CONSULTATION ON A96 DUALLING HARDMUIR TO FOCHABERS SCHEME

Transcription

1 MTRIPS Planning and Design Major Transport Infrastructure Projects Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow G4 0HF Direct Line: Phone: Mr David Edgar FAADAG Your ref: Our ref: A96PHF-MMS-MAN-TPC-CO-SC Date: 17 August 2018 Dear Mr Edgar CONSULTATION ON A96 DUALLING HARDMUIR TO FOCHABERS SCHEME Thank you for your feedback on the proposed route options developed for the A96 Dualling Hardmuir to Fochabers scheme. Your detailed feedback report has been reviewed and considered by Transport Scotland and the relevant teams in Mott MacDonald Sweco and will be used to inform the ongoing options assessment work. The assessment also includes engineering, environmental, traffic and economic considerations to identify the preferred option. Dualling of the A96 between Hardmuir and Fochabers is part of the Scottish Government s ambitious programme that will see the full length of the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen upgraded to dual carriageway by This is an ambitious target but one that underlines the Scottish Government s commitment to connecting Scotland s cities with a high-quality transport system that will generate economic growth. Along with the Scottish Government s commitment to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025, dualling the A96 will ensure the road network between all Scottish cities is of dual carriageway standard by A number of updates to the route options are being announced today by circulation of the attached design update leaflet. Your submission refers your area of interest being the IV36 postcode area, further defined by you as lying between Hardmuir and East of Alves. Of particular note with respect to this area is that route element P1 is being dropped from further consideration; the alignment of R4 has been adjusted and that a new Forres East junction location is being assessed for O4. In reading the following responses to your detailed questions please bear in mind that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was a high-level appraisal and in many cases there is no detail to source to allow a full response to be drafted. Secondly the DMRB Stage 2 route options assessment work is ongoing. In this respect a number of responses refer to the Stage 2 Report that will be published once complete, expected later in I note your report contains several stated opinions that ask if Transport Scotland agrees on these occasions I am unable to respond directly as these will be based on the outcome of the current DMRB Stage 2 and/or future DMRB Stage 3 or Environmental Impact Assessments. My responses to your other queries follow, and I have identified the page from your feedback document where the question was identified.

2 Page 3: Please will you disclose to us the precise bases on which the changes made by the most recent consultation have been predicated, stating which of the key topics have been impacted by each change? The reasons for investigating alternative alignments in the IV36 area were: P1 at Hardmuir feedback received at the June 2017 exhibitions highlighted potential impact on Macbeth s Hillock. There was also a current planning application (16/01586/APP) for mobile camping holiday pods in the area south and adjacent to Macbeth s Hillock. P1 at Wester Moy - the June 2017 exhibition alignment was found to have a significant interaction and impact with the existing 132kV overhead lines, whilst also passing close to residential properties to the south of Moy House. O5 at Ordies / Earnside - through design development since the June 2017, it was identified that design of the access to Ordies would be challenging due to proximity of railway line. In addition, the proposed rail crossing incorporated a significant skew. B1 at Burgie - feedback received at the June 2017 exhibitions highlighted potential impact on Burgie Eventing Centre and proximity of Category B listed Burgie Castle. Feedback also highlighted significant impact on agricultural holdings in the area. Further, the relative performance of route elements R2 and R3 were assessed on the basis of engineering, traffic, economic and environmental factors. Route element R3 was considered to perform best in overall terms. Page 3: Why is that? What is available now for consultation? Assessments of traffic-related changes / noise and vibration assessments at key receptors were not carried out as part of the SEA. The SEA did not consider route option design and it would therefore not be possible to predict specific noise impacts. Noise assessments, that take into account traffic-related changes, will be published in the DMRB Stage 2 report. Page 4: Please will you identify which of these key impacts have been instrumental in the changes made in the latest round of consultation? Please refer to the first response above. Page 7: Please would you disclose to the public in response to this request detailed comparative costings of the three route options now under consideration for the IV36 area, as well as a relative set of costings for what may be termed the online option Option A? Cost estimates will be prepared for end-to-end options and will be published as part of the Stage 2 Report. The Forres element of Strategy Option A that you refer to has not been taken into the DMRB Stage 2 route options process and therefore no cost estimate has been prepared.

3 Page 7: Please would you disclose to the public the communication you have had with Moray Council over the costs of maintenance of the old A96 when the dualled road is fully operational? No consultation has taken place with Moray Council with specific reference to maintenance costs, however Transport Scotland and Mott MacDonald Sweco continue to consult with Moray Council on other matters regarding the scheme. Typically discussions regarding de-trunking would commence after a preferred option has been selected. Page 8: Please would you explain in what respects space is considered to be inadequate for an online option? Specific design and assessment of online widening options through Forres had been undertaken following feedback from members of the public at the Meet the Team events held in October This has concluded that all of the online options considered have significant issues in terms of their feasibility and acceptability, including the requirement for demolition of properties. In this area a number of ancillary roads and bridges would be required to maintain access to areas to the north of the existing A96, which means the overall scheme would need significantly more width than that required for simply adding a second carriageway. Other key issues highlighted by the assessment were the considerable health and safety risk and significant disruption associated with construction of any of the options within such a constrained corridor. Therefore, online dualling options in Forres have been ruled out and will not be considered further. Page 8: Please would TS/Sweco respond with a reasoned analysis of the necessity for grade-separated junctions in light of the traffic projections in the IV36 area? The principle of designing a dual carriageway with grade separated junctions where possible was established in the DMRB Stage 1 work (see report page 120 Junction and Access Strategy ). The junction and access strategy was developed to provide a consistent approach with regard to the provision of access for the A96 Dualling Programme. Projected traffic flows were not a factor in such a decision. Page 10: Please would you explain what consideration was given to FADAAG s proposal above, and on what criteria and bases it was not progressed? The concept of an on-line upgrade involving a single centrally positioned Forres junction would considerably alter traffic patterns in the urban area, resulting in significantly more traffic accessing the A96 via High Street, Nairn Road and Market Street. There is no intention to consider this proposal further. Page 11: Please would you supply us with comparative matrices for all of the routes under consideration in the IV36 area? Air quality assessments will be documented in the DMRB Stage 2 Report.

4 Page 12: Do you agree that all of the locations listed above are properly to be considered sensitive receptors? The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) definition of a sensitive receptor in terms of air quality is: Locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present and are likely to be exposed for a period of time appropriate to the averaging period of the relevant air quality objective. As outlined earlier in this letter, I am unable to state whether or not Transport Scotland agrees with the statement you have made since the DMRB Stage 2 Assessment is not yet complete, however it may be helpful to confirm the following. The predicted effects of traffic on route elements will be assessed as part of the environmental assessment. For the assessment of air quality effects on people, sensitive receptors are identified as residential properties within 200 metres of the routes being assessed. These are locations where people are exposed for long periods of time to the local air quality. The findings of the air quality assessment will be set out in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 12: Please would you list for us all areas on routes orange and purple in the IV36 area that TS/Sweco consider to be sensitive receptors? I refer to my response above and note that the assessments currently being undertaken will be reported in the DMRB Stage 2 Report and this will detail what receptors have been analysed. Page 16: What proposals to mitigate noise are currently being considered as regards each of the three routes? It is normal practice to consider specific mitigation as part of the design development of the preferred option during the DMRB Stage 3 process. Therefore, at this stage (DMRB Stage 2), no specific mitigation measures have been designed for route options. Page 16: Could you please explain why it is that noise was not treated as a relevant criterion in the stages that have preceded the current consultation? and let us know what aspects of noise are currently under evaluation? Refer to previous answer to Page 3: Why is that? What is available now for consultation? above. Page 16: Please tell us when (if at all) such comparative evaluations will be a) undertaken and b) published? Specific road noise assessments are being prepared as part of the Stage 2 work, the results of which will be published in the DMRB Stage 2 Report.

5 Page 20: Please would you explain why the preservation of quiet has been left to a stage after the selection of a preferred route, rather than incorporated as a criterion of evaluation in the selection process? The noise assessments undertaken during the Stage 2 process are based on changes in noise levels with and without a particular option and therefore covers quieter areas as well as areas close to the existing A96. Page 21: What are the comparative costs of construction of mitigatory measures as between routes red/blue, purple and orange? It is normal practice to consider specific mitigation as part of the design development of the preferred option during the DMRB Stage 3 process. Therefore, at this stage (DMRB Stage 2), no specific mitigation measures have been designed although an allowance for such measures will be included in the cost estimates for each option which will be published in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 21: Please explain the rationale for excluding such matters from the selection process, and leaving them to ex post facto mitigation of the preferred route to be selected later this year? See response above. For the avoidance of doubt, noise impact is considered as part of the assessment used to select a preferred option. Page 24: Your comments on these issues have been requested above; the requests are equally valid also for the topic of people and communities and so are repeated by reference herein. A specific assessment of the potential effects relating to people and communities will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 25: To what extent has the consultation process invited the public to provide the developers with evidence of the respondents expectation in relation to their choice of residence? To what extent is such expectation taken into account in comparing the suitability of the route options under review? No specific prompts have been given in seeking feedback on the route options. However, all vital feedback provided by members of the public and other interested parties has been considered throughout development of the route options. Page 25: What measures are proposed to replace or alleviate these existing lines of transport and communication? The route options designs take into account the need to preserve local access and as such no public roads (such as the B9010 that you mention) are stopped up. Typically overbridges, underbridges or localised realignments have been incorporated into the route option designs.

6 Page 26: What additional measures would be required of route orange as regards flood alleviation, and to what extent would such measures incidentally enhance the status of Pilmuir and/or Greshop for SEPA s purposes? All route options are being designed to ensure no significant flood impact would occur at adjacent developments. At this stage assumptions relating to alignment, bridge spans and road level are being informed by flood modelling, further specific measures will be developed for the preferred option at DMRB Stage 3. Page 26: When will the developers be publishing comparative matrices addressing the issue of agricultural land as between the three routes currently under review? A specific assessment of the potential effects relating to agriculture will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 27: When will the developers be publishing projected traffic flow data for the areas adjacent to the routes now under review? A specific assessment of the predicted traffic effects associated with route options will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 29: If route B1 is adopted, requiring the entire estate to be supplied by mains water, is this mains water to be supplied to the estate free of charge? As stated in the attached leaflet Route Element B1 has been dropped from further consideration. Page 37: What is the developers view of the significance of (and impact on) the community woodlands, as regards routes red and blue? A specific assessment of the potential effects relating to people and communities (including consideration of community woodlands) will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 37: What economic evaluations have been made of the relative routes? The DMRB Stage 2 Report will contain details of economic assessments undertaken on the route options. Page 38: What data have been evaluated in the comparative evaluation of the impacts of the three routes proposed? Please will you share these data with us? An assessment of the potential effects relating to nature conservation will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. For this, data is being collated from site walkover surveys and several sources including: Scottish Natural Heritage;

7 Scottish Environment Protection Agency; North-East Scotland Biological Records Centre; RSPB; Buglife Scotland; and Forestry Commission Scotland. Page 39: What measures are planned to deal with the impact of each route? and at what relative cost? Specific mitigation measures will be developed for the preferred option during the future DMRB Stage 3 process. Page 39: How would the deer problem be dealt with for routes red and blue? Specific mitigation measures will be developed for the preferred option during the future DMRB Stage 3 process. Page 41: Please state which areas you have identified as being ancient woodland on each of the routes under review in the IV36 area, and explain the likely impact of each route on them? Mott MacDonald Sweco have made use of data held by Scottish Natural Heritage to identify areas of Ancient Woodland. This information is available from the Scottish Government website Ancient Woodland Inventory (Scotland). Page 42: Please inform FADAAG whether a more detailed map-based study will be carried out to identify all ancient woodland and LEPO along the proposed route options? and, if not, why not? We have ongoing consultation with SNH and a specific assessment of the potential effects relating to nature conservation (including ancient woodland and LEPOs) will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Page 43: What data have the developers amassed in relation to these various watercourses and supplies, and can you indicate your conclusions as regards each of the routes under review? A specific assessment of the potential effects relating to road drainage and the water environment (including supplies to distilleries) will be contained in the DMRB Stage 2 Report. Design Update The attached leaflet presents an update on the options under consideration and highlights elements and junction locations that have been removed as part of the design work.

8 This leaflet and the additional plans to which it refers can be found on the Transport Scotland website at the following link: You will note that the route elements dropped from further consideration are: P1 O5 (except easternmost extent); B1; O7; and R6-R7 Should you wish to provide further feedback on the updated option designs, please provide this using the contact details on the attached leaflet by 14 September We aim to announce a preferred option for the scheme later in 2018 at which time public exhibitions will be held. We will contact you to let you know the dates of these public events as they are arranged. Yours sincerely Niamh Callaghan Project Manager You are receiving this letter in response to your feedback or queries on the A96 Dualling Hardmuir to Fochabers scheme. Transport Scotland will provide you with updates on the scheme using the contact details you have provided. We will only use your contact details for the purpose of keeping you updated with the progress of this project. Your contact details may also be held by or shared with our design consultant for this project. Your personal data will be deleted on completion of the project and you can opt out of receiving updates about the scheme from Transport Scotland at any time if you wish to do so please contact the project team using the details at the top of this letter. For information on why we collect personal information and how we use it please see our privacy policy at