The Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Environmental Statement Review Response Black

The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Environmental Statement Review Response June 2006

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd 4 Pierhead Street, Capital Waterside, Cardiff CF10 4QP Tel +44 (0)29 2047 3727 Fax +44 (0)29 2047 2277 www.arup.com Job number 118441

J:\110000\118000\118441-00\04 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 Reports\0011Response Report.doc

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd June 2006

Document VerificationPage 1 of 1

Job number Job title Edinburgh Airport Rail Link

118441

File reference Document title Environmental Statement Review Response

Document ref

Revision Date Filename 0011 Response Report.doc

Description Final version for submission to client

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Janette Shaw Gordon Diamond Gordon Diamond

Final

Signature

Description


Name

Signature

Filename

Description


Name

Signature

Filename

Description


Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document ü

The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Airport Rail LinkEnvironmental Statement Review Response

J:\110000\118000\118441-00\04 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 Reports\0011Response Report.doc

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd June 2006

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Review Findings and Responses 3 Observations on Promoter’s Response

4 Conclusions

Appendix A: Table E3 Comments


J:\110000\118000\118441-00\04 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 Reports\0011Response Report.doc 05/6698

Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdJune 2006

1 Introduction

Terms of Reference

1.1 On 18 April 2006 the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL) Committee agreed to seek the views of the promoter of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (tie Ltd) and forward the response to Arup for its interpretation of the adequacy of the response to the EARL Environmental Statement Review items reported in August 2005 (Reference 05/6698). The brief for the work was contained in the Private Bills Unit letter dated 16 May 2006, accompanied by enclosure PROM (P) 1N containing the Promoter’s response to Committee Questions.

Scope of Works

1.2 The purpose of the original review was:

1) to check compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999; and

2) to review adequacy on a chapter by chapter basis, having regard to robustness, appropriateness, defensibility, errors, deficiencies and/or omissions and recommendations for improvement.

Its findings were that the Environmental Statement was compliant but that some additions and alterations would make the document more robust.

1.3 The promoter received comments from the Private Bills Unit in August 2005, understood to have been a condensed summary of the above-mentioned Review. In response to these and other comments, the ES underwent a series of revisions, September 2005 – March 2006. The promoter is believed not to have been issued with the full Arup Review until April 2006 and therefore did not have the opportunity to consider its detailed observations (PROM (P) 1N Enclosure refers) or incorporate suggested additions/modifications.

1.4 This document considers the adequacy of the Promoter’s response as set out in PROM (P) 1N.

Method

1.5 Having regard to the revisions to the ES set out in Tables E1 and E2, this document comments on:

• The promoters response 7.13 – 7.29 to summary issues

• The promoters detailed tabulated response – Table E3.

1.6 This document does not consider any revisions to the ES which were not prompted by the original review.

1.7 Comments have taken account of the following relevant guidance:

• PAN 58: Environmental Impact Assessment. Scottish Executive. September 1999

• Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements and Environmental Appraisals: Lee, Colley, Bonde and Simpson. EIA Centre University of Manchester OP55 1999

• Environmental Impact Statements Review: European Commission June 2001.

• Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2004.

• Summary Issues and Responses




2 Review Findings and Response

Review Findings

2.1 The findings of the Review as summarised in its Concluding chapter were:

• That the ES is compliant with the “specified information” in the EIA Regulations. It demonstrates adherence to EIA good practice guidance in approach, content and presentation. Accordingly the ES is regarded as generally thorough and competent; this observation assumes incorporation of Addendum material.

• The principal areas of omission/uncertainty are primarily a consequence of the stage of design development and construction understanding, rather than a product of the assessment work. Fuller descriptions of the design and mitigation proposals would, nevertheless, result in a more robust ES.

• Whilst the omissions identified are not considered to compromise the ES, their inclusion would aid defence of the document during the decision making process. The additions and presentational revisions, as specified in the checklists and preceding review text, would improve upon a comprehensive document. These are summarised as follows:

- Incorporation of 3D images showing the principal components of development and/or additional photomontages illustrating the same from agreed viewpoints

- Consideration of non-standard operating conditions. This would primarily relate to accident hazards and their consequences upon adjacent populations, land uses and habitats; and the potential for secondary pollution impacts

- Impacts on farm businesses. The physical impacts of land loss and severance are considered but not the economic effects upon the viability of agricultural units

- Incorporation of information on the amenity/recreation value of affected footpaths/cyclepaths, in order to put the implications of diversion into context

- Incorporation of archaeological field investigations, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statutory authorities; this would limit the uncertainties of acknowledged “potential” resources and the mitigation strategy proposed

- Incorporation of background data and assumptions on transport modelling to clarify the findings of the transport assessment

- Inclusion of more contemporary data on mode share and more detailed analysis of construction impacts on the transport network - reconsidering impact significance as necessary

- Quantification of spoil volumes identifies a significant issue, with the worst case – disposal to licensed landfill sites – being assumed. Involvement of an earthworks contractor at this stage would be likely to provide a fuller appreciation of spoil destination/impacts and transport implications

- Water quality data would aid the baseline characterisation of watercourses in the locations where diversions will occur and should be provided for parameters and in accordance with a monitoring period to be agreed with SEPA

- Incorporation of a pictorial representation of visual impacts to succinctly interpret the descriptive passages

- Revisions to Chapter 8 – Air Quality to clarify presentation of the baseline and impact assessment

- Revision to the HIA references in Chapter 14 – to aid understanding/cut out duplication




- The NTS would benefit from tailoring and revision to bring out more effectively the key features, key impacts and key measures to deal with them, using images to aid understanding.

Promoter’s Response

2.2 The promoter sets out, in turn, his response (713 – 729) to the items listed above which were considered to be useful additions to the document. They are summarised below:

• Five 3D images have been added to the landscape chapter (717)

• It is considered unlikely that any non-standard operating conditions would give rise to significant environmental impacts over and above what is reported in the ES. For example if a train derailed or crashed resulting in a leakage of diesel this spillage would most likely navigate into the track drainage system…(718)

• The promoter does not have access to the economic status of farm units to make predictions for incorporation in the ES. Such impacts will be the subject of confidential compensation discussions. The ES acknowledges impact on economic viability of farm units (719)

• The footpaths and cycleways are assumed to be valuable in amenity/recreation terms and the mitigation provides for diversion and/or re-provision of all r-o-w etc following construction (720)

• Field surveys and watching brief on preliminary ground investigations are reported, together with consultations and agreement on proposed mitigation (721)

• Not appropriate for ES to set out the transport modelling data underlying the assessment (722)

• Contemporary data not available on mode share. Construction impacts identified in Chapter 6 (723)

• Worst case presented to avoid under predict. Too early to estimate impact more precisely (724)

• River classification data provided provides comprehensive indication of water quality. Water quality sampling required pre-construction as mitigation measure (725)

• Illustrations and text in describing visual impact are balanced (726)

• The assessment is complex and technical and it was not felt that a change of presentation would be advantageous (727)

• Chapter considered clear and in accordance with good practice (728)

• NTS has been updated and enhanced. Illustrations not included to avoid selectivity/undue emphasis (729)

2.3 The promoter sets out his detailed response to those matters raised in the Review document in Table E3. A copy of the Table can be found in Appendix A at A1.




3 Observations on Promoter’s Response

Observations on Summary Response

3.1 Images showing the principal components of the development: The insertion of 3D images in Chapter 13 to supplement photomontages aids appreciation of the scheme. It nonetheless remains a complex scheme for the ES reader to understand.

3.2 Non-standard operating conditions: The reference (3.2.2) to non standard operating conditions not being different from the generality of impacts reported in the ES is sufficient for defensive purposes. Only one aspect, contamination of ground/surface waters from spillage and draining away, however, is mentioned in the explanation at 718. It would be relatively easy to introduce a sentence or two into each topic chapter in the ES to support the assertion in 3.2.2.

3.3 Impact on farm holdings: The model for Environmental Impact Assessment of transport schemes is set by DMRB; although strictly relating to road schemes it is also referred to in STAG which covers all Scottish Transport projects. DMRB and STAG guidelines both require an assessment of the likely future viability of individual farms should the proposal go ahead, taking into consideration the potential loss of land/other features. This is partially dealt with in Chapter 5 but remains an omission.

3.4 Given that some work has clearly been done on this aspect the document would be more robust if it could be identified how many farm holdings were likely to be affected, together with a qualitative prediction if no other can be provided eg slight/moderate/severe based on percentage of land loss, incorporating the caveat of uncertainty on the nature of individual farm businesses pending detailed consultation.

3.5 Amenity/recreation value of footpaths/cycle paths: The review comment related primarily to an appreciation of the usage of the network as an indicator of amenity/recreation “value” and, as such, would have aided understanding of the significance of temporary/permanent effects. A qualitative estimate of usage is often possible from looking at the condition of the footpath or cycleway, discussion with relevant custodians and consideration of status or inclusion in publications as part of recommended routes. The promoter’s response does not address this aspect; nevertheless the omission of this informative is not considered to compromise the ES.

3.6 Archaeological field investigations: The promoter’s response defends the level of investigative work undertaken. Given the extensive desk study, consultations and mitigation proposals, the weakness of not undertaking geophysical or invasive fieldwork to further determine resource potential is not regarded as significant enough to compromise the assessment.

3.7 Background data and assumptions on Transport Modelling: There is no further detail on the background modelling provided in the revised ES, reference is made to the Scott Wilson Traffic Modelling work (dated December 05) for details of this. This information is not readily available in order to understand the details of the model assumptions used, including for instance the most current position with respect to Edinburgh Tram.

3.8 Contemporary data on mode share and analysis of construction impacts on transport network: Mode share data has been amended to reflect the work referred to above, with the consequences of that modelling carried to a range of relevant chapters. The small amount of heavy rail access to the airport if EARL is not in place is assumed to reflect the use of existing railways (and then either the airport bus or taxis). This could be expected to transfer to the new station, but would undermine the overall percentage shift to rail. The concern with these mode share data is the consequence of them being applied to an airport that is 2.5 times larger than it is today in terms of passengers. It is not, therefore clear in Chapter 6 whether the consequences of this have been taken into account in the wider modelling.




3.9 Spoil volumes: The EIA Regulations ask for a description of the likely significant effects. From experience of construction contracts it is likely that spoil will not go to landfill if there is a realistic alternative. It is acknowledged that, given the programme and circumstances, spoil disposal options at this stage are uncertain and it is important, as the promoter says, not to under-predict. Nonetheless the insight of what an earthworks contractor might do with the spoil, even as a contemporary “snapshot”, would have been an indicative pointer towards the likely effects.

3.10 Water quality data: As remarked in the review, the ES contains a thorough analysis of the impact of the scheme on the water environment and, as also observed, the period and parameters for water quality monitoring will be advised by SEPA.

3.11 Visual impact illustration: The promoter considers the pictorial representations of visual impacts to be appropriate and adequate. As commented upon in the Review, the assessment of visual and landscape factors is fully robust but, as in many explanations of visual consequences, pictures are a considerable aid. It is noted that the 3D model images have been inserted into the Landscape and Visual Impact chapter. The Review comment in particular related to provision of an easy reference illustration (as per DMRB) of the impact on visual receptors, by colour coding of those shown in Figure 13.4 (detailed comment in Appendix A2).

3.12 Air quality presentation: The promoter emphasises the technical nature of the topic; this, however, should be no barrier to clarity. Since the original comment was concerned more with presentation than content it does not compromise the assessment. We would quote the IEMA Guidelines on preparation of an Environmental Statement –“Write for the reader. The main users of an ES are the decision makers and the public and the most successful ESs are written with this in mind. They make it easy for the user to read, assimilate and understand the information being presented.”

3.13 HIA References: The promoter has adequately explained the sequence of events with regard to the Health Impact Assessment item. Again this was probably a matter of presentation which might have been avoided with deletion of the final paragraph of 14.1.1 and a later reference made to the fact that no deeper analysis of Health Impact was deemed necessary following the result of consultations.

3.14 Non-Technical Summary: Changes have been made to the NTS, responding positively to the Review comments which sought greater clarity in presentation, in a common style, of the key features, impacts and measures. The promoter has explained why the NTS does not include images, figures or drawings as recommended - to avoid undue emphasis/misunderstanding; whilst this is understood illustrations, suitably titled, could have been used to aid the description of development and impact for lay readers.

Observations on Detailed Response

3.15 Observations on the Promoter’s detailed response in Table E3 can be found in Appendix A at A2.




4 Conclusions The original Review found the ES to be compliant with the EIA Regulations and a thorough and competent document. The alterations which have been made to the ES since that review was carried out, particularly in relation to the revision of the Non Technical Summary, provision of 3D images and incorporation of protected species assessment, have made the document more robust in content and easier to read.

Whilst most of the substantive items, in contrast to those which are merely a matter of presentation, have been dealt with by the promoter, there remain a few outstanding items which would take only limited effort to address.

Appendix A Table E3 Comments



Ove Arup & Partners LtdJune 2006

A1 Promoter’s Table E3






















A2 Comments on Table E3 Comments below relate to the items in Table E3 and are taken in the same order.

Row Subject Matter Comment

1 Images See 3.1 main text

2 Spoil disposal See 3.9 main text

3 Water quality See 3.10 main text

4 Non standard operating conditions See 3.2 main text

5 Transport See 3.7 and 3.8 main text

Note – on modal share Boxes 6.1 and 6.2 make different assumptions: 6.1 uses professional judgement; 6.2 uses 30%. Tables 6.6/6.7 project airport growth from 8M pax today to 21.5M pax in 2026. Taking mode share and applying to current passengers, there are 6M non PT trips pa. Even with EARL this will double by 2026; the roads will be twice as busy. Last para of 6.6 may underplay significance of traffic on the wider road network.

Note – construction workforce trips are stated as being 1 hour before and after the working day (0800-1800). Movements are assumed in the hours 0600-0700 and 1900-2000. If presented in the correct hours the road network is busier than assumed.

Note – 6.8 refers to impacts on railway stations in Fife; these stations already have congested car parking arrangements.

6 NTS See 3.14 main text

7 Internet access The ES on the EARL website has variously misplaced/non available documents and needs correcting.

8 Agricultural businesses/row See 3.3 -3.5 main text

9 Noise benefits Not addressed. The Review merely pointed out that mapping might have highlighted those areas experiencing some, if only limited, benefit. A matter of presentation rather than compliance.

10 Air Quality chapter See 3.12 main text

11 Protected species surveys Missing information noted in the Review is now included in ES, completing the ecology




assessment.

12 Archaeology surveys See 3.6 main text

13 Pictorial representation of visual impact Not addressed. The request was for an easy reference illustration (as per DMRB) of the impact (low-high) on visual receptors eg colour coding of those shown in Fig. 13.4 – as opposed to more illustrations of the impact. Perhaps the wording at 3.37 of the Review was ambiguous on this point; the previous sentence referred to photomontages/3D illustrations of development features.

14 HIA clarification See 3.13 main text

15 Impact analysis limited by level of design

Promoter’s remarks noted on case law context. The Review acknowledged the limitations on the ES due to the stage of progress and was more a comment on the level of information that could be provided on design and impact in the ES and not an implication that the ES was deficient. The reviewer was commenting, having regard to contemporary case law on the EIA Regulations as per 3.3.

16 Cat Stane Strategy Comment noted clarifying the position.

17 Definition of project Same issue as item 15

18 Sensitive receptors Various receptors are listed as per promoter’s response. The Review comment was aimed at eliciting information on population/settlements pre-eminently but also other receptors, within a certain distance of the development eg 50m, 100m, 200m, to aid appreciation.

19 Modal split percentages See item 5 above.

20 Construction traffic noise The Review comment, a minor one, was aimed at the impact on feeder roads to A8, A8000 – not addressed by the Promoter.

21 Move legislation to annex Not addressed. Primarily presentational.

22 Contents list Volume 2 Now provided

23 Explanation of EARL objectives Not addressed. As Review indicates, an explanation would provide fuller context and perspective.

24 Place names Not addressed. Original remark stands

25 Restoration details (Review Table 1.9 Appendix B)

Not addressed. Original remark stands




26 Above ground structures Information limited by stage of project development. Remark stands

27 Service details Remark stands

28 Road closures Not addressed

Date post:	24-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

The Scottish Parliament

Documents