which is, after all, a rather aggressive thing to have to happen, we are much more interested in the consultation happening in the first place, of course. We have said that we will consult. That is on the Code of Construction Practice in draft and the intention is then to seek amendments that will achieve this. The draft will be submitted to the local planning authority for approval and they will be obliged to consult before they approve – so there is another potential source of consultation there. So that I can just be clear in my mind, what you are saying is that the normal route of going through the planning committee will be part of this process, and the construction code will go through to the normal planning process. That will then allow for formal views from community councils and from individuals to take place. Ms Gorlov: It will be for CEC to decide how they want to process it, but one would not expect an application for approval – it will not be an application for planning permission but it would be the approval of a technical document. I would have to guess that this would not normally go to the planning committee but I imagine that it would be dealt with by officers. So what you are saying, if I can just clarify that, is that we are basically dependent on the local authority then to agree with us, independent of any input after our consultation from the community council or residents. Is that correct? Ms Gorlov: That is right – it has to be approved by them. Assessor: Would the Promoter be prepared to make an agreement now that this individual objector and Ratho Community Council would be part of that consultation process, before it goes up to committee? Mr Murray: Yes, that is absolutely fine. Assessor: I am sorry. The next step is that you wanted to talk about enforcement. You have got through the soft side, and now to the hard side. Ms Gorlov: COCP having been approved, it has effect. If it is not complied with, there are all sorts of things one can do. You have possibly heard what we have said we would do in terms of having complaints lines and so forth available. However, in terms of absolute enforcement, the intention is that Q. Q. Q. Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 32 what these amendments should achieve is that, at the end of it all, the local planning authority have its full planning enforcement powers, so that it could enforce the compliance with the COCP in exactly the same way as it would stop somebody doing something in breach of planning permission. At the nth degree, that can lead to stopping the works in their tracks. Professor Graves: How long would that sort of process tend to take? If we have an incident on day one, for argument’s sake, how long do you think – if the contractor wanted to be difficult – would it take before we actually got the process when that enforcement would be in place? Ms Gorlov: I would hope it would never happen and I am sure that Mr Murray would tell me that it will not. Professor Graves: I appreciate that, but I have seen examples in developments where the local authority has either been unable or unwilling to enforce some of the requirements of the planning permission. That has taken a year and a half to get nowhere, when the place had been built and sold off. All I am saying to you is that, in practical terms, I can understand the principles – it is an excellent idea, and they are excellent principles – but the reality is that, once the contractor has the contract, unless there are financial penalties built into it, to say that if they do not do as they are told there will be a financial penalty as a result, nothing will happen. The principle is fine but, in practice, it will not work. Mr Murray: Could I perhaps cover something that has already been said, but which ought to be brought out, which is that tie is a responsible promoter and, with the project going forward, will take these sorts of matters very seriously. In the first instance, we would hope that there was assurance felt by community councils and communities at large that what we are committing to in the code of practice is something that we will follow through. We will follow it through with our contracts as well. The Code of Construction Practice therefore becomes a contractual obligation on the contractor or contractors and so, at the first instance, tie would want to intervene and ensure that these things were complied with. Beyond that, we would go to ensure that the contractor was working well and working within his contract. That may include, for example, KPIs and all sorts of measures that monitor performance in terms of these sorts of incidents. That is quite common these days and, indeed, through the procurement process, we want to ensure that we get contractors that are particularly well suited to this type of work in this environment. The contractual obligations will be there and there may be penalties – I cannot say definitely, but there are certainly measures that can brought through contractual frameworks to influence matters. Finally, just to cover all of it, the absolute backstop is the local authority. It depends on the nature of the occurrence and the matter that is causing the concern, or causing the breach of the Code of Construction Practice. In certain instances, I would suspect that the local authority could move very, very quickly, because they have the powers to do so of course, to serve enforcement notices and all sorts of things. I cannot be categoric, but it could Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 33 be days. You have outlined a scenario which sounds pretty horrific, taking over a year, but it could well be that certain situations, if they are left unaddressed by tie or the contractor, would be acted upon very quickly by the local authority. Professor Graves: Could I ask, through the chair, whether he might be prepared to encourage you to consider very strongly writing in contractual obligations as part of your process? Quite frankly, it is the bucks that talk – it is not the enforcement laid down tomorrow, but it is actually part of the process, putting in there that there will be penalties, and the KPIs that you have mentioned would be part of the process. That needs to be made very clear indeed because, once you lay the rules down, then it is quite clear what the penalties will be. Assessor: All I can say is that my understanding is that the Code of Construction Practice is a work in progress and that all of the matters that are raised here are for the Promoter to make an assessment of, and to come back to the Committee in due course. It will be for the Committee to decide how it will deal with it. My understanding is, however, is that the obligations which you undertake in the Code of Construction Practice – you are looking for those to be made effectively a part of the Bill. Mr Murray: Yes, absolutely, they will be part of the Bill and they will form part of the Construction Contract when the Bill proceeds. Assessor: Does that help? Professor Graves: Yes and no. Assessor: Could I just say this. Planning enforcement, while it is a model, it is one that does not operate very quickly very often, but I understand that there might be the equivalent of a stop notice available in the Code of Construction Practice. Am I correct? That would appear to be what this witness is saying. Mr Murray: Certainly, if you look at issues like noise, for example, it is well within the council’s power to serve notices to stop work until noise matters are addressed. We would expect that to be at their disposal. Assessor: But this is the best that can be done in the Bill, Professor Graves. The enforcement matter is for the council, and I am sure that you would be well able to take it up with them. Professor Graves: I do not want to have to spend the time doing that. Assessor: I quite understand your position. Professor Graves: The problem we have here is that what we are trying to do is to make the best of a bad job. If you actually have the mechanisms in place and it is clearcut what will happen as a result of that, then I do not see a problem, quite frankly, if you have a contractual obligation. Bringing in the local authority, with their limited resources I am told, just creates problems for us in Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 34 terms of communication, monitoring and so on. I think it would be much cleaner and simpler if this was built into the contract. That is what I am saying. Mr Murray: We are not trying to shirk our responsibilities, or the responsibility of any contractor, to the local authority. That is the absolute final course. I think we will be structuring contracts that incentivise performance. That is the way we would want to try to deal with things. The Code of Construction Practice will form an integral part of those construction contracts. Professor Graves: That is as far as I can take this just now. Assessor: Thank you. Are there any other matters under this box? Professor Graves: I think so, although I am afraid it is rather a mish-mash – assuming that I have the right box. We go on – I think – from the environment on to the road diversion. There is a statement here that says that – Assessor: Where do I find that? Professor Graves: I think this is under Environmental Impact 3, Ratho, Issue 2, I think. Assessor: We are still on Ratho, Issue 2? Professor Graves: I think so, yes. Health/Working hours. [Refers to documents] Assessor: We will not be extending into that one now. We have reached the magic hour of 4.30pm and beyond, so I will call a halt at this stage, if I may. Mr Thomson, you have the opportunity to – Mr Thomson: Thank you, Sir. I do not have any questions, but just to note that it is paragraph 1.3 in the Code of Construction Practice which contains the commitment to incorporate the terms of the COCP in the construction contracts. I hope that may give Professor Graves some comfort. Assessor: I am afraid that is as far as we can go today. I would like to thank you, Mr Douglas and Professor Graves, for being so flexible about this. How are you placed for 2.00pm tomorrow? Professor Graves: We have a problem with our other witness, Mr Kennedy, who has had to take today off. He would be on short notice to attend. Assessor: Could you sort something out with Miss Sutherland? We have reached the stage where we are juggling a number of balls here and we certainly want to have the minimum inconvenience for you – you have been extremely kind to everybody here. We will come back to you. Professor Graves: I have a suggestion. It may well be that we could continue with our part of this, even if Mr Kennedy is not available. He is really part of the second phase, which is the concluding arguments. Would that be feasible? Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 35 Assessor: It is for you to make your case in your own way, but I do not want you to go away at the end of this, thinking that, because we wouldn’t timetable you, you did not make the case in the best way you could have. I would rather have all of that – Professor Graves: I am suggesting that we could finish what essentially is the Promoter’s side of the evidence tomorrow and then, if necessary, try to schedule a separate – Assessor: Rather than putting you to this trouble now, I would suggest that we should just close the proceedings for today and give you the opportunity to arrange something as convenient as possible for you. Mr Thomson? Mr Thomson: If it would be of any assistance, I would be quite happy to forego the opportunity of cross-examining Mr Kennedy and direct any relevant questions to Professor Graves or Mr Douglas, if that would assist. Assessor: That is another idea to put into the pot. Thank you very much. That draws this to a close today. I would like to thank you all for your attendance and, as I have already said, Mr Douglas and Professor Graves, for their courtesy. I look forward to seeing you all again. [The Hearing adjourned at 4.45 pm] Fiona Shipley Transcription Ltd 36