EARL/S2/06/6/A EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAILWAY LINK BILL COMMITTEE AGENDA 6th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2) Tuesday 27 June 2006 The Committee will meet at 10.15 am in Committee Room 1 1. Oral evidence on the adequacy of the accompanying documents: The Committee will take evidence from–– Panel 1 Erica Knott, Casework Support Officer and Carolyn Clark, Area Officer, Scottish Natural Heritage. Panel 2 Rod Graves and Paul Douglas, Ratho and District Community Council, Charles Brunton, William Bryant and Steve Chalmers, householders, and Douglas G Smart, householder. Panel 3 Damian Sharp, Head of Major Projects and Ian Mylroi, Head of Rail Projects, Transport Scotland. Panel 4 Tavish Scott MSP, Minister for Transport, and Damian Sharp, Head of Major Projects, Rail Delivery and Ian Mylroi, Head of Rail Projects, Transport Scotland. 2. Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill (in private): The Committee will consider the oral evidence taken at agenda item 1.
Transcript
EARL/S2/06/6/A
EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAILWAY LINK BILL COMMITTEE
AGENDA
6th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2)
Tuesday 27 June 2006 The Committee will meet at 10.15 am in Committee Room 1 1. Oral evidence on the adequacy of the accompanying documents: The
Committee will take evidence from––
Panel 1
Erica Knott, Casework Support Officer and Carolyn Clark, Area Officer, Scottish Natural Heritage.
Panel 2
Rod Graves and Paul Douglas, Ratho and District Community Council,
Charles Brunton, William Bryant and Steve Chalmers, householders, and
Douglas G Smart, householder.
Panel 3
Damian Sharp, Head of Major Projects and Ian Mylroi, Head of Rail Projects, Transport Scotland.
Panel 4
Tavish Scott MSP, Minister for Transport, and
Damian Sharp, Head of Major Projects, Rail Delivery and Ian Mylroi, Head of Rail Projects, Transport Scotland.
2. Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill (in private): The Committee will consider the oral evidence taken at agenda item 1.
EARL/S2/06/6/A
3. Oral evidence on the adequacy of the accompanying documents: The Committee will take evidence from––
Panel 5
Promoter’s witnesses––
Alison Gorlov, Parliamentary Agent, John Kennedy & Co,
Susan Clark, Project Director, tie Ltd,
Gail Jeffrey, Senior Project Manager, Scott Wilson Railways,
Russell Bartlett, Senior Research Executive, Progressive Partnership,
Gordon Robertson, Account Director, Media House,
Paul McCartney, Associate Economist, Halcrow,
Marwan AL-Azzawi, Principal Transport Planner, Scott Wilson Railways,
Nick Crowther, Land Referencing Project Director, Landaspects,
Tony Rose, Assistant Director, Pricewaterhouse Coopers,
Roger May, Underground Engineering Manager, Scott Wilson Railways,
John Inman, Strategy Manager (Planning), City of Edinburgh Council,
Pat Diamond, Project Finance Manager, tie ltd, and
Fiona Stephen, Partner, Anderson Strathern.
4. Appointment of an assessor: The Committee will consider whether to direct the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, subject to the Bill proceeding to Consideration Stage, to appoint an assessor to consider and report to the Committee at Consideration Stage.
5. Preliminary consideration of objections (in private): The Committee will consider a paper on preliminary consideration of objections.
6. Draft Preliminary Stage report (in private): The Committee will consider a paper on Preliminary Stage issues and discuss key issues for the draft Preliminary Stage report.
EARL/S2/06/6/A
Jane Sutherland
Clerk to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee 85209
The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 1 Written evidence from Scottish Enterprise, tie Ltd and Mr Douglas Smart Additional written evidence from Network Rail and tie Ltd (to follow)
EARL/S2/06/6/1 EARL/S2/06/6/2
Agenda item 4 Paper by Clerk on Appointment and Role of Assessor
EARL/S2/06/6/3
Agenda item 5 Paper by Clerk on Preliminary Consideration of Objections (PRIVATE PAPER)
EARL/S2/06/6/4
Agenda item 6 Paper by Clerk on Preliminary Stage issues (PRIVATE PAPER)
EARL/S2/06/6/5
In addition to the above documents, the following documents whilst not being committee papers, will be relevant to the meeting’s proceedings–– Agenda item 1 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) written evidence
EA(P)16
Ratho and District Community Council Objection 36Mr C Brunton Objection 4Mr W Bryant Objection 2Mr S Chalmers Objection 9Mr D Smart Objection 7 All objections can be found using this weblink: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/edinburghAirLinkBill/inquiries/ea-objections.htm All Preliminary Stage written evidence can be found using this weblink: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/edinburghAirLinkBill/inquiries/ea-written-evid.htm All Preliminary Stage written evidence from the promoter (tie Ltd) can be found using this weblink: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/edinburghAirLinkBill/inquiries/ea-prom-written-evid.htm
Written Evidence received from Scottish Enterprise, tie Ltd and Mr Douglas Smart
Scottish Enterprise 1. At the EARL Bill Committee meeting on 6 June Scottish Enterprise agreed
to provide the Committee with statistics on economic growth forecasts for key industries that would benefit from the EARL Bill.
2. The statistics for the six priority industries important to the Scottish
economy are attached at Annexe A. tie Ltd 3. At its meeting on 13 June the promoter’s witnesses agreed to provide
further written evidence to the Committee on a number of topics. 4. This written evidence (promoter’s response PROM (P) 3A, 3B and 3C) has
been received and is contained at Annexe B 5. The promoter has also provided further information on the proof of receipt
of notices issued in connection with the EARL Bill. This information provides an explanation of how the promoter ensured that all parties received the notices intended for them and is attached at Annexe C.
Mr Douglas Smart 6. Mr Smart has provided additional information in advance of giving oral
evidence. This information is available to members in Annex D in paper copy only.
Scottish Enterprise Additional Written Evidence EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe A
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Life Sciences Food andDrink
Tourism Energy ElectronicMarkets andTechnologies
FinancialServices
Priority Industries Importance to Economy
Scottish Enterprise Additional Written Evidence EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe A
Industry Contribution to GVA (£m) Source
Tourism 2957 ECOTEC based on SIC codes Energy 3152 ECOTEC based on SIC codes Food and Drink 1590 Food and Drink team Life Sciences 1250 Life Sciences team Financial Services 5000 Financial Services Strategy Electronic Markets 3927 This is based on the ECOTEC figure for Digital Media There is significant overlap between electronics, MOET and DMCI. Therefore I chose the largest of the three Revision 12 January 06 - Revisions to Electronic Markets
Industry Contribution to GVA (£m) % of Scottish GVA
Life Sciences 800 1.0% Food and Drink 1590 2.0% Tourism 2957 3.8% Energy 3152 4.0% Electronic Markets and Technologies 4770 6.1% Financial Services 5000 6.4% N.B Life Sciences has been adjusted to 1% - doubts about credibility of prev figure
Scottish Enterprise Additional Written Evidence EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe A
Priority Industries v Scottish Economy Index of Projected Growth
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Inde
x of
Gro
wth
Tourism Oil and Gas Inc ServicesLife Sciences Fin ServicesElectronic Markets and Technologies Food and DrinkScottish Economy
Sources: Datamonitor, Life Sciences Team
Scottish Enterprise Additional Written Evidence EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe A
Table 1 - Growth in Value Using Datamonitor Sources
PROMOTER’S RESPONSE TO ORAL EVIDENCE ON 13 JUNE 2006
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Committee with the Promoter’s written response, following oral evidence presented to the Committee on 13 June 2006. The Promoter has set out in bold the information the Promoter’s witnesses agreed to provide the Committee with and supplied the Promoter’s response thereafter.
Question 1: Further information on how fares will be charged, e.g. if a passenger caught a train with a ticket for the airport only to discover that the train they had boarded did not stop at the airport, what other fare charges would they be liable for if they had to change trains at Haymarket to travel back to the airport station. Promoter’s Response 1. The level of fares to and from the Airport Station will be approved by
Transport Scotland when amending the ScotRail Franchise Agreement. Should Virgin and/or GNER be calling at the station a similar arrangement will apply through the control mechanisms in place in England, via the Department for Transport (DfT). The fare is set by the lead train operator (in this case ScotRail) who will initiate a change to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement by notifying RSP Ltd (originally Rail Settlement Plan – a company owned by ATOC (the Association of Train Operating Companies)). This activity is likely to take place in the year prior to the commencement of services.
2. The Promoter can at this stage only set out the assumptions which currently underpin the business case for the project as it now stands. These assumptions are based on the current ScotRail Franchise Agreement, and are based on a “matrix” of station-to-station fares at existing levels.
3. The revenue modelling has assumed a small premium for journeys from Edinburgh to the Airport, and fares fitting into the “standard” matrix for journeys from the West, the North and the rest of the country.
4. As an example of the “standard” fares principle, if fares to the ‘airport general area’ as they apply today are considered, the two principal Edinburgh stations are charged at the same rate, and a slight reduction applies for Edinburgh Park. For example, fares from Glasgow (in this example – standard single) are as follows:
Glasgow to Linlithgow: £6.90 Glasgow to Edinburgh Park: £9.80 Glasgow to Haymarket: £9.90 Glasgow to Edinburgh Waverley: £9.90
5. On shorter journeys, the differential is proportionately greater as follows. Fares from Polmont (as before – standard single)
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A Polmont to Linlithgow: £1.90 Polmont to Edinburgh Park: £4.10 Polmont to Haymarket: £4.40 Polmont to Edinburgh Waverley: £4.40
6. Under this principle, which has been adopted in modelling revenues for EARL, the airport fare (coming from the West) would be slightly lower than the Edinburgh Park fare. Under these circumstances there is no incentive to travel past the station and return.
7. In the specific example of a passenger who boarded the wrong train from Dunfermline and changed at Haymarket, an additional fare would not be applicable. Presumably the passenger would be carrying a ticket valid for travel to the Airport Station, and no “advantage” could have been gained as the passenger would not have been able to exit the automatic ticket barriers.
8. In the event of a passenger finding a better route by changing at Haymarket, which can happen, the ticket is valid by any reasonable route.
9. “Getting on the wrong train” is not normally considered a valid reason for avoiding the fare for a journey, especially if the conductor has reason to believe that the individual may be attempting fraudulent fare evasion. Under these circumstances it would be at the discretion of the station staff, or the train conductor as to whether an additional fare was payable.
10. Where the conductor judges that the passenger has made an innocent mistake it is most likely that an additional fare would be waived. In the event of a Conductor not applying his discretion in this way for some reason, ScotRail would almost certainly offer a refund in response to any resultant complaint to their Customer Contact Centre explaining the circumstances and enclosing the original ticket.
Question 2: A note from the Promoter on its proposals to ensure the enforceability of the mitigation measures proposed within the Environmental Statement. Promoter’s Response 11. See attached Note regarding enforcement of environmental mitigation
from the Promoter, attached at Annex 1 to this memorandum.
Question 3: Summary of the Network Rail comments submitted on the Finalised West Lothian Local Plan Promoter’s Response 12. Network Rail’s comments on the Finalised West Lothian Local Plan can
be summarised as follows:
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A • The provision of a station for the Core Development Area (CDA) at
Winchburgh is “noted”, but it is considered prudent to leave the exact location to the masterplan, given the further work needed on the service timetable to establish what level of service can be provided to the new station.
• It highlights that the local plan states that the new station on the Edinburgh-Glasgow line is dependent on the provision of EARL.
• It also notes that the Local Plan does not appear to provide contingency arrangements to cater for a station at Winchburgh if EARL does not happen.
• Network Rail concludes that it cannot support a station at Winchburgh on the Edinburgh-Glasgow route without the Airport rail link in place.
13. The Council’s response was that if, in future, key elements of
infrastructure could not be delivered, the Council would consider the implications for the local plan development strategy at that time.
Question 4: Please explain why the SKM report suggested that the Surface Diversion option will secure private sector investment, whilst the runway tunnel option will not.
Promoter’s Response 14. The Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) report, published in January 2003
considered opportunities for attracting private sector investment to build the rail links (e.g. through PFI/PPP) in case public sector funding was not available.
15. Whilst the SKM Report suggested that the Surface Diversion option (SDO) might be the most financially feasible, it found that it would still fall short of being potentially attractive to private sector investors and lenders.1 The report stated that, of the Edinburgh options considered, financial appraisals found that only the SDO could generate a positive return for equity investors, but at only 3% would be small and unattractive to investors.2
16. At the time of the SKM report it was unclear whether public funding would be available to build the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The analysis revealed that, while the revenue generated by each option in relation to Edinburgh Airport would be sufficient to cover the operating costs, it would not be enough to provide the capital expenditure required to build the link. This is why the consultants were asked to investigate the possibility of private sector funding opportunities to source the building of the rail links. This included a number of private capital/equity funding and PFI/PPP type equity investment funds.
1 Section 8.5.3, (para 696), SKM Report, “Rail Links to Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports”, Final Report, January 2003, Sinclair Knight Merz in association with Mott MacDonald, ERM and James Barr 2 Section 8.4.3 para (676)
PROM (P) 3A 17. The SKM report concluded that, if funds were limited to the extent that
the Runway Tunnel option was deemed unaffordable, the Surface Diversion option would provide a good value for money fall-back option worthy of being progressed towards implementation. If, however, funding constraints were not over-riding at that stage, the Runway Tunnel option could be developed further.
18. The SKM Report stated that the Runway Tunnel option provides a significant amount of benefits. These include:
• the highest level of connectivity (connecting to 9 cities/major towns in Scotland, while the maximum for the other options is 5);
• the highest level of national benefits (£678 million); • the highest level of net benefits (Net Present Value of £250m); • the best performing option in terms of accessibility; and • significantly higher decongestion benefits compared to the other
options. 19. In contrast, other schemes, including the Surface Diversion Option,
have significant negative impacts on the journey times of those users not using the airport e.g. those commuting from Fife to Edinburgh. Both the E & G Diversion and the Surface Diversion would involve significant additions to journey times (with both bringing an estimated 15 minutes extra on the Edinburgh to Fife and the North East Line and 10 minutes on the Stirling line).
Question 5: A summary table indicating the benefits and disadvantages of the Gogar station option compared with the Runway Tunnel option.
Promoter’s Response
Gogar Station Option Comparison
Scheme Description
20. The following description of the Gogar Station Option as presented by objectors is the Promoter’s understanding of the alternative proposed. The Gogar Station Option comprises:
• 2- track chord line off Dalmeny Chord at Kirkliston connecting into the Fife lines north of the River Almond.
• From the River Almond to Saughton 4-tracking on the Fife lines (existing 2 track plus additional 2 track from the west).
• The Station would be located at Gogar adjacent to the existing Glasgow Road overbridge (OB16) with 3 platforms (2 side platforms and 1 island platform).
• A connection between the Gogar Station and the Airport along the alignment of the proposed East Line on the EARL scheme by way of a dedicated people –mover e.g. monorail.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A 21. A sub-option could be to provide a pedestrian link to Edinburgh Tram
Line 2 tram stop at the Gyle or an additional tram stop at Gogar adjacent to the proposed tram depot.
Assumptions 22. The Promoter in assessing the option has made the following
assumptions:
• extent to 4-tracking and the line off the Dalmeny Chord are the same as that proposed and assessed for the Turnhouse Option;
• the alternative proposed does not highlight the need for remodelling Winchburgh and upgrading the section of Dalmeny Chord from Winchburgh to Kirkliston for higher speed running which may be required to meet timetable requirements;
• people-mover will be a monorail capable of up to 30mph rather than a Travellator;
• manned station; • lifts and stairs provided but no ramps; • an above ground level transfer from east of the station to the people
mover is assumed; • the train service pattern would be similar to EARL as proposed; • it has been calculated that this option would require 2 miles of monorail
which would result in a 4 minutes journey time; and • outline transport modelling using the railway-industry Passenger
Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) was used to assess impact on patronage and revenue
23. The table below compares the Gogar Station Option with the Runway
- Minor cost or negative impact - Moderate cost or negative impact
- Major cost of negative impact
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A
The table below provides a more detailed comparison of the Gogar Station Option with the Runway Tunnel Option.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A Runway Tunnel Gogar Station Option Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Economy • Cost benefit ratio of 2.16
• Significant de-congestion benefits - £765m and £1,140m journey time saving benefits over 30 and years- public transport and road users, resulting in:
Short Break holidays resulting in spread of tourism benefits throughout Scotland
• Greater ability to attract inward investment
• Economic benefits are distributed throughout Scotland – 64% of the Scottish population (living within 2 miles of a railway station) will have direct access to Edinburgh Airport by train
• Higher capital cost
• Lower capital costs of between £22.5m and £45m (excluding People Mover solution)
• Demand is significantly impacted by the interchange penalties
• Patronage/revenues would be up to 40% lower than the Runway Tunnel option.
• Using the Tunnel option TEE results, a 40% drop in revenues would be equal to a drop in revenues of about £100m over a 30-year appraisal period or £150m over a 60-year period.
• Loss of revenue greater than saving in costs would be:
• Additional running costs over-and-above the rail services
Environment • Environmental benefits associated with de-congestion impacts due to high patronage of EARL e.g. air quality
• Less construction works in proximity to sensitive receptors in and around Gogar and South Gyle
• Works potentially affecting Forth SPA would be further upstream from it than the Gogar Station option
• Ecological improvements along Gogar Burn as a result of diversion
• Removal of invasive plant species e.g. Himalayan Balsam along River Almond
• Significant environmental impacts in and around Airport
• Requires possible excavation of CAT Stane
• Major impacts, both actual and perceived at Roddinglaw
• Potential impacts arising from burn diversions and pollution/sedimentation of watercourses
• Need for development on Cycleway and associated impacts
• Traffic impacts from road diversions, particularly A8
• High volume of waste arisings to be transported off site and landfilled
• More Green Belt/economic development/agricultural land take required
• Greater impacts on floodplain and water table
• Greater landscape and
• Removes nearly all reported environmental impacts in and around the airport as a result of the tunnel option,
• Removes the need to excavate Cat Stane SAM
• Removes impacts at Roddinglaw junction, in particular badger sett, perceived noise impacts and landscape and visual impacts
• Removes the need for road diversion, compensatory land and farm access bridge at Roddinglaw
• Removes need to divert River Almond, and therefore all associated impacts
• Removes the need to re-provide the Cycleway
• Removes need to divert
• Station construction in proximity to dense residential/leisure/ retail land uses – noise and vibration and air quality impacts in particular.
• Traffic and transport impacts to Maybury Junction would be significant during both construction and operation.
• Visual intrusion of monorail along New East Chord – Castle Gogar.
• Require works in and around River Almond to upgrade existing Fife Line crossing to 4-track – possible Appropriate Assessment implications (Forth SPA).
travelling environment, to gain sufficient information to make all the correct connections.
• Access to/from four platform at-grade station more difficult for those with disabilities – especially for interchange at Gogar to other rail services
• Poor MIP access at unmanned South Gyle Station.
• Removes direct service from Edinburgh Park to Edinburgh Airport
• Loss of direct interchange with Edinburgh Tram
• There are less direct accessibility benefits to other areas.
Implementability
• Majority of railway construction is in green field and off-line rather than operational environment
• Majority of the new rail lines hidden in cuttings and tunnels, which are
• Tunnelling below operational runway
• Large volume of excavated soil to be removed
• Only two rail lines at airport station.
• Transco HPG mains
• Reduced length of new railway.
• Reduced interface with airport operations
• Reduced number of new rail junctions.
• Avoids Transco HPG mains, road and bridge
• Potential disruption to existing railway operations during work at Saughton
• Four tracking from Gogar to Saughton in a western suburb of Edinburgh.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A
Runway Tunnel Gogar Station Option Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
across open ground. • No houses demolished or
persons displaced • Meets timetable
requirements • Maintains operability of
airport.
require diversion (4 locations)
• Requires Grade-Separated Junction at Roddinglaw
• Required diversion of Roddinglaw Road
• Overall, more technically complex
works near Kirkliston/B800/UB9
• Avoids all works associated Roddinglaw Grade-Separated Junction
• Four tracking to Saughton requires re-construction of Gyle Station
• Demolition of some housing
• New embankments across River Almond flood plain create problems with mine workings, flooding, import of fill, visual intrusion.
• Transco HPG main runway along river Almond (north side) requires strengthening or diversion.
• Technically challenging and very constrained to widen Glasgow Road/OB16
• High risk homes along Burnshot Road will be directly affected.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A Question 6: A summary of the European Cities Monitor Report 2005, Cushman and Wakefield.
Promoter’s Response
24. Based on the views of senior executives from 501 European companies, key findings outlined in the European Cities Monitor 2005 are summarised below.
25. In terms of key factors in deciding where to locate, access to markets leads from the availability of qualified staff as the single most important factor, with London currently the top rated city for access to markets and for international transport links.
26. Between 2004 and 2005, Glasgow moved from 24th to 22nd in the top 30 list of leading European cities for business, having previously been ranked 10th in 1990. Edinburgh did not feature in the list at all.
27. In relation to city promotion, in terms of making improvements in cities where companies are already represented, transport issues were what companies called for most, with transport links with other cities the single most demanded improvement, followed by improvements to traffic circulation within the city and public transport provision;
28. Extracted tables from European Cities Monitor 2005 Executive Summary (October 2005)3:
The best cities to locate a business today (page 5) City Rank Weighted
3 Cushman & Wakefield Healey & Baker, European Cities Monitor 2005 Executive Summary, October 2005
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A Dusseldorf 6 18 16 0.10 Stockholm 19 15 17 0.10 Geneva 8 17 18 0.10 Hamburg 14 19 19 0.09 Warsaw 25 20 20 0.09 Budapest 21 23 21 0.09 Glasgow 10 24 22 0.08 Vienna 20 22 23 0.07 Lyon 18 21 24 0.07 Copenhagen - 26 25 0.06 Rome - 25 26 0.05 Helsinki - 28 27 0.04 Moscow 24 27 28 0.03 Oslo - 30 29 0.03 Athens 22 29 30 0.03 Base: 501 *In 1990, only 25 cities were included in the study.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A Essential factors for locating business (page 6) 29. In relation to companies deciding where to locate their business, access to
markets was the single most important issue.
2004 2005 % % % % Easy access to markets, customers or clients 61 60 Availability of qualified staff 56 57 Transport links with other cities and internationally 50 52 The quality of telecommunications 47 50 Cost of staff 39 35 The climate governments create for business through tax and the availability of financial incentives
36 32
Value for money of office space 29 31 Availability of office space 27 30 Languages spoken 28 24 Ease of travelling around within the city 25 22 The quality of life for employees 18 16 Freedom from pollution 16 13 “Absolutely essential” responses only are included here. Base: 501 Essential factors by type of business (page 7) Industrial Trading Service Sample Size 207 102 192 % % % Easy access to markets 58 65 60 Availability of qualified staff 62 51 55 Transport links to other cities 59 47 47 Quality of telecommunications 48 42 57 Cost of staff 39 34 31 Climate created by government 35 27 32 Value for money offices 26 29 36 Languages spoken 27 22 23 Availability of offices 27 30 34 Ease of travel within the city 19 28 23 Quality of life 15 14 18 Freedom from pollution 17 7 13 “Absolutely essential” responses only are included here. “Trading” includes the following sectors: Distribution, Wholesale, Retail. How current business locations can be improved (page 13) 30. When asked for a list of the key things that businesses wanted to see done to
improve their own city as a business location for their company, transport issues dominates companies’ thinking.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3A 2004 2005 % % Improve transport links with other cities 32 33 Improve traffic circulation 32 30 Improve public transport 36 29 Lower community taxes 13 15 Reduce bureaucracy 6 7 Improve telecommunications 5 6 Improve shopping/leisure for workers 8 6 Better supply of qualified workers 4 5 Less pollution 6 5 Improve parking 4 3 Improve security - 2 Cleaner streets 2 1 Base: 501
31. The Executive Summary to the Cushman & Wakefield Healey & Baker, European Cities Monitor 2005, (October 2005) is attached to this memorandum at Annex 2.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3B
Annex 1
NOTE ON BEHALF OF THE PROMOTER REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Introduction 1. The Environmental Statement (“ES”) reaches conclusions as to the
environmental impacts of the proposed Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (“EARL”). Those conclusions are based, among other things, on assumptions as to mitigation measures. The impacts as finally assessed represent impacts after that mitigation has been provided. These are described as “residual impacts”.
2. One of the assumptions in the ES is that the construction of the authorised
works will be carried out in accordance with a code of construction practice (“CoCP”). A draft of this code is appended to the ES as Annex L. The Promoter will amend this document if issues come to light over the course of the promotion that require such amendment. If any such issues can be signed off during that time it may be possible to produce an updated version of the draft CoCP for the Committee. It is intended that any matters raised during the promotion but not formally settled by the time the Bill passes will be dealt with by the local planning authorities in accordance with the procedures described later in this Note.
3. The Promoter is in the course of preparing a noise and vibration policy which,
it is intended, should also govern the construction of the works. Further policy documents and plans on various aspects of the construction will be prepared as required. The representations made by Scottish Natural Heritage (“SNH”) refer to issues many of which will be addressed in this way. Annexed to this note is a list of titles of environmental policy documents or documents making certain mitigation assumptions which exist, are in course of preparation or are contemplated. The list is by no means closed.
4. It is important for the implementation of the proposed powers that all the plans
called for by SNH and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (“SEPA”) are completed before Royal Assent. The Promoter believes that this can be achieved. The plans must to an extent include machinery allowing for the later addition of details that cannot be included at the outset e.g. because they are dependent upon detailed design. Provision in the Bill requiring compliance with plans will, therefore, cover these later additions.
5. In addition, the Promoter would expect that undertakings given to third parties
in connection with the Bill will deal with specific environmental impacts. 6. It is the Promoter’s intention that all commitments in such documents and
third party undertakings should be binding, both on tie as Promoter and, after Royal Assent, on the authorised undertaker. It is further intended that all these obligations should be written into the construction contract. The effect
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3B will be that, as between the authorised undertaker and its contractor, the contractor will be obliged to abide by them.
7. The framework outlined above does not include any element of independent
third party oversight, regulation or other means of enforcing the provision of this assumed environmental mitigation. The Promoter is conscious of the fact that the Committee will be concerned to put in place a mechanism designed to secure that such mitigation is provided. The Committee may, therefore, wish to see these elements provided for in the Bill. The representations of SNH, in particular, but also West Lothian Council and SEPA raise similar concerns. The Promoter would welcome this approach.
8. Section 46 of the Bill would impose on the authorised undertaker a statutory
duty to use all reasonably practicable means to ensure that the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the authorised works are not worse than the residual impacts, as identified in the ES. The Committee may be satisfied that sufficient protection is afforded by the imposition of that statutory duty alone, and that the authorised undertaker can be relied upon to discharge its statutory obligations.
9. Without in any way doubting that the authorised undertaker will indeed
discharge its duties, the Promoter believes that the Committee may wish to secure a measure of third party involvement coupled with a means of enforcement. The representations to the Committee by SNH indicate SNH’s view that this is a necessity. The Committee will be aware that this is the approach which has been adopted in the case of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill. The question whether similar, or any, enforcement measures should be imposed upon EARL in the Bill is, of course, a matter for the Committee alone. The Promoter nonetheless believes that the Promoter should plan on the basis that enforcement provisions will be added to the Bill.
10. Two factors drive this. First, the Promoter’s intentions are as outlined above.
tie is anxious that this should be known at the outset to the Committee and all interested parties so that it may inform the consideration of the Bill at all stages. Second, as with all the Bill’s proposals, the Promoter must be prepared to meet such requirements as the Committee may make. A framework similar to that approved by the Parliament for Waverley is one which, tie believes, could achieve for EARL the level of protection sought by SNH and SEPA and which tie intends in any case should be provided.
11. The following represents the Promoter’s proposals in this regard. They are
submitted on the basis outlined above.
Section 46 – Mitigation of environmental impacts 12. Section 46 imposes an obligation not to worsen the environmental impacts of
construction and operation, taking as an acceptable baseline the residual impacts identified in the ES. The requirement is for the authorised undertaker to employ all reasonably practicable means to achieve that end. That
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3B obligation bites on residual impacts identified in the ES, and not on any additional environmental obligations.
13. The reason for this is that as yet there are no such additional obligations. As
outlined above, it is expected that further environmental commitments will be made. Accordingly, the Promoter proposes that section 46 should be expanded so as to apply to all environmental commitments given prior to Royal Assent. The effect would be to expand the statutory duty to ensure that the ‘environmental baseline’ included these other commitments as well.
CoCP and Noise and Vibration Policy 14. The Promoter recognises the especial importance attaching to construction
methods and noise. It accordingly suggests that the Bill should impose a similar statutory duty to comply with the CoCP and the noise and vibration policy. tie contemplates that, in addition to the main CoCP, there will be local construction plans dealing with specific issues at specific locations. Neither these local construction plans nor the noise and vibration policy exists at present. The local construction plans will not emerge until the detailed planning stage, after Royal Assent. A noise and vibration policy is expected to be produced to the Committee at a later stage. However, unlike possible environmental undertakings to be added to section 46, they are known factors as at now.
15. The Promoter proposes that any amendment imposing duties concerning the
CoCP should also provide for a mechanism by which the CoCP is to be finalised after Royal Assent and, subsequently, amended as necessary. This machinery would also capture the proposed local construction plans which will be produced as the need arises.
16. The machinery proposed by the Promoter would require the authorised
undertaker to submit a CoCP and any appropriate local construction plans in draft for approval by the local planning authority. The local planning authority would be required to consult SNH and SEPA and would be obliged to take account of representations made by either of them. Amended or replaced codes and plans would be produced by the authorised undertaker for similar approval. This mechanism would give the local planning authority a direct input into the detailed mode of construction of the authorised works.
The Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (“SPA”) 17. The SNH representations refer to mitigation measures relating to the
authorised works as affecting the SPA. tie notes that SNH is satisfied that the SPA should not be adversely affected provided the mitigation measures referred to in Annex C to their representations are implemented, and that an appropriate assessment is not therefore required. SNH advises that a mechanism should be put in place to secure that the approved measures are taken.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3B 18. Subject to any decision by the Committee, tie would welcome this approach.
Tie believes it would be appropriate for the necessary measures and the means of securing their provision to be agreed with SNH and SEPA in a similar manner to that provided for in the Waverley Bill.
Regulation of mitigation measures 19. Having provided the machinery to secure that mitigation measures are put in
place and required to be complied with, the Promoter would also propose a machinery for enforcement. The proposal is that the obligations described above should be enforceable by the local planning authority as if they were valid planning conditions. This provision would attract the planning enforcement regime in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The 1997 Act includes a full range of enforcement measures allowing the local planning authority, in the extreme, to bring the works to a halt. Before that stage, however, the 1997 Act provides a range of lesser measures for notification of defaults and machinery for rectifying them.
20. This requirement for local planning authority involvement is not novel in
relation to major developments. It will be appreciated that most developments require only planning permission. Planning permission, when granted, is frequently made subject to conditions. It is normal practice for conditions to include obligations regarding detailed construction and codes of construction practice. In relation to major infrastructure projects, planning conditions imposed can include obligations for codes of construction practice similar to those proposed for the Bill. In relation to wider environmental commitments it is common for the regulators and the developer to enter into agreements, with balancing planning conditions regarding compliance. tie could point the Committee to specific instances, in particular in relation to transport and works and harbours proposals in England and Wales.
Licensing 21. In view of concerns expressed in the representations of both SNH and SEPA,
it is appropriate to emphasise that the Bill does not affect the operation of the licensing requirements they mention. The authorised undertaker will be obliged to comply with these requirements.
22. tie notes the suggestion in SEPA’s representations that there be a formal
environmental forum to allow for formal consultation. This forum could, SEPA suggests, operate in tandem with approvals procedures. tie would be happy to explore this approach further with SEPA, SNH and all other relevant stakeholders. It appears to tie to be a matter best dealt with outside the Bill by way of formal agreement with the parties concerned.
Conclusion 23. These proposals, therefore, are novel in the sense that they have not
previously been legislated for in this way. If the Committee chose to adopt
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3B them, they would, give effect to a method for dealing with the construction and other environmental impacts of major infrastructure works which (as well as now being precedented in a Scottish Private Bill) has been tested elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
24. For the reasons explained in paragraph 20 above, tie has not sought the
views of all the local planning authorities before submitting these proposals. It will do so over the course of the promotion as regards these or any other detailed implementation or enforcement measures be adopted by the Committee.
ANNEX European Protected Species Report Licensing Protocol Badger Report Badger Mitigation Plan Landscape and Habitat Management Plans An assessment of the Effect to the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (copied to Committee) Environmental Management Plan Emergency Response Plan
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe B
PROM (P) 3C European Cities Monitor 2005 Available in paper copy only to members of the Committee Link to electronic copy - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/edinburghAirLinkBill/inquiries/ea-prom-written-evid.htm
EXPLANATORY NOTE BY TIE LTD (“PROMOTER”) ON PROOF OF RECEIPT OF NOTICES
17 May 2006
Introduction This Explanatory Note has been prepared by the Promoter of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill, tie Ltd, in response to a verbal request from the Clerk to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee made to the Promoter on 25 April 2006 in relation to the proof of receipt of Notices in connection with the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill. Explanatory Note
1. All notices were sent by recorded delivery. A recorded item sticker was attached to the corresponding land interest entry on the postal list and once complete and stamped by the post office, these formed a postal record that all notices had been dispatched.
2. Subsequently the Land Referencing Team made use of the “track and
trace” service offered by Royal Mail. This service allows for the tracking of the notices using the unique recorded delivery number for each notice. Records were compiled to control which items had been confirmed as delivered and which items had not, these records included spreadsheets and print files from the Royal Mail website. This exercise enabled the Promoter to obtain confirmation that each notice was received or, if not, allow remedial action to be taken.
3. Of the original 571 individual addressees notified, the following
information was obtained from the Royal Mail track & trace service:
• Confirmed delivered - 494 • Information not available - 61 • Undelivered - 15 • Returned to sender – 1
4. Royal Mail were contacted to verify the status of the “information not
available” and “undelivered” items. Royal Mail’s response is shown below:
“Recorded items travel with the normal 1st and 2nd class mail and are only tracked when the delivery card is taken back to the Delivery Office with a signature or reason for no signature. The item number is then scanned into our track and trace system. It does happen occasionally that Recorded items are not spotted when the daily delivery is prepared and they are then delivered with the rest of the mail,
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe C
without a signature having been taken. In such cases, Royal Mail cannot confirm delivery, hence the "information is not yet available" If there is no confirmation of delivery after 15 working days (Mon-Sat) then we would have to assume the item is lost and a claim would be needed.”
5. Following consideration of Royal Mail’s response the Project Team as a whole decided that further independent remedial action should be taken by the Land Referencing Team; this comprised the following tasks:
• Reconciling “undelivered” items and “returned to sender” item against
notice returns log (i.e. if the notice was returned this would account for the fact that the status was “undelivered”)
• Reconciling “undelivered” and “information not available” items against consultation records and from other communications with landowners (i.e. if the Project had received a call from an interest in relation to their notice this would prove that they had received their notice)
• Attempting contact via telephone, fax or email to ask individual interests if they had received their notice. This included in some cases numerous messages being left and several follow up calls.
• From the proof of receipt exercise it was confirmed that 1 affected persons notice and 2 statutory undertakers notices had not been received (in these instances the notices were correctly stated as “information not available” by Royal Mail).
• In some cases this exercise necessitated further copy notices being sent to individual interests via Royal Mail recorded delivery. In these cases a covering letter was included with the copy notices asking the recipient to confirm receipt, this was successful.
• For the remaining cases where proof of receipt could not be obtained it was decided to serve copies of the notices by hand. In these instances the notices were stamped to say “copy” and a receipt was obtained in person. Covering letters were included in each notice served by hand.
6. Spreadsheets were used to control and record all activities in relation
to closing out the proof of receipt tasks. These show all reasonable steps had been taken to ensure that all parties had received their notices.
EARL/S2/06/6/1 Annexe D
1. Letter from Mr Douglas G Smart dated 20 June 2006 2. Article by Max Hastings in Observer 3. Article by Melanie Reid in Herald 4. Conclusions and recommendations of Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution, on Environmental effects of civil aviation in flight.
5. Letter from Preswick Airport. 6. Article by Scotland on Sunday on Eurostar.
Available in paper copy only.
LATE PAPER – EARL/S2/06/6/2 Written Evidence from Network Rail and tie Ltd 26 June 2006
EARL/S2/06/6/2
EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL COMMITTEE
Written Evidence received from Network Rail and tie Ltd Network Rail 1. At the EARL Bill Committee meeting on 20 June the Committee agreed to
seek further written evidence from Network Rail detailing the dates of discussions and level of input Network Rail had with tie Ltd in relation to the EARL scheme and in particular on its proposed operating timetable.
2. A written response has been received from Network Rail and is attached
at Annexe A. tie Ltd 3. At its meeting on 20 June the promoter’s witnesses agreed to provide
further written evidence to the Committee on a number of topics. 4. This written evidence (promoter’s response PROM (P) 5A) has been
received and is contained at Annexe B. 5. The promoter has also provided a written response on security issues
(promoter’s response PROM (P) 5B) which may be made public. This response is attached at Annexe C.
EARL/S2/06/6/2
ANNEXE A EA(P)32
EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL
ADDITIONAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM NETWORK RAIL Many thanks for your letter of 21 June regarding our evidence session in Parliament. I understand that the Committee seek further information on the timescale and level of discussion which Network Rail have had with the promoters, tie, with particular relation to its proposed operating timetable. I am happy to provide further detail as requested, and hope that this will allow the issues which the Committee raised with Network Rail to be addressed and the Bill to be progressed. In terms of the Committee’s request, there are two distinct issues regarding Network Rail’s involvement which it may be helpful to clarify:
• our involvement in the process to select the current option, and • our involvement in the development of the current selected proposal,
including timetabling. I hope that the following chronology will be useful to the Committee.
i. Project Option Selection - Initial Proposals In 1999, our predecessor company, Railtrack plc commissioned work by consultants Scott Wilson to initiate consideration of linking Edinburgh Airport to the rail network. I must stress that this was not a feasibility study of a particular scheme or schemes; rather it was a desktop options study, with outputs which were too high level to be advanced by Railtrack, and the range of proposals to link the airport and railway were not taken forward at that stage by any other organisation. ii. Project Option Selection - Scottish Executive SKM Report Two years later, the Scottish Executive announced that it wished to examine the issue, and in November 2001 engaged Sinclair Knight Mertz (SKM) to produce a range of options for providing rail links to both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. Railtrack went into administration in October of 2001, and as a result of this the company focused on the operation, maintenance and renewal of the existing railway. On 4 December of that year, Railtrack advised the Scottish Executive that it was unable to continue to provide support for enhancement projects. As I indicated to the Committee, prior to this point, information had been sought from Railtrack on timetabling issues. Railtrack in administration, and subsequently Network Rail (which was established in October 2002) had no further significant involvement in developing the proposal until the SKM report was published in February
EARL/S2/06/6/2
2003. Network Rail was asked to comment at a meeting in February 2003 when the draft report and conclusions were presented, and our input was largely restricted to providing engineering and operational knowledge. The runway tunnel option was selected and endorsed as the preferred option by a Ministerial announcement the following month (March 2003).
As I indicated to the Committee, Network Rail therefore had minimal involvement with the decision-making process which selected the current preferred option.
iii. Current Project Development - Initial Involvement In March 2003, tie was appointed by the Scottish Executive to develop and promote a parliamentary bill on the basis of the preferred option. Network Rail’s involvement with tie was limited to a reactive role until the signing of a Basic Services Agreement a year later in March 2004. That services agreement was limited to providing for the release of infrastructure records; operational, engineering and timetabling information and comment; and reviewing technical reports. In short, we provided information to tie but did not take decisions about the project; nor did we ‘steer’ the project. Indeed, although since October of 2005 we have been represented on the project board, we have observer status only. iv. Current Project Development – Timetabling & Performance Timetabling and performance has been a concern for Network Rail, and end-to-end journey times on the Edinburgh Glasgow route were first accepted as a valid concern by tie during 2003. We first highlighted concerns regarding performance in late 2004, and have maintained a dialogue with the project since then, with a view to finding a solution. Further analysis using the MERIT performance software tool (undertaken in the latter part of 2005) alleviated some concerns on the Edinburgh Glasgow line, but not on other routes. Ongoing discussions through 2005 over performance resulted in a detailed e-mail of 17 January 2006, outlining these concerns, being sent from Network Rail to tie and copied to Transport Scotland. This ultimately led to our receipt of a letter from Transport Scotland, dated 31 March 2006. This indicated that they would take account of the potential impact of these schemes on performance targets for the network when considering the high level output specification and funding requirements for Network Rail for the next regulatory period. On the basis of this understanding which addresses our main concern, Network Rail has determined not to raise a formal objection to the bill.
EARL/S2/06/6/2
As I indicated to the committee, extensive, robust performance analysis and testing using our new ‘RailSys’ model will be required to determine the full timetabling impacts of this project. I expect this work to be completed towards the end of this year.
v. Current Project Development – Peer Review In April 2005, Network Rail undertook a ‘peer review’ of the engineering aspects of this project. This was not an in-depth review of the project. Rather, it was an overview by our engineers, who offered suggestions on the outline design specification of the project at an early stage in development. It should be noted that the review considered only engineering aspects, and did not examine operational issues, which, as we have detailed, present the principal concerns.
The EARL project in its current form was being developed by tie at a time when Network Rail, emerging from Railtrack, was focusing on its core business of the operating, maintaining and renewing of the existing network. Our initial involvement was limited, and the frequency and in particular the depth of our involvement has increased as the months have progressed. In my evidence, I indicated the changing nature of Network Rail in relation to the project. Over time, Network Rail has consolidated and secured our core business of operation, maintenance and renewal of the railway. Performance on the network, asset stewardship and efficiency have all improved significantly, and, as announced in our Business Plan this April, we have moved to a position where our performance and efficiency have allowed us to allocate £200m over the next three years to invest in new enhancements in the network. The Department for Transport’s White Paper, ‘The Future for Rail’ recognised these improvements and extended Network Rail’s responsibilities to included timetabling, performance reporting, industry planning, service recovery and small and medium sized enhancements. In relation to EARL, our engagement has driven us to undertake our recent review of the project, an intensive in-depth investigation which was undertaken in the past six weeks. This review has enabled us to strengthen our involvement with the project, ensuring that we are in an informed position in relation to the concerns such a project will inevitably raise, both for the project, and the existing infrastructure and services. In summary, our involvement was initially limited, and focussed principally (though not exclusively) on the attendance at meetings, and the offering of information when requested. In recent months, our engagement has become much more proactive, undertaking considerable work of our own to reveal and begin to quantify the challenges which such an extensive project will encounter.
EARL/S2/06/6/2
Many of the issues which were highlighted in the early stages of the project remain the issues which have been identified by our most recent review and drawn to the attention of the committee; I hope that the issues which have been raised can now be addressed to allow this project to progress successfully. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to the Committee on this matter Ron McAulay Director, Scotland.
EARL/S2/06/6/2
ANNEXE B PROM (P) 5A
EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL
PROMOTER’S RESPONSE FOLLOWING ORAL EVIDENCE ON 20 JUNE 2006
The purpose of this paper is to provide the Committee with the Promoter’s written response, to the letter from the Clerk to the Committee dated 21 June 2006 requesting further written evidence from the Promoter, arising out of the oral evidence presented to the Committee on 20 June 2006. The Promoter has set out in bold the information the Committee has requested and supplied the Promoter’s response thereafter. Question 1: In terms of patterns of employment at Edinburgh Airport, details of:
• the geographical spread of current workers; • the predicted geographical spread of future workers with a 17%
increase in the catchment; • details of the proportion of jobs with an early start/late start and
late finish/early finish; • proportion of current jobs at different skill levels.
Promoter’s Response Geographical Spread of Current Airport Workers
1. BAA, the operators of Edinburgh Airport, carry out interviews of
employees working at the airport. These surveys examine a range of factors including the origins of employees, their start/finish times during an average day, the category of work they perform, etc. Copies of these survey results were supplied to the Technical Advisors to tie limited for use in the EARL demand modelling study. These surveys are carried out at different years, and at the time of the transport modelling for EARL (Autumn/Winter 2004) the most recent information was during the period 1999 to 2001. Consequently, this information was used in the transport analysis and is presented below and in the remainder of this follow up written evidence for the Committee.
2. Using the surveys of the origins of employees, it is possible to identify
where employees originate when they travel to work at the airport. This information is provided by employee postcodes and to assist with the presentation of the information it has been aggregated into local authority areas. Table 1.1 shows the percentages of employees by local authorities.
EARL/S2/06/6/2
Table 1.1: Distribution of Employees by Local Authority Areas Local Authority % of Employees
Edinburgh 50% Midlothian 6%
East Lothian 4% West Lothian 18%
Fife 11% Falkirk 11%
Rest of the Country 0% Total 100%
Predicted Geographical Spread of Future Additional Airport Jobs
3. BAA’s Outline Masterplan advises there will be 5,700 direct jobs at Edinburgh Airport by 2013. This will increase to 9,000 jobs by 2030. Since the first full year of operation for EARL is 2011, this equates to about 5,140 direct jobs in 2011 from extrapolation with current employment levels at the airport. Subtracting the 5,140 jobs from the current levels of employment and using the results of the transport modelling, it is estimated that the potential increase of additional full time equivalent (fte) airport employees forecast to use EARL by 2011 could be up to 476 (this will increase in time in line with BAA’s Masterplan but this analysis has used 2011 to apply conservative assumptions).
4. The majority of these jobs are aided by the significant accessibility and
time savings generated by EARL, which filter through to the economy as efficiency savings and improved productivity. Consequently, using travel time savings as a proxy for the geographical distribution, it is possible to super-impose the new airport jobs travelling by EARL onto the current levels of airport employees and show the new geographical distribution of employment at Edinburgh airport. The results of this are shown in Table 1.2 below.
Table 1.2: Distribution of Potential Future Jobs by Local Authority Areas
Local Authority Geographical
Distribution (%) Edinburgh 42.0% Midlothian 5.1%
East Lothian 3.4% West Lothian 15.0%
Fife 14.7% Falkirk 11.1% Stirling 1.7%
Glasgow 6.0% Perth 0.5%
Rest of the Country 0.5% Total 100.0%
EARL/S2/06/6/2
5. It is important to note that the above only represents the direct
employment at the airport. In addition to these jobs, the wider economic analysis of EARL has estimated there is a potential for EARL to deliver up to 3,000 full time equivalent (fte) jobs throughout the country. These jobs would also benefit from EARL and their geographical distributions would be spread across the country because the accessibility and time savings (and hence the efficiency gains, improved competitiveness and productivity to the economy) are assessed at the national level demonstrating that Scotland benefits as a whole.
Proportion of Jobs with an Early Start/Late Start and Late Finish/Early Finish
6. Using data from BAA employee surveys described above, Table 1.3
below summarises the starting and finishing times of employees at Edinburgh Airport. This takes cognisance of the various shift patterns.
Table 1.3: Percentage of Employees Starting and Finishing Work at
7. As can be seen from Table 1.3, only 4% or 5% start or finish work before 0500 hours.
8. In addition, EARL is proposed to operate between the hours of 0600 to
2400. From Table 1.3 it is clear that 73% and 93% of employees start and finish working, respectively, during these hours. Consequently, the vast majority of workers will be accommodated with the anticipated EARL timetable.
9. Furthermore, if employees needed to start work before 0600 hours,
then there are some existing train services in the existing timetable could arrive at the airport before 0600. For example, these include:
• 0518 Edinburgh to Stirling ETA Edinburgh Airport 0527 • 0540 Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy ETA Edinburgh Airport 0551
10. In addition, empty coaching stock movements prior to the
commencement of services could be adapted to service the airport at earlier times of the day. Furthermore, it might be possible to run shuttle services from key locations to the airport prior to the commencement of the full timetable, although agreement would need to be reached with Transport Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail.
Proportion of Current Jobs at Different Skill Levels
11. The most recent categorisation of jobs at the airport was from the 1999
BAA survey. This had slightly lower total employees than current levels, however it is considered to be a good representation of the different levels of skills at the airport. Table 1.4 below summarises the numbers of jobs, by different groups (management, operations, flight controls, technical, logistics, servicing, emergency & government, and security) and various categories.
11. From Table 1.4 it is clear that there are significant numbers of entry-
level jobs which will grow in time based on BAA’s projected need for 9,000 employees by 2030 and could be catered for by the socially excluded. These entry-level jobs include the following occupation groups:
• Servicing (16.6% of the total employees); • Logistics (31.1% of the total employees); and • a proportion of the Operations staff [passenger ground handling
staff (7.6%); sales/shop staff, cashiers and ticket desk staff (6.0%); and check-in staff and receptionists (4.8%)].
12. This suggests about 66.1% of current airport employees could
potentially be used by the socially excluded. It is important to observe that BAA has introduced a Travel Plan, for example at Gatwick Airport, which is made up of a series of incentives aimed at encouraging airport staff to travel to work by ways other than driving alone in a car. Schemes include discounted fares for rail and bus travel. This has the potential for not only encouraging travel by sustainable transport, but to make rail travel accessible to all airport workers, including the socially excluded.1
Question 2: Two examples of Scottish rail stations which are classed as Category C Stations (it would also be helpful if you could also provide two examples of Category B if possible to enable comparisons) Promoter’s Response
13. Category C Stations - Stirling, Ayr
1 West Sussex County Council Press Release Number 115 dated, 12 March 2002
EARL/S2/06/6/2
14. Category B Stations – Queen Street high level, Queen Street Low Level, Inverness
Question 3: Clarification of what parts of the security information could be made public Promoter’s Response 15. The Promoter has attached the document as submitted on 12 June
2006 to the Committee and highlighted in yellow the information that is provided to the Committee on a confidential basis. In addition, the Promoter has provided the Committee with a “clean” copy dated 26 June 2006 that can be circulated to the public.
Question 4: Information on the conformity of proposed signage with other international standards (it would be helpful to confirm whether there is standard international signage used to indicate disabled services/facilities).
Promoter’s Response
16. The size, colour and layout of which any signage showing disabled
services is dictated by EC Safety Signs Directive (92/58/EEC) and accord with BS 5499: Part 1: 1990 (British Standards) and ISO 6309 Fire Protection - Safety signs (International Standards), which agree on the international symbol for disabled passengers. This relates primarily to safety signage, but also access. With reference to the softer side (e.g. services and facilities), the Promoter has been advised that the producers of signs for Network Rail currently follow a set of layout guidelines in accordance with British Standards.
EARL/S2/06/6/2
ANNEXE C PROM (P) 5B
PROMOTER’S WRITTEN RESPONSE FOLLOWING ORAL EVIDENCE ON 6 JUNE TO THE COMMITTEE 1. The purpose of this paper is to provide the Committee with the
Promoter’s written response following oral evidence presented to the Committee on 6 June 2006 on any terrorist plan or tunnel attack plan including indicative costs and security aspects covered.
Promoter’s Response 1. A number of meetings have been held between Network Rail and
BAA's security personnel and tie to discuss the requirements for EARL during design, construction and operation. From this tie will also be speaking to TRANSAC (security arm of the DfT) and BTP air and rail liaison in the coming months through the design evolution process.
2. It is likely that a specialist security consultant will be procured by tie to
undertake threat risk assessments and advise on mitigation measures throughout the different stages of the EARL project. The security consultant will lead with the mitigation measures that can be designed into the scheme.
3. Currently, the station has been designed to create clear lines of sight
and will be fitted with CCTV which is included in the capital cost. Security during construction is included in the contractors preliminary cost allowances. Given that many of the security requirements will be developed during the detailed design phase and tie will be required to incorporate any legislative requirements at that stage, an element of contingency has been included for such costs.
EARL/S2/06/6/3
EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT AND ROLE OF AN ASSESSOR Introduction
1. At Preliminary Stage, a Private Bill committee can decide to direct the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) - subject to the bill proceeding to Consideration Stage - to appoint an “assessor” to consider and report to the committee at Consideration Stage.
2. Consideration Stage has two distinct phases. The first involves
hearing evidence relating to the detail of the Bill and any outstanding objections to it. Following consideration of the evidence (whether by an assessor or by the committee), the committee will prepare a report giving its decisions on the objections considered. The second phase of Consideration Stage involves the committee meeting in a legislative capacity, to consider and dispose of any amendments to the Bill.
3. If the Committee so decides, the assessor could report to the
Committee in one or both of the following ways: a) with recommendations on which outstanding objections should
be grouped; which objectors should give evidence on these grouped objections; and, whether evidence should be given orally, in writing or both1;
b) on the evidence given to the assessor, with recommendations as the assessor considers appropriate.
4. Decisions which may flow from the Committee’s views on either 3a or
3b above are discussed in more detail later in this paper.
Background
5. A recent report by the Procedures Committee, Private Bill Committee assessors2, recommended that the Parliament accept a proposal by the Scottish Executive for the Parliament’s private bill procedures to be changed.
6. In essence, the Committee report proposed that private bill committees
should have the option of appointing an independent assessor to hear 1 At Preliminary Stage, the Committee must reject any objections where the objector’s interests are, in the opinion of the Committee, not clearly adversely affected by the Private Bill. Any remaining objections would be considered in detail at Consideration Stage (if the Parliament agrees that the Bill should progress). If the Bill does proceed to Consideration Stage, the Committee (or the assessor) can group together two or more objections it considers to be the same or similar. It (or the assessor) can then choose one or more objectors from a group to give evidence in relation to those objections. The Committee (or assessor) must also invite evidence from the promoter and any objector whose objection has not been grouped. 2 Procedures Committee's 1st Report, 2006 (Session 2), published 6 January 2006, SP Paper 481.
1
EARL/S2/06/6/3
and consider objections during the first phase of Consideration Stage. The primary benefit of the proposal was described as its capacity to “reduce the burden on MSPs in dealing with what are at times highly complex and technical matters”, while also enabling the process to be conducted more efficiently.
7. While the Procedures Committee was “less convinced than the
Scottish Executive” of the potential of the proposal to save time in the process, it agreed that “the ability to appoint an assessor is a useful option for Private Bill Committees to have”. The Committee therefore recommended that the Parliament agree to make the Rule changes that would be required to allow an assessor to be appointed.
8. The Procedures Committee’s motion to change Standing Orders was
debated and agreed to in the Parliament on 18 January 2006. Consequently, Chapter 9A of the Standing Orders was amended to include provision for the appointment of an assessor (and related procedures).
9. It is important to note that while an assessor could report to a
committee in the ways highlighted above, it would remain the sole duty of the committee to decide and report on any outstanding objections at Consideration Stage; the revised Standing Orders make clear that a committee could accept in whole or in part, or reject, any report by an assessor. Furthermore, after an assessor reports, a committee could take such other steps as it thinks fit, for example, referring further matters to the assessor for consideration and report, or itself taking further evidence.
Next Steps 10. If the Committee so decides, it will be for the SPCB to appoint an
assessor that it considers to be suitably qualified, subject to such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate. If the Committee decides not to appoint an assessor, the Committee would be responsible for carrying out the functions mentioned in paragraph 3.
11. It is anticipated that if the Bill progresses and if an assessor is
appointed, he or she would commence work shortly after Preliminary Stage has concluded.
Recommendations
12. The Committee is invited to discuss and agree whether it wishes
to direct the SPCB to appoint an assessor to consider and report to the Committee at Consideration Stage, subject to the Bill proceeding to Consideration Stage.
2
EARL/S2/06/6/3
Role of an Assessor
13. Should the Committee decide to appoint an assessor, then under Standing Order rule 9A.8.2A the Committee may during Preliminary Stage direct such an assessor to report to the Committee in one or both of the following ways.
a) Grouping, invitations and evidence b) evidence only
14. In considering the role of the assessor the Committee has already
acknowledged at its Committee meeting on 23 May 2006, that it is determined to ensure that any uncertainty for objectors and those potentially affected by the EARL Bill is limited as much as possible. Members may therefore wish to consider any impact on the timescales for considering evidence in reaching a view on the role they would wish to see the assessor undertake.
15. By considering the role of the assessor at this time objectors and the
promoter will have longer to prepare for any future requests for written or oral evidence which are made either by the Committee or an assessor.
Option 1 – Grouping, invitations and evidence 16. In option 1 the assessor would recommend to the Committee in a
report: a) the objections which are the same or similar and which should
be grouped under rule 9A.9.4; b) which objectors should be chosen to give evidence in relation to
the objections so grouped; and c) whether the invitations to give evidence should be invitations to
give evidence orally or in writing; d) to consider the evidence given to the assessor and report with
such recommendations on the basis of that evidence as the assessor considers appropriate.
17. Should the Committee agree to appoint an assessor, then whoever is
appointed would not commence their duties until the decision by the Parliament to agree the general principles of the Bill and that the Bill should proceed to Consideration Stage.
18. Should the Parliament agree to the general principles of the Bill and
that the Bill should proceed, it is only at that time that an assessor would be able to begin undertaking functions16 a,b and c.
19. Given that the assessor can only report their recommendations, the
Committee would then need to meet to consider and agree the assessor’s recommendations in relation to groupings and invitations to provide evidence. Following the Committee’s decisions on groupings and evidence, the assessor would then seek written and or oral evidence.
3
EARL/S2/06/6/3
Option 2 – Evidence only 20. In option 2 the assessor would report on the evidence given and report
with such recommendations on the basis of that evidence as the assessor considers appropriate.
21. The other functions of grouping objections and then inviting written and
oral evidence would be undertaken by the Committee. 22. Should the Committee wish to agree that the assessor’s role would be
limited to option 2, then there are a number of issues which the Committee may wish to consider further.
Grouping of Objections 23. Should the Committee decide to undertake this function then it may be
helpful to objectors and the promoter to indicate now the Committee’s preliminary views of proposed groupings of objection.
24. The Committee can chose to group those objections which it considers
raise the same or similar issues to the same part of the Bill. Those objectors who are not grouped must also be given the right to present evidence to the Committee.
25. In considering how to group objections, such groupings must be made
on the basis of clear, objective criteria. In addition, there must be some “right of reply” for those objectors who do not agree with the Committee’s groupings.
26. Attached in Annexe A is a list of suggested groupings together with a
proposed deadline for a ‘right of reply’ which the Committee may wish to consider, should it decide it wishes to undertake the role of grouping objections at Consideration Stage. When considering the table in Annexe A it should be borne in mind that: • Where objectors have had a box placed around their names, this
indicates that they could be grouped; • Although this paper has identified potential lead objectors3, these
are purely to engender further discussion by objectors and are subject to the input from objectors within that group;
3 The function of a lead objector is to co-ordinate a group’s response at Consideration Stage (i.e. submitting further written evidence) and to make sure that all the relevant information for that group is presented to the Committee in a fair manner. Although the attached table does identify potential lead objectors, these are based solely on an examination of objections and experience to date and have been suggested in order to engender further discussion by objectors and are subject to the input from objectors within that group. For example, a person identified as a lead objector may not wish to take on this role or the group may collectively decide that another person would be better placed to take on this role. Given that the lead objector must canvass and represent the views of the group, it is considered important that the members of the group input to their selection.
4
EARL/S2/06/6/3
27. To make the grouping process manageable, it is suggested that it is
necessary first to separate the proposed scheme by the “works numbers” listed in schedule 1 of the Bill. Then, objections can be grouped within these broad geographic locations according to the basis of similar or same objectionable factor(s), for example noise, loss of access, etc. Grouping in this way has resulted in groups such as Carlowrie where the objectors live near to each other and raise the same or similar issues.
28. That said, there are a number of objections which are more easily
handled by grouping them on their own and then taking a number of these groups together on a thematic basis (for example, “utilities”). Grouping in this way has enabled ‘grouped groups’ to be identified based on geographic area such as ‘Winchburgh-Kirkliston’ or similar themes such as the ‘protective provisions’ groups.
Written evidence 29. Should the Bill proceed to Consideration Stage, then the groups of
objectors and the promoter will be invited to submit written evidence. The Committee may therefore wish to consider potential deadlines for receipt of written evidence to enable both the promoter and objectors more time to prepare their written evidence.
30. Attached in Annexe B are suggested deadlines for receipt or written
evidence should the Bill proceed to Consideration Stage. 31. Subject to the decision to appoint an assessor, the Committee is
invited to discuss, which role that it would wish the assessor to undertake:
a) Option 1 b) Option 2
32. Should the Committee agree to limit the Assessor’s role to option
2, then the Committee is invited to: • indicate its views on the provisional grouping of
objections contained in Annexe A; • agree to write to all objectors indicating the provisional
groupings and inviting a ‘right of reply’ to the provisional groupings and where relevant, confirmation of lead objectors by 21 July 2006;
• discuss and agree in principle the possible deadlines for written evidence provided in Annexe B.
Private Bills Unit June 2006
5
Annexe A
Proposed Groupings of Outstanding Objections to the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill
Winchburgh Group 1 Mr and Mrs T Pollock (3) Group 2 C J Staples (12) Group 3 Mr J G Dudgeon and Sons Farmers Ltd (30) Winchburgh- Kirkliston Group 4 CALA Land Investments Ltd (25) Group 5 The Winchburgh Trust & others (38) Group 6 Dundas Trust & others (39) Group 7 Hopetoun Estates & others (40) Group 8 Aithrie Estates & others (41) Group 9 Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd / CALA
Management Ltd (45) Group 10 Danzan 2003 Trust & others (46) Protective Provisions Group 11 O2 (6) Group 12 Royal Mail (21) Group 13 BTP (22) Group 14 BRB (23) Group 15 Scottish Power (31) Group 16 EAL (33) Group 17 ELBG (42) Group 18 Almondhill
Mr I Johnston (11) Mr D Mackie (13) Ms S A Keenan* (32) Mr D Watson (35)
Group 19 Carlowrie Mr W Bryant (2) Mr C D Brunton (4) Mr P Coultas* (8) Mr and Mrs S Chalmers (9)
Group 20 Roddinglaw Mr S Kennedy + 13 signatories (1) Ratho and District Community Council* (36) Prof and Mrs R J Graves (44)
Group 21 Wheatlands Mr and Mrs W Marshall* (24) Mrs A McGowan (29) Lord Rosebery / NFUS (37)
Easter Norton/Freelands Area Group 22 Freelands Farm (17) Group 23 Balmer & Scott (19)
6
Annexe A
Group 24 A G Allison & others (20) Group 25 Wm Pollock and Sons (26) Group 26 Mr and Mrs Chambers (48) Roddinglaw Area Group 27 Grampian Country Food Group (16) Group 28 Meadowfield Development (18) Group 29 Premier Property Group (28) Airport Area Group 30 New Ingliston Ltd (15) Group 31 Mrs J Watson (27) Group 32 FSH Nominees Ltd/ FSH Airport (Edinburgh)
Services Ltd (34) NB: Objections to the whole bill must be considered and decided upon by the Committee at Preliminary Stage and do not therefore appear in the above table. * - denotes possible lead objector and is subject to the agreement of objectors in that group. Deadline It is proposed that, subject to the Bill progressing to Consideration Stage, that objectors be given a deadline of 21 July 2006 to indicate their disagreement with the proposed grouping of their objection and to confirm, where relevant, the lead objector in that group.
7
Annexe B
Proposed Written Evidence timescales for Consideration Stage. 1. Should the Bill proceed to Consideration Stage, then the first written
evidence deadline is for every group of objectors. This deadline is proposed to be 5.00 pm on Monday 2 October.
2. This written evidence is then submitted to the promoter for rebuttal. The
promoter then has two weeks to submit the promoter rebuttal written evidence (deadline of 5.00 pm on Monday 16 October).
3. The promoter’s rebuttal written evidence is then sent to the relevant group
for that group’s rebuttal written evidence. Each group then has three weeks (a deadline of 5.00 pm on Monday 6 November) to submit their group’s rebuttal written evidence.
4. Experience of the above process from the Waverley Railway Scotland Bill
has shown that such timescales are reasonable for submission of written evidence.
5. It is anticipated that, should the Bill proceed to Consideration Stage, then
further more detailed information on Consideration Stage and submitting written evidence will be provided to the Committee, objectors and the promoter.
