Laurencekirk in Context Moray Council Inverurie $

Appendix A Supporting Information

Aberdeen City Council Westhill

Banchory Portlehen Aberdeenshire Council

Stonehaven

Drumlithie Auchenblae

Fordoun Fettercairn Inverbervie Laurencekirk Courdon Edzell Johnshaven Marykirk St Cyrus

Brechin Angus Council Montrose

Kirriemuir

Forfar

Perth & Kinross Council Arbroath

Km Km 0 2.5 5 10 0 0.5 1 2

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unautharised Prepared by: D. Emerson reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead Reviewed by: G. Kelly to prosecution or civil proceedings. Aberdeenshire Council. Licence No. 0100020767. 2014. Approved by: M. Thomson Alternative Routes to A90 $

Stonehaven

Alternative Route for Stoonehaven to Laurencekirk Traffic Drumlithie (3 miles longer than via A90)

Auchenblae Aberdeenshire Council

Fordoun

Fettercairn

Inverbervie

Laurencekirk Courdon Alternative Route for Brechin to Laurencekirk Traffic Edzell (4.5 miles longer than via A90)

Alternative Route for Montrose Johnshaven to Stonehaven Traffic (1 mile shorter than via A90) Marykirk

St Cyrus

Brechin Angus Council

Montrose

Km 0 2.5 5 10

SSE Overground Utility Search Boundary Cables (Electricity) Water Courses $ MP Mains (Gas)

BP Forties Pipeline

LP Mains (Gas) SSE Underground Cables (Electricity)

Scottish Water Gravity Pipe (Surface Water) Scottish Water Distribution Main Foul Pipe

Cable & Wireless (To be confirmed)

Note: Utility locations are indicative only. A full utility search Km of the area will be carried out at a later stage. 0 0.25 0.5 1

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Prepared by: D. Emerson Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unautharised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead Reviewed by: G. Kelly to prosecution or civil proceedings. Aberdeenshire Council. Licence No. 0100020767. 2014. Approved by: M. Thomson Legend aÆ Bus Stops !( Place of Worship P Post Office !P Schools ! Sports Sites A90 Proposed Connection Existing Proposed Core Paths High Street On-Road CorePaths Wider Core Paths Network A90 Junctions A90 Junctions Rail Station Recycling Centre Residential Areas New Mearns Acadamy Veterinary Surgery Accessibility

NorthA90 Junction $

Centre Junction

A90 !( Place of Worship South Junction A90 Junctions P Post Office High Street !P Schools Proposed Connection ! Sports Sites On-Road CorePaths Recycling Centre A90 Wider Core Paths Network Residential Areas Existing Proposed Core Paths New Mearns Acadamy Rail Station Veterinary Surgery

Km aÆ Bus Stops 0 0.25 0.5 1

Km 0 0.25 0.5 1 $

KM 066 M1

KM 005 Aberdeenshire Council MIR (Main Issues Report): Proposed Transport Solution KM 104 (Western Bypass)

EH 1

EH 2 KM 010

KM 009 KM 006 KM 007 KM 008 KM 011

Allocated within 2012 adopted Local Developpment Plan 2016 MIR: Officers Preference 2016 MIR: Other options not preferred by officers Mearns Acadamy

Stonehaven

Drumlithie Allocated: 30 houses + 0.5 Ha Employment Aberdeenshire Council Proposed: 67 houses Auchenblae Allocated: 85 houses + 1Ha employment Proposed: Nothing

Fordoun Allocated: 15 houses Proposed: 100 houses + employmet at Airfield Site Fettercairn Allocated: 30 houses Proposed: 30 houses Inverbervie Allocated: 230 houses Laurencekirk Proposed: 182 houses Allocated: 1105 houses Courdon Proposed: 510 houses Allocated: 230 houses + employment Proposed: 182 houses Edzell Allocated: 300 houses + 10 Ha employment Proposed: 1,000 houses + Commercial + Community + Retail Johnshaven Allocated: 67 houses Marykirk Proposed: Nothing Allocated: 49 houses St Cyrus Proposed: 119 houses Allocated: 155 houses + Employment + Retail + Retail Proposed: 19 houses Allocated: 400 houses + employment on Brownfield Regeneration Sites Proposed: n/a Brechin Angus Council

Montrose Allocated: 600 houses + employment Proposed: n/a

Km 0 2.5 5 10

A90 HS Scheduled Monuments Junction Boundry: 500 m ×Ö Listed Buildings Flood Extents: Surface Water AWI Medium Probability (1 in 200 year) SNAWI Flood Extents: River SSSI Medium Probability (1 in 200 year Km 0 0.25 0.5 1

Accident Severity # Fatal # Serious Km 0 2.5 5 10 # Slight

# # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ##

# # # # # North Junction # Centre Junction South Junction # # # # # # # # ###

# # North Junction#

# ## #

# ## # # # #

# #

# ## ## # # # Centre Junction # # #

# (!70 # (!50 South Junction 70 50 (! (! # ### ### #

50 (!70 (! 50 Acident Severity (!70 (! # # Fatal # Serious # # Slight A90 Junctions Km 0 0.25 0.5 # 1 !( A90 Speed Limits # #

# # # ## # # # # # # #

# #

# North Junction Centre Junction South Junction

# # #

### # # North Junction

# # #

# # ## # Centre Junction # #

# (!70 # (!50 South Junction (!70 !50 ( # ## ## #

50 (!70 (! (!50 Accident Severity (!70 # # Fatal # Serious # Slight A90 Junctions Km 0 0.25 0.5 # 1 !( A90 Speed Limits # #

Site 80052 O!

Site 80051 O!

Site 1172 O!

Km 0 0.75 1.5 3 $

Laurencekirk High Street O!

Laurencekirk High Street

A90 A937 North of Marykirk O! O!

A90 A937 North of Marykirk

Km 0 1.25 2.5 5 $

A90

North Junction

Centre Junction

South Junction

Cycling Isochrone: 10 minutes Æa Bus Stops Proposed Connection A90 Junctions Cycling Isochrone: 20 minutes !( Place of Worship Existing Proposed Core Paths Rail Station A90 Pedestrian Isochrone: 10 minutes P Post Office High Street Recycling Centre Pedestrian Isochrone: 20 minutes !P Schools On-Road CorePaths Residential Areas ! Sports Sites Wider Core Paths Network New Mearns Acadamy Veterinary Surgery

Appendix B Consultation

Consultation Statement

Access to Laurencekirk

Prepared for

June 2015

City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU +44 (0)141 552 2000

Document history

This report has been prepared in accordance with the instructions of the client, Nestrans for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created By Verified by Approved by

1 30/04/15 Draft Chris Buck Richard Bourne Donald Bell

2 02/06/15 Updated to incorporate pre‐appraisal Chris Buck Richard Bourne Donald Bell consultation activity

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT I

Contents

Section Page Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background to the Scheme ...... 1 1.2 The Access to Laurencekirk Study ...... 1 1.3 Purpose of the Report ...... 1 Pre‐appraisal Consultation ...... 2 2.1 Overview...... 2 2.2 Pre‐appraisal Consultation ...... 2 2.3 Key Themes in Pre‐Appraisal Consultation ...... 2 2.3.1 Traffic Congestion ...... 3 2.3.2 Operational Characteristics ...... 3 2.3.3 Safety ...... 3 2.3.4 Connectivity ...... 4 2.3.5 Road Design ...... 4 2.3.6 Development Planning ...... 4 2.3.7 Press Coverage and Campaigns ...... 4 2.3.8 Energy Industry and Development of Montrose Port ...... 5 2.3.9 Public Transport ...... 5 2.4 Open Day Outputs ...... 5 2.5 Workshop Outputs ...... 6 2.5.1 Traffic ...... 6 2.5.2 Development Planning ...... 6 2.5.3 Safety ...... 6 2.5.4 Statistics ...... 7 2.5.5 Cycling ...... 7 2.5.6 Connectivity ...... 7 2.5.7 Options ...... 7 2.5.8 General ...... 7 2.5.9 High Street Specific Issues ...... 7 2.5.10 BP Forties Pipeline ...... 8 2.6 Conclusions ...... 8 Detailed Appraisal Consultation ...... 9 3.1 Exhibition Promotion ...... 9 3.2 Exhibition Materials...... 9 3.3 Attendance and Facilitation ...... 10 3.4 Exhibition Feedback ...... 10 3.5 Key Themes in Exhibition Feedback ...... 11 3.6 Press coverage ...... 13 3.7 Area Committee Consultation ...... 13

Appendices Appendix A ‐ Exhibition Leaflet Appendix B ‐ Feedback Form

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT II CONTENTS, CONTINUED

Section Page Tables Table 2.1: consultation engagement events ...... 2 Table 3.1: Classification of feedback respondents ...... 10 Table 3.2: Postcodes of feedback respondents ...... 11 Table 3.3: Key themes in exhibition feedback ...... 11 Table 3.4: Support for proposed packages ...... 12

Figures Figure 3.1: The exhibition in Laurencekirk ...... 9 Figure 3.2: Support for proposed packages ...... 13

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT III

SECTION 1 Introduction

In December 2013, CH2M HILL was appointed by NESTRANS, the Regional Transport Partnership for Aberdeen City and Shire, to undertake a transport appraisal of access to Laurencekirk. This report provides an overview of consultation engagement which has taken place in connection with the study. 1.1 Background to the Scheme The population of Laurencekirk has increased by 60% between 2001 and 2011 and the town has been identified as a strategic growth area. Development land is allocated for employment within Laurencekirk and over 800 new dwellings are planned over the next 10 years. This significant growth will add pressure to, and be constrained by, the existing transport network. Laurencekirk is accessed from the A90 trunk road by three at‐grade junctions, which cause delays to traffic crossing the A90, with particularly significant delays at the south junction. The A937 to/from Marykirk crosses at the south junction; the B9120 to/from Garvock crosses at the centre junction; and the A937 leading out of Laurencekirk meets the A90 at the north junction. A range of measures aimed at reducing accident frequency and severity have been applied to these junctions previously, but safety‐ related issues remain a significant concern to the local community. 1.2 The Access to Laurencekirk Study The Access to Laurencekirk study has been carried out in accordance with Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG). The study identified the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities associated with current and future access to the town. These informed the development of a set of transport planning objectives (TPOs), which in turn led to the generation of a range of potential intervention options to improve the situation. These interventions were subjected to an objective‐led analysis of their ability to meet the TPOs, using the five key STAG criteria: environment, economy, accessibility, integration and safety. This analysis took into account future development proposals and planned changes to the transport network in the area. Following the initial analysis, further development work was undertaken for a selected number of options to assess their feasibility, whether they were both deliverable and affordable and to ensure that all the TPOs would be met. The resulting options were then assembled into a series of eight ‘packages’ of interventions. The south junction was recognised as a key problem to be addressed; hence six of the packages (numbers 2‐7) included grade separation at the south junction. This would remove the queueing delays on the A937 approaches and also enable a 50 mph speed limit to be removed from that section of the A90. Some of the packages included interventions at the centre and/or north junctions. 1.3 Purpose of the Report The study has included a wide‐ranging programme of consultation, consisting of face to face meetings, telephone conversations, email correspondence, promotional material, open‐days, focused workshops and drop‐in events. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the key consultation activities which have been carried out and to summarise 1. the main feedback which emerged from the pre‐appraisal consultation; and 2. the public exhibition held in Laurencekirk on 21 January 2015 and the main messages which emerged from this key consultation activity.

1LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 1 SECTION 2 Pre-appraisal Consultation

2.1 Overview Consultation activity was carried out in two stages: At pre‐appraisal stage, in order to capture and confirm the views of people and organisations about current problems, potential opportunities, issues and constraints; and At detailed appraisal stage, to explain the work that had been carried out and the resulting packages of interventions; and to provide the opportunity for comment. 2.2 Pre-appraisal Consultation A range of stakeholders were consulted during the appraisal process. A promotional leaflet was developed to ensure local awareness of the study, together with a dedicated email‐box to gather comments and feedback. Throughout the consultation process, evidence has been documented, including minutes of meetings, records of telephone conversations and notes from workshop sessions. Details of the consultation engagement events that were arranged are shown in Table 2.1 Table 2.1: consultation engagement events

Meeting Date

Angus Council representatives 12 February 2014

Representatives from Laurencekirk Development Trust and the ‘Villages in Control Action Group’ 12 February 2014

Representatives from Mearns Area Partnership 12 February 2014

Representatives from Laurencekirk Business Club 13 February 2014

Stephen Coles of SBC Consultants Ltd 13 February 2014

Workshop with local representative organisations 22 February 2014

Workshop with the client steering group and other public sector organisations 27 February 2014

Public open day / ‘drop in session’ 11 March 2014

Representatives from BP (British Petroleum)1 7 May 2014

2.3 Key Themes in Pre-Appraisal Consultation Several key aspects emerged in the pre‐appraisal phase of consultation. Traffic congestion, operational characteristics, safety, development planning, implications for businesses, connectivity, press coverage/campaigning and road design were all recurring themes. A number of other aspects also arose including public transport, parking, expansion of the energy industry and the development of Montrose Port. The following sections describes these features and the context within which they have been referenced.

1 Consultation with BP undertaken on 7 May 2014 focused on constraints associated with the BP Forties oil pipeline. Details of this consultation are reported in section 5.4 of the STAG report.

2LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 2 SECTION 2 PRE-APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

2.3.1 Traffic Congestion It was noted by participants that traffic volumes on the A90 appear to be growing. During the busiest periods, it has been observed that the introduction of the 50mph speed limit causes traffic to ‘platoon’. This is seen as a key factor in creating fewer opportunities to merge onto the A90 at the south junction. While it is considered that junction improvements are required, stakeholders including the Laurencekirk Business Club and Mearns Area Partnership felt that a single grade‐separated junction could increase traffic flows on the High Street. These stakeholders believed that the impact on other roads would need to be taken into account, particularly the High Street, and that traffic coming from population centres other than Laurencekirk should also be considered. For traffic travelling south from Montrose, the route through Brechin tends to be used, whereas the A937/A90 junction at Laurencekirk is popular for northbound traffic. It is noted that significant congestion is experienced in Brechin, which would not be alleviated by any junction improvements at Laurencekirk. The agricultural sector in the Laurencekirk area generates a significant volume of farming traffic at the A90 junctions. Traffic conditions on the High Street appear to influence the choice of junctions for use by farming vehicles. The busiest periods for general traffic at the A90 junctions are observed to be weekday morning and evening peak hours, Friday afternoon and Sunday afternoon/evening. Friday and Sunday traffic peaks are considered to be due to traffic travelling between Aberdeen and the central belt. In Laurencekirk, reported causes of delay included: southbound traffic turning right into Laurencekirk at the north junction at peak times, southbound buses turning right out of Laurencekirk at the centre junction, buses stopping on the northbound slip road at the north junction, congestion caused by HGVs on High Street and high volumes of traffic from Montrose accessing the A90 at the south junction. It was noted that a number of other population centres use the Laurencekirk A90 junctions, including Auchenblae, Fordoun, Inverbervie, Luthermuir, Marykirk and St Cyrus, adding to traffic congestion in the area. At peak periods, approximately 13 cars have been counted in northbound queues on the A937 at the south junction. Traffic congestion and safety concerns are considered to present barriers to people who may otherwise travel into Laurencekirk to shop. It was reported that Marykirk residents tend to do their shopping in Montrose, rather than cross the A90 to Laurencekirk, even though the round‐trip distance is approximately 5 miles further. 2.3.2 Operational Characteristics Consultation participants stated that people plan their routes to avoid the Laurencekirk A90 junctions due to both safety concerns and operational delays, making longer journeys via minor roads to access or cross the A90, rather than using primary routes. This increases traffic volumes on minor roads, increases fuel usage and C02 emissions and can adversely affect businesses, which lose out on ‘passing trade’. The number of school buses and HGVs crossing the A90 at Laurencekirk is considered to represent a significant issue. A study undertaken in 2011 by the ‘Villages in Control Action Group’ found that there were 22 school bus movements through the Laurencekirk A90 junctions each weekday (in school term time). The study also looked at HGV movements which showed that the middle junction was generally considered as being the safest, with better visibility and more space provided within the central reserve. Consultation feedback suggested that junction improvements would help to bring people and businesses into Laurencekirk, thereby supporting the future prosperity of the town. Businesses need to be able to access and cross the A90 at the busiest times, and it is perceived that existing junctions create constraints causing businesses to avoid these periods. 2.3.3 Safety Consultation feedback indicated that some people use diversionary routes via minor roads to access or cross the A90 due to safety concerns (see 2.3.2 above). It was also suggested that if local residents have to use one of the A90 junctions, they will prefer the centre junction, even if this is not on their direct route, as there is more space in the central reserve and the junction has better visibility.

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 3 SECTION 2 PRE-APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

As noted in 2.3.1 (above), some Marykirk residents are reluctant to travel into Laurencekirk to shop due to safety concerns, preferring a longer round‐trip to Montrose. Concerns were expressed by several consultees about the number of school buses and HGVs that use the A90 junctions, and the safety implications of long vehicles overhanging the running lanes whilst waiting in the central reserve. Long vehicles waiting at the junctions also restrict visibility for other traffic, which has safety implications. The European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) has indicated that the A937 is one of the “persistently higher risk” roads in the UK. Consultation participants stated that many accidents occur in the area that are not reported by print media. It was suggested that trip diversion onto minor routes to avoid the Laurencekirk A90 junctions may be a contributory factor in increasing accident risk. 2.3.4 Connectivity Links to coastal towns are considered to have deteriorated since the construction of the A90 bypass, with coastal villages noting concerns over access to businesses and jobs due to the poor links across the A90. 2.3.5 Road Design Several junction layouts were suggested during the consultation, including:

 A grade separated south junction;  Extending the southbound merge lane at the north junction and introducing street lighting;  Retention of the centre junction in combination with interventions to the north and south junctions;  Closure of the centre junction;  Grade separated north and south junctions, as grade separating the south junction only could significantly increase traffic volumes on the High Street; and

 Different solutions for the north and south junctions as the problems at each are not the same. Several issues were highlighted in relation to the existing road design, with the lack of overhead lighting and visibility problems being frequently cited. Concerns were also expressed that HGV traffic at junctions creates further visibility issues. Road surfacing and marking were both considered to be poor at the three Laurencekirk A90 junctions. Several issues were also raised which specifically relate to the High Street. It is considered that the area has insufficient parking, and that the narrowing of the street at the new Mearns Academy has brought about concerns from haulage companies in terms of HGV access. Concerns were also expressed about future capacity problems at the new Mearns Academy due to traffic growth. Some participants stated that HGVs are a key cause of congestion on the High Street. 2.3.6 Development Planning Angus Council advised that no planning applications or traffic appraisals have raised concerns with the south junction, although it was stated that developments listed in the Angus Local Development Plan may require improved access via the south junction (including the Sunnyside Hospital site). Consultation feedback indicated that the community in Laurencekirk is generally in favour of development in the area and that this will facilitate the improvement of the town. However, the Mearns Area Partnership noted that the lack of available land in and around Laurencekirk represents a barrier to potential development. 2.3.7 Press Coverage and Campaigns In addition to petitioning, the A90 Laurencekirk junctions have received significant press coverage and have stimulated public efforts to resolve perceived issues. Several YouTube videos have been posted which depict traffic congestion and operational issues, and a Facebook page for the A937/A90 Junction Campaign has been created to provide a platform for local comments and to highlight safety concerns and traffic congestion issues. The junctions have also attracted coverage in print media and television,

4 LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT SECTION 2 PRE-APPRAISAL CONSULTATION including The Press and Journal, The Courier and Scottish Television (STV), indicating the public interest in this issue. The Mearns Area Partnership indicated that they receive frequent complaints about the junctions. 2.3.8 Energy Industry and Development of Montrose Port Angus Council advised that Montrose Port is a significant industry in the area and there is recognition that it could be used in relation to the offshore windfarms. Increasing employment will have implications for traffic routing and volumes in the Laurencekirk area. The Port has experienced growth in recent years and freight volumes increased by over 70% from 2011 to 2014. The port also includes a grain drying facility that serves farms in the Laurencekirk area and this creates traffic between the two locations, mainly HGVs. 2.3.9 Public Transport Consultation feedback suggested that improving road access to Laurencekirk could increase the number of people using the railway station. Patronage could also be increased by increasing service frequency, especially between Laurencekirk and Aberdeen, as existing trains are very busy. Feedback also indicated a need for better integration between public transport modes, especially rail and bus services. 2.4 Open Day Outputs A consultation open day was run on 11 March 2014 to obtain views on the Access to Laurencekirk project from interested members of the public. The specific aims of the session were to:

 Give an understanding of the process to be followed in the Access to Laurencekirk Study;  To present CH2M’s understanding of the background to the study area;  To provide an opportunity for the public to input their views; and  To give attendees the confidence that their comments would be considered. A range of issues were raised by attendees during the many discussions which took place. Many of the themes were similar to those raised in the earlier consultation activities, although some new factors were also highlighted. Trip diversion to avoid the A90 Laurencekirk junctions, the lack of lighting on the A90, the potential impact on High Street traffic if only one junction were developed, problems with visibility and disruption to businesses were all noted. The following issues were also raised by attendees:

 Driver frustration was described as a key safety issue, but one which would be difficult to quantify. It was felt that increasing levels of traffic would exacerbate frustration and stress levels and make drivers more likely to take risks; hence increasing traffic volumes could lead to a higher number of accidents.

 It was suggested that the speed camera at Laurencekirk is in the wrong location. The current position causes drivers to slow down immediately before the south junction, which creates a platooning effect and reduces merging opportunities. The use of average speed cameras between the north and south junctions was suggested as an improvement. This should spread vehicles out and create more gaps at peak times, providing merging opportunities.

 Comments from farm businesses in Laurencekirk indicated difficulties in finding haulage companies who are willing to serve their premises. In some instances, HGV drivers have been instructed not to use the junctions at Laurencekirk due to safety concerns, increasing their overall journeys to use alternative interchanges.

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 5 SECTION 2 PRE-APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

Other safety‐related concerns expressed at the Open Day included:  People make longer journeys via minor roads to avoid the A90 junctions due to safety concerns (as noted in 2.3.2 above);

 A perception that it is difficult and dangerous to wait in the central reserve of the A90 junctions; more so at the north and south junctions than the centre; and

 There have been a number of non‐injury (or damage‐only) accidents at the A90 junctions in recent years that are not recorded in official statistics. This phase of consultation also generated some options that attendees viewed as solutions, or complimentary to interventions already proposed. These included: the need for a western distributor road, the extension of the 50 mph speed limit across all of the Laurencekirk junctions, the provision of roundabouts, and the introduction of a signalised junction. Upgrading the A90 between Perth and Dundee to motorway standard was also suggested. 2.5 Workshop Outputs Two workshops were undertaken with the client steering group and other public sector organisations as part of the pre‐appraisal consultation process. The aim of these was to explain the background to the Access to Laurencekirk project and to help identify the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities related to the study area. The workshops were also used to help inform the development of study objectives and potential options. The main themes encountered in the workshops largely reflect the subjects raised in other consultation forums. The workshops provided a useful opportunity to develop and refine some of these. The key issues raised in the workshops were as follows: 2.5.1 Traffic  New development and infrastructure should not adversely impact on the operation of the High Street or see traffic levels increase at this location;

 The impact of traffic from new developments in surrounding areas should be considered;  Due to industrial activity in Montrose there are HGVs on the A937 from 05:30; and  Agricultural vehicles are a problem on the High Street year‐round. 2.5.2 Development Planning  Historically, new development opportunities have been limited by infrastructure constraints. 2.5.3 Safety  The A90 can be difficult to cross for school buses, as the back end of a bus can extend out of the central reserve and into the main carriageway whilst the driver is waiting for a gap to cross;

 HGVs pulling into the outside lane on the A90 either to overtake or allow traffic to merge restricts the speed of all traffic;

 Residents noted that some drivers turn directly into the outside lane on the A90 from the central reserve, as other vehicles in the inside lane are indicating left; this is perceived to pose an accident risk;

 There is a blind summit at the centre junction, which was reported as particularly problematic for elderly drivers;

 Attendees noted that the lack of merge lanes requires drivers to accelerate rapidly from stationary to 70 mph on the main carriageway;

 Sunset and sunrise can cause safety problems at the south junction due to reduced visibility, especially in wintertime; and

6 LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT SECTION 2 PRE-APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

 Concerns were expressed that traffic speeds on the High Street could increase if parking is rationalised, making the road less safe. 2.5.4 Statistics  It was noted that traffic speeds at the Automatic Traffic Counter on the A90 to the south of Laurencekirk were surprisingly low. Workshop attendees cast doubt on this being a true representation of average speed and felt that a more refined analysis of vehicle speed would be required in future surveys. This would help to rule out the possibility that HGVs/farming vehicles may be skewing the results;

 Local residents are highly sceptical of the STATS19 data, as they consider that the true accident rate is higher than indicated by the data. Attendees also considered that the usefulness of the STATS19 records was limited, as it did not include damage‐only accidents. Callout records from the local fire service were provided to give additional insight; and

 Attendees felt that non‐injury and damage‐only accidents should be considered if the study is to encapsulate all the issues at the A90 junctions and surrounding road network. 2.5.5 Cycling  The A90 is considered to be a barrier to cyclists and cycle tourism. 2.5.6 Connectivity  The A90 is a barrier to accessing after‐school activities, particularly as the road gets busier around 17:00;

 The A90 is generally a barrier to movement which creates a high degree of severance between communities on each side of the road. This impacts negatively on the character of the area; and

 Use of facilities located in Laurencekirk by residents living south east of the A90 is less than would be normal for a town of this size. 2.5.7 Options  Public opinion is that grade separation at A90 junctions is required in advance of any new development; and

 Residents would like to link the Frain Drive underpass to a through route on the south‐eastern side of the A90 (e.g. via a walking and cycle route to the B9120). 2.5.8 General  The timescale of 3 ‐ 5 years envisaged for the implementation of interventions is considered too long, although the reasons for this are understood. In consideration of this, it is desired that short‐ term measures are introduced to mitigate junction issues in the interim;

 The view of attendees was that public opinion in the local area was in favour of grade separation at both junctions; and

 There are three separate ongoing campaigns for the introduction of grade separation on the A90 at Laurencekirk. 2.5.9 High Street Specific Issues  Residents generally do not want restrictions to parking as it provides access to services and acts as a traffic calming measure;

 Current traffic speed are acceptable and allowing them to increase would have a negative impact on safety; and

 At the time of the workshop, it was reported that there were no pedestrian crossings on the High Street. There are trip generators and attractors on both sides of the High Street, therefore residents would like some formalised crossings.

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 7 SECTION 2 PRE-APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

2.5.10 BP Forties Pipeline  The presence of the BP Forties Pipeline was noted. A separate consultation was carried out with BP and the outcomes are reported in section 5.4 of the STAG report. 2.6 Conclusions Feedback from the various consultation sessions indicated concerns about safety at the A90 junctions and on the High Street; community severance and the impact on the local economy. Frustration was expressed about perceived inaction in finding a solution. Stakeholders expressed a desire to develop a solution which will facilitate efficient access to the A90, which is seen as a key artery for the region, encouraging prosperous development of the area into the future. Comments from the workshops show that there is concern at the length of time that it will take to put in place interventions, although it is acknowledged that this is a necessary feature of the process. In light of this, it is desired that short‐term actions are put in place which would improve safety and accessibility until permanent measures are introduced.

8 LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT SECTION 3 Detailed Appraisal Consultation

The aim of the exhibition was to:  inform attendees on the work that had been carried out and the resulting packages of interventions;  provide clarification and answer any questions presented on the day; and  provide the opportunity for attendees to give feedback, either in written form or via an online form. This feedback will be considered by the client steering group in their determination of the preferred options to be taken through to the next stage of assessment. 3.1 Exhibition Promotion The public exhibition was advertised using a variety of means including invitations, a press release and poster distribution. It was also promoted via the Transport Scotland and Nestrans websites and Twitter accounts. The information displayed at the exhibition was all available to view on the Aberdeenshire Council website along with the feedback form and response details. 3.2 Exhibition Materials The exhibition material presented to the public on the day included:  23 exhibition panels;  An Exhibition Leaflet (see Appendix A); and  An Exhibition Feedback Form (see Appendix B ‐ Feedback Form The exhibition panels were in A1 landscape format and included text, maps, diagrams and tables. Introductory panels provided information on (i) the background to the study; (ii) summaries of problems and opportunities; (iii) the study objectives and (iv) the option generation and sifting process. These were followed by panels describing intervention Packages 1‐7, two panels showing potential complementary measures which could by implemented alongside the other packages and a concluding panel. Figure 3.1 below shows the exhibition.

Figure 3.1: The exhibition in Laurencekirk

9LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 9 SECTION 3 DETAILED APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

The information displayed on the exhibition boards was summarised in a six page Exhibition Leaflet. These leaflets were issued to attendees as they arrived at the exhibition. Feedback forms were made available to allow attendees to provide comments on the exhibition. The forms encouraged feedback on (i) the packages; (ii) public transport, cycling and walking measures; and (iii) proposals for the centre of Laurencekirk. Attendees were given the opportunity to provide feedback via a feedback box located at the exhibition or alternatively by email or post. 3.3 Attendance and Facilitation The session was facilitated principally by CH2M HILL, with key support from NESTRANS, Transport Scotland, and Aberdeenshire Council. Before the exhibition was opened to the public in the early afternoon, separate morning sessions were arranged for:

 Senior local authority officers, elected politicians and their representatives; and  Local landowners and interest groups. Upon entering the hall, attendees were greeted and advised of sequence of the exhibition panels, and provided with the Exhibition Leaflet outlining the study aims and contact details of CH2M’s HILL’s nominated Consultation Manager. CH2M HILL and client steering group staff were available at all times to answer questions and provide any required clarification. 295 adults attended the exhibition and there was a great deal of interest shown in the proposals. 3.4 Exhibition Feedback 155 feedback forms were received (34 at the exhibition; 48 by post and 73 by email). The feedback form asked respondents to indicate whether they were replying as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. The majority (75%) of respondents classified themselves as ‘individuals’. A full classification of respondents is shown in Table 3.1 below: Table 3.1: Classification of feedback respondents

Classification Number Comments

Individual 116 N/A

Individual and business 9 8 responses from individuals employed by Clarence Murray (potato grower & farmer) Ltd, bearing the company stamp

Business 6

Voluntary sector 4 A937/A90 Junction Committee, Laurencekirk Flyover Committee, Laurencekirk News Group and Mearns Community Council

Individual and public / 3 One NHS doctor, one member of the Laurencekirk News Group and one Community voluntary sector Councillor

Local authority 2 Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council

Not stated 15 N/A

Total 155

83 unique postcodes were recorded on the feedback forms. Almost three‐quarters of these were in the AB30 1xx area, which includes Laurencekirk, Arbuthnott, Auchenblae, Fettercairn, Fordoun, Luthermuir and Marykirk. The remaining respondents were generally based within approximately 15 miles of Laurencekirk, with a single exception being in Ellon, north of Aberdeen. More information on the location of respondents is shown in Table 3.2 below.

10 LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT SECTION 3 DETAILED APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

Table 3.2: Postcodes of feedback respondents

Postcode Main location Number

AB30 1 Laurencekirk 62

DD10 9 Montrose and Hillside 6

DD9 7 Brechin and Edzell 4

DD9 6 Brechin 3

AB39 3 Drumlithie, Stonehaven 2

DD10 0 Inverbervie 2

AB41 8 Ellon 1

DD8 3 Forfar 1

DD10 8 Montrose 1

DD11 3 Arbroath 1

Total 83

3.5 Key Themes in Exhibition Feedback The feedback was in freeform text and varied from some with a single sentence, to very detailed comments on each of the proposed packages and on the wider study. Overarching themes have been identified from the individual responses. Where a clear view was expressed, almost all respondents were in favour of some form of intervention i.e. variations on ‘something must be done’. Most respondents expressed a preference for one or more of the packages; in some cases they ranked the packages in order of preference. 129 respondents expressed support for one or more of the proposed packages. A further 19 respondents expressed general support for a grade separated junction or ‘flyover’, without identifying a particular package. This means 148 of the 155 responses (over 95%) supported junction improvements. Concerns that the junctions are unsafe or an accident risk were expressed in over half the feedback forms, along with anecdotes about dangerous incidents. Table 3.3 shows themes which were cited by at least 10 respondents and indicates whether respondents were ‘for’ or ‘against’ the interventions. Table 3.3: Key themes in exhibition feedback

Feedback theme No of mentions For Against Net ‘score’

Support for one or more of the proposed packages 129 129 0 129

Junctions are unsafe / accident risk 85 85 0 85

Traffic impacts on High St if North / Centre junction(s) closed 24 0 24 ‐24

Closing central reserve(s) 23 16 7 9

Mitigate traffic impacts due to proposed developments 23 23 0 23

Grade separated south junction 19 19 0 19

Cycle / pedestrian paths 18 18 0 18

Revised parking on High St 17 10 7 3

Improvements for agricultural traffic crossing A90 14 13 0 13

Lighting on A90 13 13 0 13

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 11 SECTION 3 DETAILED APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

Other issues which were mentioned in the feedback included:

 improvements to public transport (9 references);  more car parking provision (8 references);  extending the speed limit to cover the junctions (7 references); and  preventing vehicles stacking in the central reserve (7 references). As can be seen from Table 3.3, the theme which appeared most often was support for one or more of the proposed packages (from 129 respondents). Concerns over accident risks and a lack of safety were also expressed by 85 respondents (almost 55%). Traffic impacts were also a clear concern, with 24 respondents raising the issue of traffic impacts on the High Street from closure of the north or centre junctions, and an almost equal number concerned about the traffic impacts of proposed developments. Some respondents will have raised both issues. Closing the central reserve was raised by 23 respondents, but unlike most of the issues raised, there were views for (16) and against (7) this; 70% of those who raised it were in favour of closure. Revising parking on the High Street was also contentious, being supported by 10 respondents with 7 against. Several of those objecting to parking changes intimated they would be more accepting of it if alternative off‐street parking were provided. The total number of references to packages (171) is greater than the number of feedback forms received, as many people supported more than one package. Table 3.4 and Figure 3.2 below show how much support was given to each package in the exhibition feedback. Several people supported Package 2 as an initial solution, with more complex packages (especially Packages 6 or 7) being implemented later, as demand increases. Table 3.4: Support for proposed packages

Package Description Number % supporting

7 Grade separated junctions at south and north, part closure of centre junction, 84 49 leaving left in/out from B9120

6 Grade separated junctions at south and north 36 21

2 Grade separated junction at south 36 21

5 Grade separated junction at south, closure of central reserve at north junction, 8 5 closure of centre junction and provision of A937‐B9120 link road

4 Grade separated junction at south, closure of centre junction and provision of 6 4 A937‐B9120 link road

3 Grade separated junction at south and closure of central reserve at north junction 1 1

12 LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT SECTION 3 DETAILED APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

Package Preference

Package 2 21%

Package 3 Package 7 1% 49% Package 4 4%

Package 5 5%

Package 6 21%

Figure 3.2: Support for proposed packages

3.6 Press coverage The public exhibition received positive coverage in the local press, including the Aberdeen Press and Journal (Aberdeenshire edition), The Courier, the Evening Express and the Mearns Leader. 3.7 Area Committee Consultation On 10th February 2015, members of Aberdeenshire Council’s Kincardine and Mearns Area Committee considered a report on the Access to Laurencekirk public exhibition. Following consideration of the information presented at the exhibition, the members expressed a preference for the progression of options 6 and 7 (grade separation at the north and south junctions).

LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT 13 SECTION 3 DETAILED APPRAISAL CONSULTATION

Appendix A Exhibition Leaflet

14 LAURENCEKIRK CONSULTATION STATEMENT

Appendix A - Exhibition Leaflet

Appendix B Feedback Form

Appendix B - Feedback Form Access to Laurencekirk Study Feedback Form Introduction Thank you for attending our Access to Laurencekirk Study public exhibition. We would be grateful if you could take the time to provide feedback or comments you may have by 28 February 2015. You can fill in this form and put it in the box here, or return it by post or email (see addresses overleaf). Option Feedback Please use the box below to provide any comments you may have on:  Packages 2‐7 (grade separated measures);  Public transport, cycling and walking measures;  The proposals for the centre of Laurencekirk; and  Any other comments.

Thank you for your input. Comments:

Please turn over to complete

Access to Laurencekirk Study Comments continued…

Your details (optional) Name:

Address:

Postcode:

Telephone:

Email:

Responding on behalf of an organisation if so, which one or as an individual

Please put completed forms in the box here, or return it by post or email (address below) Email: [email protected] Post to: Consultation Manager Access to Laurencekirk CH2M HILL City Park, 368 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G31 3AU

Any personal information provided by you will be kept strictly confidential. It will be recorded on the consultation database and used only by CH2M Hill for the purposes of the study and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The data will also be used for statistical purposes.

Thank you for your help

MEETING SUMMARY

Laurencekirk – Angus Council Meeting

ATTENDEES: CH2M Hill – Denise Angus (DA), Graeme Kelly (GK) Angus Council – Alan Hunter (AH), Kate Cowie (KC), Ken McGregor (KM), Mark McGee (MM), Andy Barns (AB), Graeme Howie (GH) COPY TO: Jenny Anderson (Nestrans), Fiona Dougherty (Transport Scotland), Peter McCallum (Aberdeenshire Council)

PREPARED BY: Graeme Kelly/ Denise Angus DATE OF MEETING: 12 February 2014 (9:30am) LOCATION: Angus Council Offices - Forfar PROJECT NUMBER: 488086

TOPIC ACTION 1. Introductions Introductions from all attendees.

2. Purpose of Meeting DA noted that CH2M Hill had recently been awarded the Access to Laurencekirk scheme via Nestrans. The purpose of today’s meeting is for CH2M Hill to introduce ourselves to Angus Council and to find out Angus Council’s initial thoughts on the scheme and any issues that Angus Council would like to raise. 3. Workshops DA noted that a workshop will be held on 27th February 2014 and asked if Angus Council could send representatives. This workshop will be attended by professional bodies including Angus Council, Aberdeenshire Council etc. DA will send out invitations in due course. DA noted that a separate workshop is being held on 22nd February 2014 for local action groups/ residents to attend. DA noted that a second round of workshops would be held sometime in April 2014. Which may include an open invite/ drop in workshop for all including local residents and professional bodies. Angus Council suggested that the following bodies should be invited to attend the workshops being held in February and March 2014: - Montrose Port, - Angus Community Groups, - Grain drying facility and Montrose Port.

4. Angus Council Comments KC referred to Angus Council’s Local Development Plan and that consultation on the main issues was carried out in 2012. KC noted that they have plans for workshops in the next few weeks to get feedback on this. Following these workshops the intention is for the Local Development Plan to be issued to Angus Council’s committee in September 2014 and then issued for consultation in LAURENCEKIRK – ANGUS COUNCIL MEETING

TOPIC ACTION October 2014. KC mentioned that the Main Issues Report did not include a traffic appraisal. KM mentioned contribution from Angus Council towards the scheme and noted that he did not anticipate that any funding towards a scheme would come from Angus Council. KM noted that Angus Council would not want any improvements at the A937/ Laurencekirk junction to have a negative impact on Angus Council’s road network. KM referred to the situation if the A937/ Laurencekirk junction was to be modified to left in/ left out only that this would result in increased traffic using other routes e.g. through Brechin. DA asked if any businesses within Angus Council had made any complaints about the A937/ Laurencekirk junction. Angus Council noted that no businesses had made any specific complaints. Angus Council noted that traffic from Montrose accessing the A90 tended to use the route through Brechin for going south and the route via the A937/ Laurencekirk junction for going north. AH noted that no planning applications/ traffic appraisals have raised any concerns with the A937/ Laurencekirk junction. AH mentioned that locals have some issues with traffic through Brechin, but noted that any new grade separated junction at the A937/ Laurencekirk junction is unlikely to impact on the traffic through Brechin. Angus Council noted that there are currently no issues with regards to accessing the A937/ Laurencekirk junction. AH mentioned potential development works at the Sunnyside Hospital site and noted that this may require improved access via the A937/ Laurencekirk junction. AH also mentioned potential 50 Hectare development site within north Montrose but noted that no planning application for this has come forward yet. KM noted that oil and gas businesses in Aberdeen may start moving operations into the north Angus area as the price of land and availability is more attractive compared with the Aberdeen area. DA asked if Angus Council were aware of any issues with timber HGVs using the route via the A937/ Laurencekirk junction to Montrose Port. Angus Council were not aware if any issues. AM noted that they would welcome improvements to the A937/ Laurencekirk junction if it meant better access and more business for Montrose Port. AM noted that Montrose Port has experienced growth of 102% over the period between 2012 and 2013. AM noted that Montrose Port is a significant industry in the area and there is recognition that it could be used in relation to the offshore windfarm industry. AM noted that there is a grain drying facility at Montrose Port that is used by a number of farms in the area i.e. leading to HGV’s and other farm vehicles accessing the port, potentially via the A937/ Laurencekirk junction. Accident statistics were discussed and AB noted that the EURORAP (European Road Assessment Programme) had indicated the A937 as a particularly dangerous road.

TOPIC ACTION Angus Council noted that they had received a letter recently from someone within Angus Council in relation to the A937/ Laurencekirk junction and will pass it on to CH2M Hill.

5. AOB Angus Council noted that any future correspondence should go through Paul Christison in the first instance.

MEETING SUMMARY

Laurencekirk – Laurencekirk Development Trust/ Villages in Control Action Group Meeting

ATTENDEES: CH2M Hill – Denise Angus (DA), Graeme Kelly (GK) Villages in Control Action Group (VICAG) – Mike Robson (MR), Derek Reilly (DR) , David Young (DY), Susan Dunbar (SD), Mafalda Morley (MM), John Medlock (JM), Jim Stuart (JS) – who was also representing Mearns Community Council. COPY TO: Jenny Anderson (Nestrans), Fiona Docherty (Transport Scotland), Peter McCallum (Aberdeenshire Council) PREPARED BY: Graeme Kelly / Denise Angus DATE OF MEETING: 12 February 2014 (2:00pm) LOCATION: Mearns Community Centre, Laurencekirk PROJECT NUMBER: 488086

TOPIC ACTION 1. Introductions Introductions from all attendees.

2. Purpose of Meeting DA noted that CH2M Hill had recently been awarded the Access to Laurencekirk scheme via Nestrans. The purpose of today’s meeting is for CH2M Hill to introduce ourselves to VICAG and to find out their concerns in relation to the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk and any other issues they would like to raise. 3. Workshops DA noted that a workshop will be held on 22nd February 2014 at the Crown Inn. This workshop will be attended by local action groups / residents. DA will send out invitations in due course. DA noted that a separate workshop is being held on 27th February 2014 for professional bodies (e.g. Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council etc) to attend. DA noted that a second round of workshops would be held sometime in April 2014. Which may include an open invite / drop in workshop for all including local residents and professional bodies. VICAG suggested that the following should be invited to attend the workshops being held in February and March 2014: - Other settlements outwith Laurencekirk, - School parents groups (contact Ian Parkin, Mearns Academy Rector), - Local bus operators.

4. General Discussion VICAG noted that many locals tend to use the back roads to access / cross the A90 via other safer junctions i.e. preferring to take a longer route rather than

TOPIC ACTION using any of the three existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk. VICAG noted contacts at the Police including Stewart Ednay at Stonehaven. VICAG noted that over the years since the A90 bypass had been constructed the links to the coastal towns had deteriorated. VICAG noted that they carried out a study in 2011 to look at the number of HGVs and buses crossing the A90 at the three existing junctions. It was noted that 22 school buses per day cross the A90 at the three existing junctions. VICAG noted that they have met with Alex Neil (MSP) to discuss their issues. This prompted VICAG to write to Nigel Don (MSP) which helped then led on to the petition being issued to the Scottish Government. VICAG noted that Laurence Kenny of Transport Scotland did meet with VICAG to discuss/ shared various design options with them a few years ago from previous studies. VICAG noted that the area surrounding Laurencekirk is a big arable farming area which grows various cereals and vegetables, therefore generating high levels of farming traffic trips (HGVs and other farm vehicles) in the area and across the A90. It was noted that which of the three existing A90 junctions used by the farming traffic generally depends on how busy the Laurencekirk high street is. Periods at which traffic at the three existing A90 junctions were busiest was discussed. VICAG noted: - Weekday mornings – between 6:00am and 8:30am, - Weekday afternoons / evenings – between 4:00pm and 6:00pm, - Friday afternoon i.e. traffic leaving Aberdeen heading to the central belt, - Sunday afternoon / evening i.e. traffic heading back to Aberdeen from the central belt. VICAG noted that some locals wanting to enter / exit Laurencekirk do so via the middle A90 junction as there is more room available within the central reservation and the junction has better visibility. VICAG noted the various Youtube videos of the existing A90 junctions. It was noted that one of the most recent Youtube videos showed 30 vehicles in a queue at the Montrose side of the existing south A90 junction (A937). This Youtube video was taken at approximately 7:00am and it was noted that the queues at the Montrose side of the existing south A90 junction (A937) are often this bad in the morning. VICAG noted that the existing A90 junctions are eroding everyday life e.g. people do not feel comfortable using them and people are avoiding them. VICAG noted that there is a Facebook page titled A937/ A90 Junction Campaign with further evidence of accidents, queuing etc and also comments from locals. VICAG noted that the provision of junction improvements is high on the agenda of the community council. It was noted that community council meeting can have 70+ attendees. VICAG noted media sources where issues in relation to the existing A90 junctions have been covered, including:

TOPIC ACTION - The Press and Journal, - The Courier, - STV. VICAG noted other settlements in the area outwith Laurencekirk (including Marykirk and Fettercairn) and the back roads linking these settlements. DA noted that traffic flows for these back roads would be requested from Aberdeenshire Council. DA noted that CH2M Hill would be organising traffic surveys for March 2014. VICAG noted that traffic in March would be lower compared to the busier times of the year of September and October. DA noted that in order to progress the study traffic surveys would be carried out in March with a potential if required to revisiting these in September ad October. VICAG noted that the Hutton Research Institute may have data for e.g. the tonnage of cereals being exported / moved from the area surrounding Laurencekirk i.e. to get an idea of the number of farming traffic trips (HGVs and other farm vehicles). VICAG noted that the study they carried out in 2011 to look at the number of HGVs and buses crossing the A90 was based on information from the bus company Nichol’s, Douglas Mitchel Hauliers Iain Parkin at the school. VICAG noted that some of the pupils travel to the school of scheduled / public buses. It was noted that seatbelts are not compulsory on these scheduled / public buses and pupils are also allowed to stand in the aisles. VICAG noted the wellbeing of the pupils using the buses and whether it would be possible to ask their opinion on e.g. how safe they feel traveling to school. With regards to solutions going forward VICAG noted that one new Grade Options to Separated Junction (GSJ) at the existing south A90 junction (A937) is likely to be be discussed inadequate as they are concerned of the detrimental effect this may have on at workshop the high street. VICAG noted another option of having a new GSJ near the old school area. VICAG noted another option of having a new GSJ slightly further north of the existing north A90 junction. VICAG noted traffic figures raised by David Anderson (Transport Scotland) in 2008. VICAG noted that these were due to be updated in 2013 but have not received any information. VICAG noted that discussion between Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council is important. DA noted that both would be attending the workshop on the 27th February 2014.

5. Other VICAG passed over the following information to CH2M Hill for review: - Laurencekirk Community Meeting on November 2013 Feedback, - Correspondence/ representations from the Infrastructure Committee on 20th March 2013.

MEETING SUMMARY

Laurencekirk – Mearns Area Partnership Meeting

ATTENDEES: Mearns Area Partnership (MAP) – Susie Brown (SB) CH2M Hill – Denise Angus (DA), Graeme Kelly (GK) COPY TO: Jenny Anderson (Nestrans), Fiona Docherty (Transport Scotland), Peter McCallum (Aberdeenshire Council) PREPARED BY: Graeme Kelly / Denise Angus DATE OF MEETING: 12 February 2014 (3:20pm) LOCATION: Mearns Area Partnership Offices, Laurencekirk PROJECT NUMBER: 488086

TOPIC ACTION 1. Introductions Introductions from all attendees.

2. Purpose of Meeting DA noted that CH2M Hill had recently been awarded the Access to Laurencekirk scheme via Nestrans. The purpose of today’s meeting is for CH2M Hill to introduce ourselves to MAP and to find out their concerns in relation to the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk and any other issues they would like to raise. 3. Workshops DA noted that a workshop will be held on 22nd February 2014 at the Crown Inn. This workshop will be attended by local action groups / residents. DA will send out invitations in due course. DA noted that a separate workshop is being held on 27th February 2014 for professional bodies (e.g. Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council etc) to attend. DA noted that a second round of workshops would be held sometime in April 2014. Which may include an open invite / drop in workshop for all including local residents and professional bodies. SB suggested other organisations that could be invited to attend the workshops or contacted in the future. Refer to Section 4 “General Discussion” below.

4. General Discussion SB noted that the Mearns Community Council have their next meeting on 24th February 2014. SB noted that eight settlements are covered by Mearns Community Council. SB noted contact at Mearns Community Council (Secretary email: [email protected], Tel: 01674 840 328). SB noted that she would not be able to attend workshop on the 22nd February 2014 however she advised she would ask is Chris Rushbridge could attend. SB noted that the output from the first workshop on the 22nd February 2014 could be passed to the Mearns Community Council and representatives could attend the second workshop in April 2014.

TOPIC ACTION SB noted option of using the Masonic Hall for future workshops. Contact details are Jim Stewart or Fiona Gray at Mearns Motors (01561 377 900). SB noted that locals are avoiding using the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk. SB noted that the existing A90 junctions have poor road markings and that BEAR are not doing anything to action this. SB also noted the different road surfacing on the A90 in the vicinity of the Laurencekirk junctions which are also an issue. SB noted that queues of up to 12-13 cars can be found at the Montrose side of the existing south A90 junction (A937) generally in the peak periods. SB noted that the existing A90 junctions are disrupting people’s lives. As noted above locals are avoiding using the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk and using alternative routes and junctions. SB noted that she did not think one new Grade Separated Junction (GSJ) was suitable as it would further congest the high street. SB also noted idea of making a section of the high street one way and using the back street (Johnston Street) for travel in the opposing direction. SB noted that MAP receive constant complaints about the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk. SB noted apparent lack of interest from Aberdeenshire Council with regards to the Laurencekirk area. SB noted that the lack of land in and around Laurencekirk is an issue for development in the town. SB noted that the coastal villages have noted concerns with access to businesses and jobs due to the poor links across the A90. SB noted that Laurencekirk community are keen for the area to be developed to improve future prospects. SB noted that haulage companies (Jim Stewart and Douglas Mitchell) and Coal Merchant (John Roberts) have raised concerns on the recent narrowing of the high street at the new Mearns Academy. SB noted other organisations to contact: - Mearns Academy Action Group (Alan Mowat), - Mearns Community Transport Group (Jackie Niven) who organise bus journeys, - Healthy Living Network (Ed Garrett or Nicky Lorrimer, Tel: 01561 378 130) who provide links to coastal towns. SB noted problems at the existing north A90 junction i.e. visibility of the traffic island if accessing the junction from the A90 southbound into Laurencekirk. SB noted the provision of other new GSJs on the A90 e.g. at Glendoick (between Perth and Dundee) where the GSJ is not serving a town the size of Laurencekirk. SB noted that a number of other settlements in the area use the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk, including St Cyrus, Fordoun. SB also noted that Ian Parkin at Aberdeenshire Council may be a good contact. SB noted that people staying in Marykirk would tend to do their shopping in Montrose rather than cross the A90 to access the shopping in Laurencekirk (i.e. a 13 mile round trip to Montrose rather than an 8 mile round trip to Laurencekirk).

TOPIC ACTION SB noted that BEAR were contacted with regards to providing lighting at the existing A90 junctions but they were told that it would not be worthwhile. SB noted that Marjorie of Mearns Community Council would have a copy of the letter from BEAR. SB noted that there is a local voluntary fire service and a fire station in Inverbervie. SB noted contacts for the local voluntary fire service (Ian Greig at Mearns Motors or Tom Flemming). SB noted first responders in the area. The contact is Stewart Whight at the Tower Restaurant. He also has a local taxi firm which includes school contracts. SB noted lorries blocking visibility at the existing A90 junctions. SB noted cycling organisations and would provide DA with a contact.

MEETING SUMMARY

Laurencekirk – Business Club Meeting

ATTENDEES: CH2M Hill – Denise Angus (DA), Graeme Kelly (GK) Business Club (BC) – Donna Allan (DAL), Mark Allan (MA) COPY TO: Jenny Anderson (Nestrans), Fiona Docherty (Transport Scotland), Peter McCallum (Aberdeenshire Council) PREPARED BY: Graeme Kelly / Denise Angus DATE OF MEETING: 13 February 2014 (9:00am) LOCATION: Linkster House, 4A North Hill Park, Laurencekirk PROJECT NUMBER: 488086

TOPIC ACTION 1. Introductions Introductions from all attendees.

2. Purpose of Meeting DA noted that CH2M Hill had recently been awarded the Access to Laurencekirk scheme via Nestrans. The purpose of today’s meeting is for CH2M Hill to introduce ourselves to the BC and to find out their concerns in relation to the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk and any other issues they would like to raise. 3. Workshops DA noted that a workshop will be held on 22nd February 2014 at the Crown Inn. This workshop will be attended by local action groups / residents. DA will send out invitations in due course. DA noted that a separate workshop is being held on 27th February 2014 for professional bodies (e.g. Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council etc) to attend. DA noted that a second round of workshops would be held sometime in April 2014. Which may include an open invite / drop in workshop for all including local residents and professional bodies. DAL suggested other organisations that could be invited to attend the workshops or contacted in the future. Refer to Section 4 “General Discussion” below.

4. General Discussion DAL noted the following times when traffic at the existing A90 junctions are busiest: - Weekday mornings – between 7:00am and 9:00am, - Weekday afternoons / evenings – between 5:00pm and 6:30pm, - Friday afternoon from 3:30pm i.e. traffic leaving Aberdeen heading to the central belt.

TOPIC ACTION

DAL noted that people tend to avoid using the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk, preferring to use alternative routes and junctions. DAL referred to Newtonhill and the fact that it has a Grade Separated Junction (GSJ). DAL noted that traffic on the A90 is growing. DAL noted that the existing A90 junctions are acting as a deterrent for people / businesses to come into Laurencekirk. DAL noted that people staying in Marykirk would tend to do their shopping in Montrose rather than cross the A90 to access the shopping in Laurencekirk (i.e. a 13 mile round trip to Montrose rather than an 8 mile round trip to Laurencekirk). DAL noted that HGVs and school buses using the existing A90 junctions is a significant issue. With regards to school buses DAL noted to speak to Nichol’s Buses for more information. DAL noted that the new Mearns Academy opens in August 2014. DAL noted that there are lots of accidents that occur at the Laurencekirk junctions which sometimes don’t make the press. DAL advised that there was an accident that occurred recently at the existing A90 junction (A937) on 28th December 2013. Which she doesn’t think was reported in the press. DAL noted that at the busiest times (as noted above) the 50mph speed limit at the existing A90 junction (A937) bunches up the traffic on the A90, therefore making it harder to access / cross the A90. DAL noted other settlements in the area that use the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk. These include: Auchenblae, Marykirk, Luthermuir, St Cyrus, Inverbervie and Fordoun. DAL noted that businesses need to be able to access / cross the A90 at the busiest times (as noted above). Having to avoid the busiest times is impacting on businesses. MA mentioned some other developments in the area, including: - Fasque Estate near Fettercairn, - Newtonhill (1800 houses), - Area northwest of Laurencekirk (600 houses). It was noted that this area was within the flood plain. DAL noted that the Laurencekirk train station could be utilised more if the road access to Laurencekirk was improved. MA noted that Laurencekirk needs safe access to / from and across the A90. MA noted that improved access to Laurencekirk would help to bring people / businesses to the area. DAL noted a farming machinery business called Ringlink (Contact John Singer or Andrew Ringlink) and a crop packaging company on the B9120 road to St Cyrus. DAL noted that it may be worth consulting with them. DAL noted that it may be worth consulting with Jacksons Tool Hire also.

TOPIC ACTION DAL note that the BC meets next on the 3rd March 2014. The high street was discussed. DAL noted that any junction improvements need to take the high street into account. DAL also noted that there is no decent parking on the high street.

MEETING SUMMARY

Laurencekirk – SBC Consultants Ltd Meeting

ATTENDEES: SBC Consultants Ltd – Stephen Coles (SC) CH2M Hill – Denise Angus (DA), Graeme Kelly (GK) COPY TO: Jenny Anderson (Nestrans), Fiona Docherty (Transport Scotland), Peter McCallum (Aberdeenshire Council) PREPARED BY: Graeme Kelly / Denise Angus DATE OF MEETING: 13 February 2014 (10:00am) LOCATION: Hugo’s Cafe, Laurencekirk PROJECT NUMBER: 488086

TOPIC ACTION 1. Introductions Introductions from all attendees.

2. Purpose of Meeting DA noted that CH2M Hill had recently been awarded the Access to Laurencekirk scheme via Nestrans. The purpose of today’s meeting is for CH2M Hill to introduce ourselves to SC and to find out SCs concerns in relation to the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk and any other issues SC would like to raise. 3. Workshops DA noted that a workshop will be held on 22nd February 2014 at the Crown Inn. This workshop will be attended by local action groups / residents. DA will send out invitations in due course. SC noted that he would not be able to attend the workshop on 22nd February 2014 but still wants to be involved in the future. DA noted that a separate workshop is being held on 27th February 2014 for professional bodies (e.g. Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council etc) to attend. DA noted that a second round of workshops would be held sometime in April 2014. Which may include an open invite / drop in workshop for all including local residents and professional bodies. SC suggested other organisations that could be invited to attend the workshops or contacted in the future. Refer to Section 4 “General Discussion” below.

4. General Discussion SC noted that he had lived in Laurencekirk since 1988. In this time he has generally been commuting to the Aberdeen area. SC noted that the two main bus routes via Laurencekirk are to Montrose and Stonehaven. SC noted that he welcomed the improvements to the existing north A90 junction through the provision of the extended northbound merge slip. However, he has concerns at this existing A90 junction with regards to the southbound deceleration lane at the right turn into Laurencekirk from the north. SC noted that the deceleration lane has been potholed making deceleration difficult and

TOPIC ACTION potentially hazardous [since improved but could recur and again be matter of concern]. There are also problems with visibility on turning in at night and, therefore, considers the existing junction should be lit. SC noted issues with buses crossing southbound at the existing middle A90 junction (B9120) sometimes holding up traffic trying to join northbound; a longer slip onto the southbound carriageway could improve this. SC noted that HGVs on the high street cause congestion. SC noted that his preferred solution would be to: - Provide a new Grade Separated Junction (GSJ) at the existing south A90 junction (A937), - Retain the existing north A90 junction but improve it by extending the southbound deceleration lane and providing lighting (as noted above), - Retain the existing middle A90 junction (B9120) as it should then be only lightly used. SC noted that there can be delays when making the southbound A90 right turn into Laurencekirk at the existing north A90 junction at peak times. SC also noted the bus stop on the northbound slip road at the existing north A90 junction can cause delays. SC noted that there were recently two deaths at a similar junction on the existing A90 to the north of Laurencekirk at Auchenblae between Fordoun and Laurencekirk. SC asked if it was possible to extend the 50mph speed limit in the meantime (prior to existing junction improvements) to cover the existing south, middle and north A90 junctions, with enforcement using average speed cameras. It was noted that this may cause bunching up of traffic i.e. making it harder to access / cross the A90. Hugo’s Cafe owner Linda joined discussion. Her thoughts were that the existing middle A90 junction should be closed, that south and north Junctions be upgraded and that speed restrictions should be further extended to Fordoun. SC noted that the main issue at the existing south A90 junction (A937) was that it was a cross roads with a lot of traffic from Montrose making a right turn across the A90 to head north. SC noted that he had read that the A937 was classed as one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland. SC noted that the train between Laurencekirk and Aberdeen is very busy (standing room only) and could benefit from an increased service. SC also noted that there needs to be joining up of the public transport i.e. trains and buses in order to improve public transport in the area. SC noted that Laurencekirk housing is getting expensive and noted that over past 10 years house prices have doubled. SC noted that at the existing south A90 junction (A937) traffic from Montrose wanting to cross the A90 and head north can wait up to 15-20 minutes. SC referred to Facebook page titled A937/ A90 Junction Campaign which has further evidence of this. SC noted that some locals avoid the existing south A90 junction (A937) and take

TOPIC ACTION rat-runs to other existing A90 junctions to access / cross the A90. SC mentioned Andy and Karen Oglive who own Mearns may be worth contacting to get their experiences as people who operate a business and live in the area. SC noted that accidents on the back roads could increase as a result of people avoiding using the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk. SC noted problems with HGVs on the high street. SC noted that it is not always a problem and that it may be missed by traffic surveys. SC reiterated that both the existing south and north A90 junctions had to be sorted but required different solutions applied to each one (as noted above). SC noted that traffic from Montrose is a major problem and that it is not just traffic from Laurencekirk causing the issues at the existing A90 junctions. SC noted that the Mearns Academy has a good reputation and that the new Mearns Academy could have issues with capacity in the future. SC noted that the Dickson Hall could be a possible venue for future workshops. SC recommended Jill Fotheringham as a good source of information on the issues relating to the existing A90 junctions at Laurencekirk i.e. she organises various meetings etc in the area. SC advised that he understood that there is a process to go through to get the junction and that these types of infrastructure projects take time.

Summary Note

Access to Laurencekirk – STAG Workshops

PREPARED FOR: Jenny Anderson – NESTRANS

Alison Irvine – Transport Scotland Fiona Docherty – Transport Scotland Peter MacCallum – Aberdeenshire Council

COPY TO: Attendees

PREPARED BY: Iain Arthur/Andrew Fyfe DATE: 11 March 2014 PROJECT NUMBER: 488086.EE.00.01 Introduction As part of the STAG pre-appraisal process stage of the Access to Laurencekirk Study, consultation workshops were organised by CH2M HILL to capture the views about current problems, potential opportunities, issues and constraints. In the case of this study, members of the public were also consulted alongside key stakeholders to fully understand and confirm the issue under appraisal. This note presents the methodology and findings from 2 workshops and extends to the following sections; • Stakeholder Workshops • Summary of feedback received at workshop 1 • Summary of feedback received at workshop 2

Stakeholder Workshops Workshops with key stakeholders were undertaken in order to explain the background to the Access to Laurencekirk project and to help identify the problems, issues, constraints and opportunities related to the study area. The workshops were also used to help inform the development of study objectives and potential options. The Crown Inn, Laurencekirk was used as the venue for the two workshops, which were held on the following dates: • Workshop 1 – Saturday 22nd February • Workshop 2 – Thursday 27th February

The workshops were facilitated by the following CH2M staff: • Julia Gilles • Denise Angus • Andrew Fyfe • Iain Arthur • Graeme Kelly

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – NOTE OF WORKSHOP 1 AND 2 1 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG WORKSHOPS

The following attendees were present at the two workshops: Workshop 1: Workshop 2: Jim Stuart – Mearns Community Council Jenny Anderson – NESTRANS Tom Flemming – Scottish Fire and Rescue Alison Irvine – Transport Scotland Ian Greig – Laurencekirk Business Club – Mearns Motors Fiona Docherty – Transport Scotland Donna Allen – Laurencekirk Business Club – Impact Imaging Peter MacCallum – Aberdeenshire Council Charles Gordon – A937 Flyover Campaign Graeme Noble – Aberdeenshire Council Chris Rushbridge – Mearns Area Partnership Piers Blaxter – Aberdeenshire Council Hilda Kerr – Mearns Community Council Steve Beedie – Scottish Ambulance Service Hamish Keddie – Cycle Club John Shabashow – SEPA Alan Hunter – Angus Council Ken McGregor – Angus Council Paul Christison – Angus Council Mark McGee – Angus Council

The format of the workshops adhered to the following order: 1. Posters were displayed in the workshop venue covering various aspects of the background to the study. Attendees were able to view the poster before and after each of the sessions. 2. Presentation covering study background and problems, issues, constraints and opportunities – attendees were able to ask questions and put their views forward during this session. 3. Lunch break 4. Break-out session 1 – Objective Setting – The attendees were provided with a template to complete with draft objectives. These were then discussed amongst the group in order to agree on common themes for the objectives. 5. Break-out session 2 – Potential Options – The attendees were asked to suggest potential options to be considered in the study and for their views on infrastructure measures that have been previously developed for Laurencekirk. With regard to the options that emerged from previous studies, the attendees were presented with drawings of these and were asked to indicate their opinion of the proposed measures using a green, amber, red system. 6. Feedback forms issued for completion by attendees.

The following posters were displayed at the workshops: Workshop 1: Workshop 2: Wider area map; Same as workshop 1 with the following additions: Background context; Alternative routes; and Accessibility; Wider area accident location plan. Constraints; Environment; Traffic flows; Accident location plan for A90 over 10 years; Local Development Plan allocations in Laurencekirk; Local Development Plan allocations in wider Kincardine and Mearns and Angus areas; and Previous options.

2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG WORKSHOPS

Summary of feedback received at Workshop :

Problems, Issues, Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Attendees view was that public opinion in the local area was in favour of grade separation at both junctions. 2. In response to questioning, an indicative 3-5 year timescale was suggested to attendees for the delivery of any large scale improvements. The attendees considered that this was too long to wait but understood the reasons for the timescale. It was suggested that short term options should be considered in light of this. 3. New development and infrastructure should not adversely impact on the operation of the High Street or see traffic levels increase at this location. 4. New Development in Laurencekirk has been stagnant in terms of the past 4 years due to infrastructure constraints. 5. Future development in surrounding settlements should be considered for impact on transport – Auchenblae, Marykirk, Montrose etc. 6. Public opinion is that grade separation at A90 junctions is required now i.e. in advance of any new development. 7. The 50 mph speed limit on the A90 causes platooning and makes it more difficult to pull out from the side roads. 8. It was noted that traffic speeds on Monday and Friday tended to be higher. 9. Agricultural vehicles are a problem all year round on the High Street. 10. Residents would like us to analyse historic trends on the A937 as there is a perception that traffic is increasing. 11. It was noted that traffic speeds at the Automatic Traffic Counter on the A90 to the south of Laurencekirk were surprisingly low. The group noted that they did not believe that this is a true representation of average speed in practice and that a more refined analysis of vehicle speed would be required in future surveys i.e. as HGVs / farming vehicles may be skewing the results. 12. Due to industrial activity in Montrose there are HGVs on the A937 from 5:30 AM. 13. A90 is a barrier to cyclists and cycle tourism. 14. A90 is a barrier to accessing after school activities, particularly as the road gets busier around 5PM. 15. The A90 can be difficult to cross for school buses as due to the length of the coach it can extend out of the central reserve into the main carriageway whilst the driver is waiting for gaps to cross. 16. High Street – residents do not want restrictions to parking – it provides access to services and acts as traffic calming. Current speeds are acceptable and should not be increased as it would have a negative impact on safety. 17. There are currently no pedestrian crossings on the High Street. There are trip generators and attractors on both sides of the High Street, therefore residents would like some formalised crossings. 18. Residents were sceptical of average speeds from the ATC location and believe that a significant number of vehicles break the limit. 19. HGV overtaking at Laurencekirk suppresses speed. 20. Residents are highly sceptical of the STATS19. They consider that the rate is higher. Attendees also considered that the usefulness of the STATS19 records was limited as it did not include damage only accidents.

21. The attendee from the local fire service had brought call-out records for the A90 for the last 10 years. A copy was given to CH2M Hill for reference. 22. Non-injury and damage only accidents should be considered if the study is to encapsulate all the issues at the A90 junctions and surrounding road network. 23. People reroute to avoid the A90, suppressed demand and rerouting should considered when defining the study area and method. 24. It was considered that this rerouting had increased accident rates at surrounding junctions on the A90. 25. The lifetime of the BP Forties Pipeline should be identified as this may not be a permanent constraint. 26. Residents would like to link the Frain Drive underpass to a through route on the eastern side of the A90. This would most likely be the B9120 by a cycle route. 27. Residents note that people pull into the fast lane on the A90 from the central reserve, this is perceived to pose an accident risk. 28. Quality of peoples lives have been negatively impacted on by traffic volumes on the A90. 29. A90 barrier to movement, high levels of severance. 30. Businesses are suffering loss of trade as people don’t want to cross A90. 31. Character of area has changed. 32. Linkages between settlements on the east and west of the A90 have been weakened. 33. Reduces use of recycling centres located in Laurencekirk. 34. There are three separate ongoing campaigns for the introduction of grade separation on the A90 at Laurencekirk. 35. Some residents commented that the A90 as a whole was not fit for purpose, it was acknowledged that addressing this was beyond the scope of the study. 36. Safety at the middle junction has deteriorated as more vehicles use it in order to avoid the north and south junctions. 37. There is a blind summit at the middle junction. This is particularly problematic for elderly drivers. 38. Attendees noted that the lack of proper merge slip roads means that drivers are having to go from static to 70mph on the main carriageway. 39. Sunset and sunrise can cause safety problems at the southern junction due to reduced visibility at two times during the year (early and late winter). 40. Some concern was raised on opening up some issues to debate as it was considered that they had already been resolved – e.g. parking restrictions. Objectives: Attendees were asked to fill in a template with their views on potential objectives and indictors that could be used to monitor progress towards achieving these. The suggested objectives fell into a number of common themes, these are summarised below: Safety • In addition to achieving a reduction in accident numbers/severity collectively at the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions, achieve a significant improvement in the perceived safety of the junctions. Potential indicators: • Accident Numbers/Severity • Community Feedback • Change in Accident Numbers/Severity (STATS 19)

4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG WORKSHOPS

• Change in veh km due to trip diversions against 2014 observed • Change in carbon footprint against 2014 observed • Change in perceived safety - Community Feedback Delays • To achieve a reduction in delays experienced by traffic accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions without detriment to Trunk Road Traffic, thereby reducing driver frustration and improving driver behaviours. Potential indicators: • Junction Delays for side-road traffic • Journey time on the A90 for strategic traffic • Change in Total Junction Delays for side-road traffic • Change in veh km due to trip diversions against 2014 observed • Change in carbon footprint against 2014 observed • Change in driver frustration - Observation of driver behaviour (e.g. multiple vehicles in stacking lanes) Active Travel • To enable safe crossing of the A90 • Change in pedestrian and cyclist movements across A90 • Accessing recreational areas • Cycling to school Laurencekirk High Street • Maintaining flows and vehicle speeds on the High Street at 2014 and supporting its use as an access route to the centre rather than a through route, especially for agricultural vehicles. • Change in vehicle speeds on High Street • Change in vehicle flows on High Street • Change in vehicle composition, reduction in large agricultural vehicles using the route Re-connecting Laurencekirk to support the community • Improving the connectivity of Laurencekirk especially with settlements to the east of the A90 to help support the local businesses and community activities/facilities. • Change in catchment areas for community facilities and business (e.g. garage etc) • Change in number of trips undertaken especially by vulnerable users (especially young people driving and elderly people accessing community facilities etc.) Options: In general, attendees did not believe that there were suitable short term options and that some form of grade separation at the A90 junctions was required. CH2M Hill summarised pre-existing options that had emerged from previous studies and asked attendees for feedback on these solely for the purpose of gaining insight into likely public acceptability. The following notes the previous options and attendees opinions on these.

• JMP Option 1: - The group liked the provision of a GSJ at the south and north junctions (with 4 slip roads accessing all directions at each GSJ), - The group appeared content with the idea of closing the central reserve at the middle junction. This would include closing access to/from Laurencekirk and retaining left in / left out access to the B9120. - The group noted the need for a footway / cycleway linking the B9120 at the middle junction to the existing A90 underpass. • JMP Option 2:

- The group did not like this option as it does not include a GSJ at the north junction. - This option also includes for a northbound merge slip at the north junction. However, it removes right turns from the southbound A90 into Laurencekirk at the north junction. The group noted concerns that this would lead to increasing traffic on the High Street. • Nigel Don (MSP) Option: - The group did not like this option which includes one new GSJ located between the middle and north junctions. This option includes a link road from the GSJ into Laurencekirk (connecting to the High Street near Mearns Academy) and a link road to the B937 (via the east side of the A90). - The group noted that it would lead to increased traffic on the High Street. - It was also noted that it would not tie in with the proposed Western Distributor Road. • URS/Scott Wilson Option 1: - The group liked this option, which is similar to JMP Option 1 i.e. provision of a GSJ at the south and north junctions (with 4 slip roads accessing all directions at each GSJ. Refer to comments noted above for JMP Option 1. • URS/Scott Wilson Option 2: - In this option the South GSJ is as per URS Option 1 (4 slip roads accessing all directions), however the North GSJ in this option does not include a northbound diverge. - The group did not like this option, noting that school buses would want to exit the northbound A90 at the north junction. • URS/Scott Wilson Option 3: - In this option the South GSJ is as per URS Option 1 (4 slip roads accessing all directions), however the North GSJ in this option does not include a northbound diverge and a southbound merge. - The group noted that this was worse than URS Option 2. • URS/Scott Wilson Option 4: - In this option the South GSJ does not include a northbound merge and a southbound diverge. Also, the North GSJ does not include a northbound diverge and a southbound merge. - The group noted that this was worse than URS Option 2 and 3 and would lead to increased traffic on the High Street. favourite • URS/Scott Wilson Option 5: - This option only includes for one GSJ at the south junction. As per JMP Option 2 the group did not like this option. Refer to comments noted above for JMP Option 2. • Murray Architects Option for Villages in Control:

6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG WORKSHOPS

- This option was the most favoured by the group as it included for a GSJ at the south and north junctions (with 4 slip roads accessing all directions at each GSJ). It also includes for the proposed Western Distributor Road. New Options Raised at Workshop Attendees were asked if they could think of any other options or compromises between their most favoured option and the other previous options. • New Option 1: - The group noted that if a GSJ was provided at the south junction and the proposed Western Distributor Road provided then there may not need to be a GSJ at the north junction right away i.e. this could come a later date. • New Option 2: - The group noted that the GSJ at the north junction shown in the previous options should be moved further north in order to pick up other local roads.

Summary of feedback received at Workshop : Problems, Issues, Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Green networks may be specified in the Local Plan – Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Government may see these as significant constraints. 2. Existing culverts could be expanded. 3. There is anecdotal evidence that some drivers prefer to use the coast road (A92) between Angus and Aberdeenshire rather than the A90. 4. Aberdeen and its travel to work/commuting area has expanded significantly in the past 10-15 years and this has had a significant impact on traffic flows and the operation of the A90. 5. There is the potential for significant expansion in industrial/employment activity at the Fourdoun and Edzell airfield sites. 6. Laurencekirk does not have as many services/facilities as you would expect for a settlement of that size. 7. Laurencekirk acts as a dormitory/commuter settlement for Aberdeen. 8. The Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan puts a critical mass of development in Laurencekirk to support the delivery of new infrastructure and land allocations. 9. It is perceived that the A92 carries significant commuter traffic and HGV’s relative to the A937. 10. Changing the form of the A90 junctions has the potential to adversely affect travel patterns on the wider network and the High Street. 11. It is anticipated that the build out of residential planning permissions in Laurencekirk could be in the region of 10 to 30 units per year. There is significantly less pressure to deliver new housing in Laurencekirk compared to Portlethen and Stonehaven. 12. A planning permission was granted for a mixed use development next to Gauger’s Burn (southern end of Laurencekirk). The development was conditioned to provide grade separation on the A90/A937 junction to the south of Laurencekirk. The development did not proceed due to this infrastructure requirement. 13. The 885 land allocation to the north of Laurencekirk was allocated in order to provide a critical mass of development to fund infrastructure improvements including potentially grade separation of the

northern A90/A937 junction. Contributions may also be required towards drainage, waste water, education and other transport measures. Therefore, there are competing areas for funding. 14. It was suggested that any new junctions would require SUDS and this could be an opportunity for environmental gain. 15. Permission has been granted for a 2,500 sqm foodstore at the north of Montrose. There is the potential for traffic impact on the A937 to arise from this. The potential impact is estimated in an RIA and TA. 16. There is an aspiration to deliver an employment/training development at Sunnyside Hospital. This has the potential to increase traffic flows through the A90/A937 junction, this could be a constraint on development. 17. There is developer interest in the 50ha Montrose airfield site. This is located on the northern side of the town. This is an important development in Angus but it is difficult to put a timescale on it. 18. It is considered that there is pent up demand for employment land in Montrose. 19. There has been incremental growth in Montrose to serve the housing market for people commuting to Aberdeen. 20. If traffic is rerouting to avoid the A90/A937 junction it was considered unlikely by consultees that rerouting via Brechin to get to Aberdeen would be a route used in practice. It would be more likely that traffic would use one of the at grade junctions between Laurencekirk and Brechin. 21. If the delivery of new services/facilities to serve the local community is to be focussed on Laurencekirk in the future the operation of the A90/A937 junction will be important. 22. Consultees noted that prime agricultural land would be lost if improvement measures required any land take. General policy would be against building on such land unless there is an economic case for doing so. 23. If any trees are cut down to accommodate any measures then compensatory planting should be undertaken. 24. It was noted that BEAR should be asked for trunk road accident statistics. 25. Consultees noted that the grade separated junctions (GSJ) at Forfar had significantly decreased accident rates in those localities. 26. Angus Council noted that they can provide traffic flows for the north Angus area. It was noted that overall the A937 is busier that the A92, but that the A92 has higher levels of HGVs. 27. Angus Council noted that if a grade separated junction is to be funded by developers then it may lead to them going elsewhere. It was also noted that the developers can’t be expected to fund a pre- existing problem e.g. at the south junction. 28. Aberdeenshire Council noted that any Western Distributor Road at Laurencekirk would need to comply with the “Designing Streets” standard. Aberdeen Council noted to refer to Masterplan information available on their website. 29. It was noted that the 50mph speed limit at the south junction is anomalous, it is the only 50mph section on the A90 with the remainder being 70mph. Objectives: 1. Angus Council noted that the south junction is acting as a constraint upon proposed development aspirations. They want to see the constraint removed in order to improve access and economic development in north Angus, including expansion of Montrose Port. 2. NESTRANS noted that the 50 mph speed limit on the A90 may be a deterrent to economic growth and is contrary to the Regional Transport Strategy. They would like to see an objective to remove the 50 mph speed limit from the A90.

8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – STAG WORKSHOPS

3. Community objective to remove severance and reconnect Laurencekirk to areas east of the A90 (including coastal settlements such as St Cyrus etc).

Options: 1. CH2M Hill noted an option to make more use of the existing junction layouts at the south and north junctions. This would involve improvements to existing slip roads. In addition, overbridges would be provided to connect to the existing roads via e.g. roundabouts. This was generally received positively as an option if grade separation were to be pursued. 2. At grade options including a roundabout and traffic signals were discussed. Attendees considered that these options would not be viable due to the potential negative impact on trunk road traffic. 3. It was suggested that extending the 50 mph speed limit and introducing average speed cameras would improve safety.

Summary Note

Access to Laurencekirk – Open Day Workshop

PREPARED FOR: Jenny Anderson – NESTRANS

Alison Irvine – Transport Scotland Fiona Docherty – Transport Scotland Peter MacCallum – Aberdeenshire Council

COPY TO: Attendees

PREPARED BY: Andrew Fyfe DATE: 11 March 2014 PROJECT NUMBER: 488086.EE.00.01 Introduction As part of the STAG pre-appraisal process stage of the Access to Laurencekirk Study, consultation workshops were organised by CH2M HILL to capture the views about current problems, potential opportunities, issues and constraints. In the case of this study, members of the public were also consulted alongside key stakeholders to fully understand and confirm the issue under appraisal. This note presents the methodology and findings from the open day/drop-in workshop and extends to the following sections; Aims for the Session; Setup of the Venue; Attendance and Facilitation; and Summary of the feedback received.

Discussion was focussed where possible by facilitators to gain insight into the problems, issues, constraints and potential opportunities to ensure all was captured appropriately. Aims for the Session A drop in session was held on 11 March 2014 at the Masonic Hall in Laurencekirk to obtain the views of all with an interest in Access to Laurencekirk. The specific aim of the session was to: Have given an understanding of the process to be followed in the Access to Laurencekirk Study; To present CH2M HILL’s understanding of the background to the study area; To have given the opportunity for all to input their views; To give attendees the confidence that their comments would be considered. Setup of the Venue The venue was organised so as to allow attendees to view a range of information gathered by CH2M HILL to date. This information took the form of a series of A1 posters with supporting text placed on display boards and included the following: Wider Area Map Accident Locations Background Context Local Development Plan Allocations Accessibility Local Development Plan Wider Allocations Constraints Previous Options Environment Alternative routes to A90 Traffic Flows Wider Area Accident Locations

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK – NOTE OF DROP IN SESSION 1

Attendance and Facilitation The session was facilitated principally by CH2M HILL, with key support from Transport Scotland, Nestrans and Aberdeenshire Council. There was no defined schedule for the session and the venue was open to individuals to drop in at any point between 14:30 and 20:00 on the 11 March. Upon entering the hall, attendees were greeted and advised of the format of the room, and provided with a leaflet outlining the study aims and contact details of CH2M HILL’s nominated Consultation Manager. Following this CH2M HILL and/or key support staff openly discussed the study and focussed on listening to the attendee’s opinions on the problems, issues constraints and potential opportunities for Access to Laurencekirk. Whilst the names of individuals were noted at points throughout the session, an approximate headcount was taken to which over 60 people were noted as attending. Summary of the Feedback Received A range of feedback was received from attendees during the many discussions which took place on the day. This feedback for the purposes of recording has been summarised, and has been categorised under the following headings to allow greater clarity. Safety Operational Trip Diversion Traffic General Options

Safety It was noted that the accident statistics displayed on the relevant poster appeared to not reflect the number of accidents in the vicinity of Laurencekirk, notably non-injury and near misses, which facilitators advised the posters only referenced Personal Injury Accidents (PIA’s). Those accidents identified by attendees to not be included extended to: Young girl on A937 near Mains of Newton; Pregnant woman on A937 near Marykirk; 3 people on A90 north of Laurencekirk, new Lower Powburn. Driver frustration was noted with specific comments such as “more driver frustration will occur when traffic volumes increase which will increase the risk of accidents, and frustration will encourage people to take greater risks when crossing the A90”. Attendees questioned how such instances of driver stress or frustration could be measures.

Visibility on the central reserves was highlighted as an issue at night, with recommendations to light the junctions as an interim measure.

Operational In terms of operational issues identified, comment was given in relation to farm businesses affected by junction haulage companies reluctant to work with them, the individual advised that they have a farm and it is very difficult to get HGV’s to buy straw, as drivers have been told to not use the crossing as too dangerous and the next interchange is Stonehaven to the north, which is a very long detour which prevents HGV’s coming to Laurencekirk for this purpose. The influence such issues have on potential future development in the area was noted and the knock on effect for businesses and jobs was highlighted to facilitators.

The use of average speed cameras was discussed, to which it was highlighted that this would create problems at peak times, as there would be a continuous stream of traffic on the A90 preventing vehicles crossing the southern junction.

Trip Diversion The issue of trip diversion was raised with additional routes being noted as being used to avoid queuing on the Montrose side of the south junction. These involve coming off the A937 near Marykirk and taking routes to other A90 junctions to the south of Laurencekirk. It was noted that there can be queues at these junctions also i.e. at morning peak times. It was also noted that these junctions have narrow central reserves i.e. making it difficult, if not dangerous, for a car to wait in the central reserve.

For an attendee living in Montrose and working in Aberdeen, considered it was safer to travel to Brechin and head back up the A90. It was also highlighted that delays were avoided by using the Craigo to North Water Bridge junction.

Traffic Problems and issues relating to traffic were highlighted in relation to trips diverting as a result of safety at the Laurencekirk junction and the effect this is having 15 miles north or 10 miles to nearer the over pass.

Some attendees considered that the current speed camera was in the wrong location, making people slow down immediately before the southern junction, which creates a platoon effect with the result of fewer gaps on the A90 traffic to allow A937 traffic to cross.

A high volume of agricultural traffic and the routing of such vehicles along the High Street was seen as an issue in Laurencekirk, and in addition a bottleneck is experienced at Alma Terrace, which was highlighted as being due to poor visibility for vehicles turning onto High Street and that traffic lights may be a possibility.

Attendees suggested that the current speed cameras on the A90 were located in the wrong location as, in their current location, traffic slows down immediately before the southern junction, which creates a platoon effect with the result of few gaps on the A90, which limits the ability of vehicles to cross. In addition and a theme emerging was in relation the installation of average speed cameras

The situation would be improved if an average speed camera system was put in, which could include the north junction, and the thoughts of attendees was that the longer distance this provided would spread vehicles out and create more gaps at peak times. Some general points in relation to traffic issues in and around Laurencekirk were highlighted, particularly with regards the need for a western distributor road, such that a higher proportion of attendees preference was for grade separation of the south junction, however it was noted that attendees were concerned with the impact grade separation of a single junction, (i.e. the south junction) would have on the High Street.

Options A number of options were highlighted by attendees, such as an extension of the 50mph speed limit to cover the south, middle and north junction and the possibility of using average speed cameras. Lighting was highlighted as an issue at the junctions and the provision of road lighting was seen as an interim option, which should be delivered prior to anything else.

The provision of roundabouts on the A90 junctions, was highlighted by a number of individuals as an option, to which would be preferred over the current situation as the speeds on the A90 would be lower. Similarly traffic signal control options were highlighted and discussed with facilitators as well as the more widely campaigned for, full grade separation of the southern junction.

A number of attendees also highlighted the perceived benefits from introducing an extension to the 50mph speed limit, whilst some attendees also highlighted concerns with this, in that platooning vehicles would limit opportunities to cross and merge onto the A90 for side road traffic.

The option of constructing a new motorway between Perth and Dundee was suggested, and it was reiterated that this was a much needed piece of infrastructure.

4 COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

MEETING SUMMARY

Access to Laurencekirk – BP Meeting

ATTENDEES: BP – Ken Smith (KS), Cliff Findlay (CF) CH2M Hill – Murdo Thomson (MT), Graeme Kelly (GK)

COPY TO: Nestrans – Jenny Anderson Transport Scotland – Fiona Docherty

PREPARED BY: Graeme Kelly DATE OF MEETING: 7th May 2014 (10:30am) LOCATION: CH2M Hill Offices, City Park, Glasgow PROJECT NUMBER: 488086 TOPIC ACTION MT ran through background of the Laurencekirk scheme i.e. previous studies and 1.1 the current study which is in the early stages i.e. STAG / DMRB Stage 1. MT noted the purpose of the meeting was for BP to advise CH2M of any constraint in relation to the oil pipeline that runs to the east of the A90 at 1.2 Laurencekirk. BP confirmed that it is the Forties oil pipeline. GK ran through previous options that have been raised to date by other consultants / parties, noting how these impact on the Forties oil pipeline i.e. location in relation to Forties oil pipeline and potential crossing points. It was also noted that the local MP had suggested an alternative option of a 1.3 single Grade Separated Junction located close to the middle junction, with distributor link roads running north and south, parallel to the A90 and the Forties oil pipeline, to the two existing junctions located at the north and the south. It was acknowledged that this option could have three crossing points of the Forties oil pipeline. BP noted that providing any new road infrastructure crossing points in the vicinity of the Forties oil pipeline would be an extremely unattractive option to them, and they would strongly discourage such options. Noting that this would require a legal agreement and significant indemnity insurance (value of £100m noted). With regards to the indemnity insurance the liability would depend on 1.4 how / who the scheme was being funded by, and would only cover repairs and clean-up. In terms of consequential losses BP noted that these would be uninsurable. BP also intimated that the cost of protection structures would be significant, in addition there would have to be bunding put in place to contain any potential ruptures. BP noted the key significance of the Forties oil pipeline to the UK economy. The 1.5 pipeline distributes approximately 1.1 million barrels of oil a day and is the most important oil pipeline in the county. LAURENCEKIRK – BP MEETING

TOPIC ACTION BP noted the Forties oil pipeline distributes a mix of oil, gas and water and is a 64 bar high pressure pipeline. A rupture would have significant health and safety 1.6 consequences hence it has been classified as Major Accident Hazard pipeline by the H&S Executive and hence there would be severe economic consequences if ruptured. BP noted that the Forties pipeline is approximately 1m wide and is buried at a 1.7 shallow depth of approximately 1m to 1.2m cover. They have a 7m wayleave with landowners. If any road infrastructure works in vicinity of Forties oil pipeline – BP need access 1.8 prior to construction to unwrap the existing protection, inspect the pipeline and re-wrap it securely. GK asked about life span Forties oil pipeline. BP noted that the Forties oil pipeline was completed in 1970’s with a 25 year design life. BP noted that through 1.9 ongoing inspection and maintenance the Forties oil pipeline will be in place for the foreseeable future. GK asked if any other BP oil pipelines are located within the Laurencekirk study CH2M area. BP noted that they do not have any other oil pipelines in the vicinity but 1.10 noted the Shell oil pipeline. However, noted that this is likely outwith the study area. CH2M to check / confirm. Route of Forties pipeline discussed and small discrepancies in location shown on BP 1.11 CH2M plan noted. MT asked for detailed route of Forties oil pipeline. BP stated that they would be able to provide a shapefile. Exclusion zone of Forties oil pipeline discussed and the following noted:

• BP wayleave covers 7m corridor i.e. 3m either side of 1m wide pipeline. • BP noted that they generally ask to be consulted if works are within 50m 1.12 either side of the pipeline.

• BP noted that in general it would be advisable to have new road infrastructure associated with Laurencekirk outwith 20m either side of the pipeline. However, proposals would be looked at on a case by case basis. Road crossings of the Forties oil pipeline was discussed in reference to other projects. It was noted that on other projects this requires crossing by a 1.13 protection structure, with the structure designed so the pipeline is not impacted and the area within the structure providing maintenance access. BP noted that this can be a complex process bearing in mind the issues noted in 1.4 to 1.6. GK noted that some of the previous options raised to date by other consultants / parties have at-grade link roads running parallel with the Forties oil pipeline. It 1.14 was noted that depending on distance from the Forties oil pipeline it may be necessary to provide safety barrier on these link roads. BP noted that these would be looked at on a case by case basis. BP noted that construction activity is their biggest concern i.e. it creates the most 1.15 risk. With regards to existing protection of the Forties oil pipeline BP noted that it has 1.16 a coating of cold tar enamel and cathodic protection.

TOPIC ACTION Where the Forties pipeline passes under other existing roads BP noted that it would generally be protected by an oversized culvert. CH2M / BP agreed to continue consultation process as necessary as the CH2M/BP 1.17 Laurencekirk project progresses. BP noted main point of contact is KS.

Appendix C Engineering Characteristics

Engineering Characteristics

Access to Laurencekirk

Prepared for

August 2014

City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel: 0141 552 2000 www.ch2m.com

I ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4

Contents

Section Page Engineering Baseline ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Condition of Existing Road Pavement and Structures ...... 1-1 1.2.1 Existing Road Pavement ...... 1-1 1.2.2 Existing Structures ...... 1-1 1.3 Primary Consideration ...... 1-2 1.3.1 Topography and Land Use ...... 1-2 1.4 Road Network ...... 1-2 1.4.1 A90 Mainline ...... 1-2 1.4.2 A90 Junctions ...... 1-5 1.4.3 Local Roads ...... 1-11 1.5 Road Drainage ...... 1-12 1.5.1 A90 Mainline ...... 1-12 1.5.2 Local Roads ...... 1-12 1.6 Geology and Geomorphology ...... 1-12 1.6.1 Drift Geology ...... 1-13 1.6.2 Solid Geology ...... 1-13 1.6.3 Mining Assessment...... 1-14 1.7 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ...... 1-14 1.8 Public Utilities ...... 1-15 1.9 Design Standards ...... 1-16

Tables Table 1.1 – Distance between Laurencekirk junctions ...... 1-5

Figures Figure 1.1 – Typical A90 Cross Section ...... 1-3 Figure 1.2 – Extract from DMRB TD42/95 (Figure 7/6 Dual Carriageway major / minor priority junction) .... 1-6 Figure 1.3 – Extract from DMRB TD42/95 (Figure 7/12 major / minor priority junction with nearside auxiliary lane) ...... 1-6 Figure 1.4 – A90/B9120 centre junction ...... 1-8 Figure 1.5 – Laurencekirk North junction ...... 1-10 Figure 1.6 SEPA Flood plain mapping (extract from SEPA web portal) ...... 1-15

I ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4

Document History

This report has been prepared in accordance with the instructions of the client, NESTRANS for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1.0 14/08/2014 Draft for client review GK AF MT

2.0 09/02/2015 Final to issue GK DA

ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 III

SECTION 1

Engineering Baseline

. Introduction The A90 is part of Scotland’s trunk road network, extending from Perth in the south to Fraserburgh in the north. The A90 provides a link between the cities of Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen. To the south of Perth the A90 connects to the M90 which links to Edinburgh. Laurencekirk is located approximately 58km north of Dundee and 49km south of Aberdeen. Other towns served directly by the A90 include Forfar, Brechin, Stonehaven and Peterhead. Refer to location plan drawing (488086-STAG-001) within Appendix F. The section of the A90 which bypasses Laurencekirk was completed in the 1980’s. The trunk road operating company responsible for the A90 within the area at the time of writing is BEAR Scotland. This chapter provides a descriptive engineering characteristics assessment, conversant with that required at DMRB Stage 1. In the context of ‘Access to Laurencekirk’ and in acceptance of the previous studies undertaken, we have sought to include a process of acknowledgement and validation in addition to consulting the typical primary information sources.

. Condition of Existing Road Pavement and Structures .. Existing Road Pavement A road pavement condition survey has not been carried out at this stage. It is noted that on the A90 high friction surfacing is provided at A90/A937 South Junction, A90/B9120 Centre Junction and A90/A937 North Junction, to which further details are provide within section 1.4.2 below. .. Existing Structures A review of Ordnance Survey maps has been undertaken to identify the structures located on the A90 within the core study area. The dimensions of these structures remain unconfirmed. The list below identifies the structures from the southwest to the northeast of the core study area, these are also shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F. • Railway crossing; • Gaugers Burn culvert; • Johnston Mains underpass – underpass suitable for one vehicle width; • Kirk Burn culvert; and • un-named watercourse culverts located to the south and north of the A90/A937 North Junction. Other structures of note located on the local road network include other crossings of the railway at: • Unclassified road near Oatyhill; • Blackiemuir Avenue (B9120); • Fordoun Road; and • Unclassified road to Mains of Haulkerton.

ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 1-1 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE . Primary Consideration .. Topography and Land Use An examination of the topographical and land use information has been undertaken using NextMap Britain 5m Digital Terrain Model which was provided by URS Scott Wilson following the use within the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development study and from review of Ordnance Survey maps. The topography of the core study area is generally falling from the Hill of Garvock (approximately 250m above ordnance datum (AOD)) on the southeast side of Laurencekirk to the low lying area along the route of Luther Water (approximately 50m AOD) on the northwest side of Laurencekirk. The town of Laurencekirk sits at a level varying between 80m and 90m AOD. The A90 within the core study area varies in level between 80m and 100m AOD, a high point on the A90 is located near the Johnston Mains underpass which is located between the A90/A937 South Junction and the A90/B9120 Centre Junction. The town of Laurencekirk is bypassed by the A90 to the south and to the north the town is constrained by the Dundee to Aberdeen railway as shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F. Beyond the residential area of Laurencekirk the land is rural in nature and is used for arable and livestock farming. Other features in the area include Denlethen Wood which is located to the southwest of Laurencekirk on the west side of the A90. There is also a local community windfarm located on the Hill of Garvock.

. Road Network The A90 at Laurencekirk is a dual 2 lane carriageway. There are three at-grade junctions on the A90 providing access to Laurencekirk, as follows: • A90/A937 South Junction; • A90/B9120 Centre Junction; and • A90/A937 North Junction.

The above junctions are shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010 and 488086-STAG-012 to 014) within Appendix F, whilst the following sections provide further details on the A90 mainline, A90 junctions and other local roads within the core and wider study area. The approximate dimensions noted within this section have been estimated from a review of Ordnance Survey maps and would need to be confirmed by detailed topographical survey at a later stage. .. A Mainline The following sections describe cross section, alignment and other features of the A90 within the core study area. It should be noted that upon review, no road lighting is currently provided on the A90 within the core study area. The A90 at Laurencekirk is a dual 2 lane carriageway with nearside and offside kerbing. The carriageway appears to vary in width between approximately 6.5m and 7.5m. In addition nominal nearside and offside hardstrips of approximately 200mm to 300mm are provided. The verges and central reserve vary in width for visibility requirements, to which on average the verges are approximately 2m to 3m wide and the central reserve is approximately 4m to 5m wide. Figure 1.1 below and engineering characteristics drawing (488086- STAG-011) within Appendix F, shows a typical cross section of the A90.

1-2 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

Figure 1.1 – Typical A90 Cross Section

The current DMRB Volume 6, Section 1, Part 2, TD27/05 (Cross Sections and Headrooms) standard for a dual 2 lane carriageway does not include nearside and offside kerbing and comprises the following cross section dimensions: • Nearside verge – 2.5m minimum; • Nearside hardstrip – 1m; • Lane 1 – 3.65m; • Lane 2 – 3.65m; • Offiside hardstrip – 1m; and • Central reserve – 2.5m minimum.

With regards to earthworks, the majority of the A90 within the core study area is at-grade or in shallow cutting. ... Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Within the core study area, the A90 follows a northeast / southwest direction bypassing Laurencekirk to the south and east. The following summarises the horizontal alignment elements from the southwest to the northeast of the core study area: • Right hand curve approximately 2040m radii – starting near Oatyhill at the southwest extents and ending prior to the A90/A937 South Junction; • Straight section approximately 700m long – through the A90/A937 South Junction; • Left hand curve approximately 2480m radii – starting after the A90/A937 South Junction and ending prior to the A90/A937 North Junction; • Straight section approximately 450m long – through the A90/A937 North Junction; and • Right hand curve approximately 2600m radii – starting after the A90/A937 North Junction and ending near Middleton Cottage at the northeast extents.

1-3 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

It should be noted that the horizontal radii noted above are greater than the desirable minimum horizontal radii specified for a 120kph design speed road, as defined within Table 3 of DMRB Volume 6, Section 1, Part 1, TD 9/93 (Highway Link Design). From the southwest of the core study area the vertical alignment of the A90 is on an uphill gradient of approximately 1.5% to a high point near the Johnston Mains underpass. From the Johnston Mains underpass heading northeast the vertical alignment is on a downhill gradient of approximately 1.5% to a low point near where the Kirk Burn passes under the A90. From the Kirk Burn heading northeast the vertical alignment is on a relatively flat / gentle uphill section to a high point near the A90 laybys. From the A90 laybys heading northeast the vertical alignment is on a downhill gradient of approximately 2.0% to the extents of the core study area. The vertical gradients noted above are less than the desirable maximum gradients specified for a dual 2 lane carriageway, within Clause 4.1 of DMRB Volume 6, Section 1, Part 1, TD9/93 (Highway Link Design). ... Speed Limits Speed cameras were installed on the A90 Laurencekirk (A90/A937 South Junction) in 2005 as part of a package of safety measures. From the southwest the following speed limits apply on the northbound carriageway within the core study area: • 50mph speed restriction enforced by speed cameras on approach and through the A90/A937 South Junction. The 50mph speed restriction was introduced in 2005; and • 70mph national speed limit from a point north of the A90/A937 South Junction through the remainder of the northbound carriageway to the extents of the core study area. The 70mph speed limit is applied through the A90/B9120 Centre Junction and the A90/A937 North Junction.

From the northeast the following speed limits apply on the southbound carriageway within the core study area: • 70mph national speed limit from the northeast extents of the core study area to a point north of the A90/A937 South Junction. The 70mph speed limit is applied through the A90/A937 North Junction and the A90/B9120 Centre Junction; and • 50mph speed restriction enforced by speed cameras on approach and through the A90/A937 South Junction. The 50mph speed restriction was introduced in 2005.

The extents of the speed limits are shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F. ... Laybys With the core study are the following laybys are provided: • Between the Oatyhill and A90/A937 South Junction there is a layby located on the northbound carriageway. This layby is approximately 3.5m wide and 220m long (incorporating 60m diverge and merge tapers); and • Between the A90/B9120 Centre Junction and the A90/A937 North Junction, near Burnside, there are laybys located on the northbound and southbound carriageways. These laybys are approximately 3.5m wide and 220m long (incorporating 60m diverge and merge tapers).

The laybys do not include a segregation island and therefore do not comply with current standards for dual carriageway laybys outlined in DMRB Volume 6, Section 3, Part 3, TD 69/07 (The Location and Layout of Lay- bys and Rest Areas).

1-4 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

The locations of all laybys within the core and wider study area are shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F. ... Pedestrian Crossings There is one at grade pedestrian crossing point across the A90 within the core study area (refer to engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-013 within Appendix F). Located at the A90/B9120 Centre Junction, this takes the form of an adjoining footway with central reserve paved area, no dropped kerbs or tactile paving is provided. Access from Laurencekirk on the northwest side of the A90 is gained via a gate near the Cemetery and on the southeast side of the A90 the footway terminates close to the A90/B9120 Centre Junction, with pedestrians having to join the B9120 carriageway. Pedestrian ‘look left’ and ‘look right’ road markings are provided on each side of the A90 and within the central reserve. .. A Junctions Within the wider study area there are 22 at-grade junctions on the A90 which incorporate central reserve crossings. These are described in the following sections, starting with the three at-grade junctions on the A90 providing access to Laurencekirk. ... A Junctions Providing Access to Laurencekirk The spacing of the three at-grade junctions on the A90 providing access to Laurencekirk (between merge and diverge) are shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F, and the spacing between the three junctions are noted in Table 1.1 below.

A90/A937 South Junction A90/B9120 Centre Junction A90/A937 North Junction

A90 Northbound 1,326m 1,372m

A90 Southbound 1,336m 1,455m Table 1.1 – Distance between Laurencekirk junctions

Figures 1.2 and 1.3 below are extracts from DMRB Volume 6, Section 2, Part 6, TD 42/95 (Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions). The following outlines some of the required DMRB TD42/95 design criteria which would be expected for the three at-grade junctions on the A90 providing access to Laurencekirk: • Direct taper length = 30m; • Deceleration length = 110m • Physical island width = 10m (general large goods vehicles), 14m (large articulated vehicles), 16.5m (drawbar trailer); and • Central reserve opening = 15m.

1-5 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

Figure 1.2 – Extract from DMRB TD42/95 (Figure 7/6 Dual Carriageway major / minor priority junction)

Figure 1.3 – Extract from DMRB TD42/95 (Figure 7/12 major / minor priority junction with nearside auxiliary lane)

... A/A South Junction The A90/A937 South Junction is a staggered right/left crossroads incorporating a central reserve crossing. The A937 connects to Laurencekirk to the north and Montrose to the south. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the right turn movements from and across the A90 incorporated within the central reserve and left turns off the A90 provided via diverge tapers with auxiliary lanes. There are no merge tapers onto the A90 in either direction. Figure 1.4 shows the Laurencekirk south junction.

1-6 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

Engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-012, within Appendix F, provides further details on the A90/A937 South Junction. This includes the following approximate dimensions relating to the DMRB TD42/95 design criteria: • Direct taper length varies approximately 23-31m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 30m); • Deceleration length varies approximately 100-116m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 110m); • Physical island width approximately 10m (DMRB TD42/95 notes that this should be 14m for large articulated vehicles and 16.5m for drawbar trailers); and • Central reserve opening approximately 15m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 15m).

As noted above no merge tapers are provided onto the A90 in either direction. DMRB TD 42/95 notes that merge tapers are required on dual carriageway where the design speed is 85kph or above and the volume of left turning traffic in the design year exceeds 600 vehicles AADT. The current volume of left turning traffic (northbound and southbound) is less than 600 vehicles AADT.

Figure 1.3 – Laurencekirk South junction

In addition to general traffic signs and road markings, the A90/A937 South Junction also includes provision of the following features, which were generally introduced / improved as part of a package of safety measures in 2010: • On the A90 in advance on the 50mph speed restriction, electronic vehicle activated traffic signs incorporating “50mph” and “slow down” text are provided in either direction; • On the opposite side of the A90 carriageway from the junctions “cross with care” traffic signs are provided; • Road markings including give way symbol, hatching and chevrons are provided within the central reserve to inform drivers where they should position themselves for making movements; and • High friction surfacing is provided on the A90 in advance and at the junction in either direction, on the mainline and diverge tapers (including auxiliary lanes).

1-7 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

... A/B Centre Junction The A90/B9120 Centre Junction is also a staggered right/left crossroads incorporating a central reserve crossing. The B9120 connects to Laurencekirk to the northwest and St Cyrus and other coastal settlements to the southeast. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the right turn movements from and across the A90 incorporated within the central reserve and left turns off the A90 provided via diverge tapers with auxiliary lanes. There are no merge tapers onto the A90 in either direction. Figure 1.5 shows the A90/B9120 Centre Junction. Engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-013, within Appendix F, provides further details on the A90/B9120 Centre Junction. This includes the following approximate dimensions relating to the DMRB TD42/95 design criteria: • Direct taper length varies approximately 21-30m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 30m); • Deceleration length varies approximately 96-102m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 110m); • Physical island width approximately 10m (DMRB TD42/95 notes that this should be 14m for large articulated vehicles and 16.5m for drawbar trailers); and • Central reserve opening approximately 15m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 15m). As noted above no merge tapers are provided onto the A90 in either direction. DMRB TD 42/95 notes that merge tapers are required on dual carriageway where the design speed is 85kph or above and the volume of left turning traffic in the design year exceeds 600 vehicles AADT. The current volume of left turning traffic (northbound and southbound) is less than 600 vehicles AADT.

Figure 1.4 – A90/B9120 centre junction

1-8 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

In addition to general traffic signs and road markings, the A90/B9120 Centre Junction also includes provision of the following features, which were generally introduced / improved as part of a package of safety measures in 2010: • On the A90 in advance of the junction electronic vehicle activated traffic signs incorporating “danger ahead symbol” and “turning traffic” text are provided in either direction; • On the A90 in advance of the junction traffic signs incorporating “danger ahead symbol” and “pedestrian crossing” text are provided in either direction; • On the opposite side of the A90 carriageway from the junctions “cross with care” traffic signs are provided; • Road markings including hatching and chevrons are provided within the central reserve to inform drivers where they should position themselves for making movements; and • High friction surfacing is provided on the A90 in advance and at the junction in either direction, on the mainline and diverge tapers (including auxiliary lanes).

... A/A North Junction A90/A937 North Junction is a crossroads incorporating a central reserve crossing. To the southwest the A937 connects to Laurencekirk and to the east an access road links to Keilburn Farm. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the right turn movements from and across the A90 incorporated within the central reserve and left turns off the A90 northbound into Laurencekirk provided via a diverge taper with auxiliary lane. There is no diverge taper off the A90 southbound into Keilburn Farm. A new merge taper with auxiliary lane was completed in 2012 for left turn movements onto the A90 northbound from Laurencekirk. There is no merge taper onto the A90 southbound from Keilburn Farm. Figure 1.6 shows the Laurencekirk north junction. Engineering characteristics drawing 488086-STAG-014, within Appendix F, provides further details on the A90/A937 North Junction. This includes the following approximate dimensions relating to the DMRB TD42/95 design criteria (not including the junction to the Keilburn Farm): • Direct taper length varies approximately 23-33m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 30m); • Deceleration length varies approximately 105-109m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 110m); • Physical island width approximately 10m (DMRB TD42/95 notes that this should be 14m for large articulated vehicles and 16.5m for drawbar trailers); and • Central reserve opening approximately 20m (DMRB TD42/95 requires 15m).

1-9 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

Figure 1.5 – Laurencekirk North junction

In addition to general traffic signs and road markings, the A90/A937 North Junction also includes provision of the following features, which were generally introduced / improved as part of a package of safety measures in 2010: • On the northbound A90 in advance of the junction an electronic vehicle activated traffic sign incorporating “danger ahead symbol” and “turning traffic” text is provided; • On the southbound A90 in advance of the junction a “farm traffic” warning sign is provided; • Hatching road markings are provided within the central reserve to inform drivers where they should position themselves for making movements; and • High friction surfacing is provided on the A90 in advance and at the junction in either direction, on the mainline and northbound diverge taper (including auxiliary lane).

... Other Junctions In addition to the three at-grade junctions on the A90 providing access to Laurencekirk there are a further 19 at-grade junctions within the wider study area, which incorporate central reserve crossings and additional right turns onto and from the A90. These provide access to: • Various unclassified local roads; • Residential properties; and • Farms / fields.

All at-grade junctions within the wider study are shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F. Within the core study area the following six at-grade junctions are provided in addition the three at-grade junctions on the A90 providing access to Laurencekirk:

• Oatyhill access located on northbound side of A90 and field access located on southbound side of A90, to the south of the A90/A937 South Junction. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the exception of the right turn from the northbound A90 into the field access. Right turn movements from and across the A90 to the Oatyhill access is incorporated within the central reserve. There are no diverge and merge tapers;

1-10 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

• Field access located on northbound side of A90 and Johnston Lodge private access located on southbound side of A90, to the north of the A90/A937 South Junction. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the exception of the right turn from the southbound A90 into the field access. Right turn movements from and across the A90 to Johnston Lodge is incorporated within the central reserve. A diverge taper is provided at the left turn off the southbound A90 into Johnston Lodge. There are no further diverge and merge tapers; • Field access located on both northbound and southbound sides of the A90, to the north of the A90/B9120 Centre Junction. All movements are permissible at the junction, however, there is limited space available within the central reserve. There are no diverge and merge tapers; • Burnside private access located on southbound side of A90, to the south of the A90/A937 North Junction. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the right turn movements from and across the A90 incorporated within the central reserve and left turn off the A90 provided via a diverge taper. There is no merge taper onto the A90; • Staggered right/left crossroads with Mains of Haulkerton access located on northbound side of A90 and Upperton access located on southbound side of A90, to the north of the A90/A937 North Junction. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the right turn movements from and across the A90 incorporated within the central reserve. There are no diverge and merge tapers; and • Middleton Cottage private access located on southbound side of A90, to the north of the A90/A937 North Junction. All movements are permissible at the junction, with the right turn movements from and across the A90 incorporated within the central reserve. There are no diverge and merge tapers.

.. Local Roads There are a number of local roads within the wider study area and the characteristics are shown on the engineering characteristics drawings (488086-STAG-002 to 010) within Appendix F, to which a summary is also provided below. ... A / High Street / Aberdeen Road In general the A937 / High Street / Aberdeen Road is approximately 7.3m wide. No hardstrips are provided along its length and kerbing is provided (generally full batter kerbs adjacent to verges and half battered kerbs adjacent to footways). Within Laurencekirk un-controlled parking is in place on either side of the carriageway resulting in a narrowing of the available carriageway width, which is particularly relevant on the High Street within the centre of Laurencekirk. The speed limit within Laurencekirk is 30mph with the exception of a short temporary 20mph section near the existing Mearns Academy which is activated by flashing lights. On the south side of Laurencekirk the 30mph speed limit starts just south of Gaugers Burn and on the north side of Laurencekirk it starts to the south of Conveth Mains. Either side of the 30mph section a 60mph national speed limit applies. Road lighting is provided within Laurencekirk. On the south side of Laurencekirk the road lighting starts just north of Gaugers Burn and on the north side of Laurencekirk it starts at Laurencekirk Business Park. ... A to Montrose Within the core study area the A937 between the A90 and Montrose is approximately 5.5m to 6.5m wide with no hardstrips and kerbs only at the A90/A937 South Junction. A 60mph national speed limit applies and there is no road lighting. ... B The B9120 (Garvock Road, Alma Terrace and Alma Place) between the A90 and Laurencekirk is approximately 5.5m to 6.5m wide. No hardstrips are provided along its length and kerbing is provided (generally full batter kerbs adjacent to verges and half battered kerbs adjacent to footways). Un-controlled parking is allowed on either side of the carriageway resulting in a narrowing of the available carriageway

1-11 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

width, in particular on approach to the centre of Laurencekirk. A 30mph speed limit applies and there is road lighting provided between the junction with Kilburn and the High Street. Within the core study area the B9120 between the A90 and St Cyrus is approximately 4.5m wide with no hardstrip and kerbs only at the A90/B9120 Centre Junction. A 60mph national speed limit applies and there is no road lighting. ... Other Local Roads There are various other B-class roads and unclassified roads that make up the local road network within the wider study area, some of note include: • B9120 on northwest side of Laurencekirk linking to Fettercairn – within Laurencekirk this road is named Blackiemuir Avenue; • Unclassified road on northwest side of Laurencekirk linking to Auchenblae and Fordoun – within Laurencekirk this road is named Fordoun Road; and • B966 between Brechin and Fordoun. • Frain Drive linking Laurencekirk High Street to Johnstone Mains via the Johnstone Mains underpass.

. Road Drainage .. A Mainline A review of Google Street View and a drive through has confirmed that the A90 mainline within the core study area is drained via a kerb and gully system, with the gullies generally being the side entry type. It should be noted that as-built records were not available for the A90. As the majority of the A90 within the core study area is either at-grade or in shallow cutting, it is assumed that filter drains are provided within the verges in order to catch the runoff from the adjacent land. Where the carriageway is in super elevation and drainage is required within the central reserve it is assumed that the gullies connect to a carrier drain within the central reserve. With regards to outfalls it is assumed that the A90 road drainage networks within the core study area connect directly to Gaugers Burn, Kirk Burn and the 3 un-named watercourses to the south and north of the A90/A937 North Junction. Based on the use of a kerb and gully system and the age of this section of the A90 it assumed that no Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are incorporated within the A90 road drainage networks. A further detailed site review of the road drainage at DMRB Stage 2 would needs to be carried out to confirm the road drainage assumptions noted above. .. Local Roads Road drainage on the local roads is generally restricted to the residential areas within Laurencekirk on the A937 / High Street / Aberdeen Road and the B9120 (Garvock Road, Alma Terrace and Alma Place). Road drainage in these areas takes the form of a kerb and gully system, which is assumed to connect to a carrier drain network. Other local roads beyond these areas do not included road drainage.

. Geology and Geomorphology The following sections outline the ground condition information reviewed to date. Further research, including a full Ground Investigation, are required to confirm the ground conditions within the core study area.

1-12 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE .. Drift Geology Information on the Drift Geology underlying the site has been determined from examination of the BGS Solid and Drift Geology Map Sheet 66E Banchory at a scale of 1:50,000; inspection of borehole records obtained from the British Geological Survey online borehole scans database; and review of information contained within the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development report prepared by URS Scott Wilson for Transport Scotland (Ref: D137127/L/REP/001 Rev 2 dated August 2011). Reference to the geological maps indicates rockhead is present at relatively shallow depth across the general area with localised occurrence of deposits of till, mainly red brown sandy diamicton of the Mill of Forest Till Formation. Several glacial meltwater channels are noted across the area, typically with a southeast to northwest alignment. In addition to the glacial meltwater channels, there is potential for localised deposits of alluvium to be present in channels associated with streams and burns which cross the area. It is anticipated that these deposits will predominantly comprise a pebbly sand. Reference to the online borehole records database at www.bgs.ac.uk indicated several boreholes were available along the A90 route namely: • NO77SW6405/11 (NGR 370963, 770273); • NO77SW6405/10 (NGR 372065, 770936); • NO77SW6405/8 (NGR 372806, 772597); and • NO77SW6405/9 (NGR 372667; 772043).

Reference to the above cable percussive borehole logs indicate the ground conditions at each of the three junctions are fairly consistent across the area with deposits of topsoil of up to 0.3m present at surface level in the boreholes. This was underlain in turn by deposits of reddish brown, clayey, sand and gravel to depths of between approximately 1.5m and 2m. In situ standard penetration tests carried out within several of the boreholes returned SPT N Values ranging from 16 to 18 indicating the strata to be of medium density. Several of the boreholes described this granular stratum as a highly weathered bedrock. The boreholes recorded deposits of reddish brown, argillaceous sandstone from beneath the granular deposits to the final depth explored in each case, a maximum of 3.5m. None of the boreholes recorded groundwater strikes, the boreholes being noted to remain dry throughout the drilling operations. No records of standpipe installations or ongoing water monitoring were available for review. .. Solid Geology Review of the BGS Solid and Drift Geology Map Sheet 66E Banchory at a scale of 1:50,000 indicates a consistency in the solid geology below the route of the A90 and the three junctions: • A90/A937 South Junction; • A90/B9120 Centre Junction; and • A90/A937 North Junction.

The rock strata underlying the site were noted to comprise siltstone, sandy siltstone and fine grained sandstone of the Cromlix Formation of Lower Devonian age. These deposits were noted to have formed in a river environment and comprise bright red, poorly sorted, commonly massive, but locally laminated or thinly bedded strata, exhibiting a dip to the northwest at approximately 35 degrees. Information contained within the URS Scott Wilson report indicated ‘in the region where the site is located, the beds are expected to be

1-13 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

thinner and the rock may comprise mainly soft, micaceous, fine grained or very fine grained muddy sandstone with mudstone laminations’. These deposits are likely to be underlain at depth by the ‘Highland’ conglomerate, a red brown or yellow, medium to coarse grained sandstone matrix supporting well rounded clasts, of the Deep Conglomerate Formation of Lower Devonian age. .. Mining Assessment Mining is associated with strata which contain seams of economic importance, such as coal, limestone and ironstone. These minerals are typically associated with the Lower and Middle Coal Measures of Carboniferous age. The strata underlying the site are sedimentary strata of the Cromlix Formation of Lower Devonian age and do not contain seams of economic significance. In summary, it is unlikely that mineral extraction will have taken place within the core study area.

. Hydrology and Hydrogeology Information contained within the report prepared by URS Scott Wilson indicates ‘there appear to be 5 relatively small watercourses running south to north through the study area crossing the A90 and local roads within Laurencekirk by way of culverts, outfalling to the Luther Water which itself outfalls to the River North Esk and ultimately the North Sea’. Reference to available ordnance survey maps indicates Gaugers Burn is located to the east of the A90/A937 South Junction, while the Kirk Burn is located to the east of the A90/B9120 Centre Junction. The remainder of the watercourses are un-named. An extract of the SEPA flood plain mapping is shown on Figure 1.7 below. A flood plain is all located to the north of Laurencekirk along the Luther Water. The Hydrogeological Map of Scotland at a scale of 1:625 000 indicates the aquifer within the rock strata to be a potentially locally important aquifer, while the Groundwater Vulnerability Map of Scotland at a scale of 1:625,000 indicates the strata to be highly permeable, comprising formations with a known or probable presence of significant fracturing. Information suggests borehole yields in the region of 1 l/s to up to 12 l/s in some areas. These deposits may be highly productive and able to support abstractions for public supply and other purposes. While the overlying drift deposits, where present, are classified as a low permeability non water bearing drift deposits, the classification of the underlying geology as highly permeable indicates the overlying soils should be classified as having high leaching potential. The area is classified by SEPA as being a Drinking Water Protection Zone, an area designated under the Water Environment (Drinking Water Protected Areas) (Scotland) Order 2007). It refers to areas where groundwater is, or may be, abstracted for human consumption and is classed as a Pass. The groundwater in the area therefore requires to be protected from deterioration.

1-14 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

Figure 1.6 SEPA Flood plain mapping (extract from SEPA web portal) . Public Utilities The public utilities identified to date within the core study area are noted below and approximate locations of are shown on the public utilities drawings (488086-STAG-015 to 017) within Appendix F: • BP Forties Pipeline; • Electricity (Underground and Overhead); • Gas; • Mains Water; • Foul Water; • Surface Water; • Telephone Cables (Underground and Overhead); and • Fibre Optic Cables.

Key public utility constraints for any potential junction improvements are likely to be the BP Forties Pipeline which runs along the east side of the A90 and the Gas networks, in particular at the A90/A937 North Junction. The public utilities identified to date has been extracted from information received from URS Scott Wilson (from their A90 Laurencekirk Junctions Cost Refinement Exercise for Grade Separation Associated with Future Development study), BEAR Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council. Initial consultation was undertaken with BP with regards the Forties Pipeline given its proximity within the core study area. CH2M HILL were advised that the pipeline was completed in the 1970’s and that with ongoing inspection and maintenance the pipeline will be in place for the foreseeable future. The Forties Pipeline was identified as being of key significance to the UK economy, distributing some 1.1 million barrels of oil a day. An exclusion zone for the pipeline was noted as follows: • BP way leave covers 7m corridor i.e. 3m either side of 1m wide pipeline; • BP should be consulted if any works are within 50m either side of the pipeline; and • BP suggested that it would be advisable to have new road infrastructure associated with Laurencekirk out with 20m either side of the pipeline. However any future proposals would be looked at on a case by case basis.

1-15 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4 SECTION 1 ENGINEERING BASELINE

BP noted that the Forties pipeline is approximately 1m wide and is buried at a shallow depth of approximately 1m to 1.2m cover. A further up to date utility search will be carried out to confirm the current information available at DMRB Stage 2. . Design Standards The outline designs of any potential junction improvements will be developed in accordance with the principles of the current DMRB standards. Where necessary, in order to overcome constraints or rationalise the design, departures from standard will be considered. Further design development of potential junction improvements will be carried out at DMRB Stage 2 Scheme Assessment.

1-16 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS_SUPPORTING REPORT_V4

Appendix D Environmental Baseline

Environmental Baseline

Access to Laurencekirk

Prepared for

August 2014

City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel: 0141 552 2000 www.ch2m.com

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 I

Contents

Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iv Laurencekirk Environmental Baseline ...... 1‐1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1‐1 1.2 Environmental Baseline ...... 1‐1 1.3 Noise & Vibration ...... 1‐2 1.3.1 Air Quality ...... 1‐5 1.4 Existing and baseline knowledge ...... 1‐5 1.4.1 Aberdeenshire Council ...... 1‐5 1.4.2 Air Quality Monitoring ...... 1‐5 1.4.3 Sensitive receptors ...... 1‐6 1.5 Road Drainage & Water Environment ...... 1‐6 1.5.1 Water Quality ...... 1‐6 1.5.2 Flooding ...... 1‐7 1.5.3 Baseline Traffic Data ...... 1‐8 1.5.4 Groundwater ...... 1‐8 1.6 Solid Geology ...... 1‐8 1.6.1 Drift Geology ...... 1‐8 1.6.2 Soils ...... 1‐8 1.6.3 Protected Sites ...... 1‐8 1.6.4 Contaminated Land ...... 1‐8 1.7 Biodiversity & Habitats ...... 1‐8 1.7.1 Designated Sites ...... 1‐9 1.7.2 Habitats ...... 1‐10 1.7.3 Species ...... 1‐10 1.7.4 Surveys ...... 1‐10 1.8 Landscape ...... 1‐10 1.8.1 Landscape Character Assessment ...... 1‐10 1.8.2 Sensitive Landscape Areas ...... 1‐11 1.9 Visual Amenity ...... 1‐12 1.10 Land Use ...... 1‐12 1.10.1 Private Property Requiring Demolition ...... 1‐12 1.10.2 Community Land & Facilities ...... 1‐12 1.10.3 Agricultural Land ...... 1‐13 1.10.4 Development Land ...... 1‐13 1.10.5 World Heritage Sites ...... 1‐15 1.10.6 Scheduled Monuments ...... 1‐15 1.10.7 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes ...... 1‐15 1.10.8 Listed Buildings ...... 1‐15 1.10.9 Conservation Areas ...... 1‐16 1.10.10 Battlefield Sites ...... 1‐16 1.10.11 Historic Environment Record Sites ...... 1‐16 1.11 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects ...... 1‐16 1.11.1 Introduction ...... 1‐16 1.11.2 Community Facilities ...... 1‐16 1.12 Vehicle Travellers ...... 1‐17

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 I SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

1.12.1 Introduction ...... 1‐17 1.12.2 Views from the Road ...... 1‐17 1.12.3 Material Resources ...... 1‐17

Tables Table 1.1 – Synergies between Stag and DMRB across the Environmental Disciplines ...... 1‐1 Table 1.2 – Air quality objectives (Scotland) ...... 1‐5 Table 1.3 – No2 Non‐automative monitoring in Aberdeenshire – Annual mean objective ...... 1‐6 Table 1.4 – Classified Waterbodies within study area ...... 1‐7 Table 1.5 – Community effects ...... 1‐17 Table 1.6 – Existing waste management infrastructure in Aberdeenshire (Including hazardous infill) ...... 1‐17

Figures Figure 1.1 – A90/A37 Junction location plan ...... 1‐2 Figure 1.2 – Lden (day –evening‐night level Lden in decibdels (dB) ...... 1‐4 Figure 1.3 – Lnight (night level Lnight in decibels (dB) ...... 1‐4

II ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2

Document History

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1.0 15/08/2014 Draft for client review CF AF LH 2.0 09/02/2015 Final to issue CF AF LH

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 III

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

AQMA Air Quality Management Area DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area GIS Geographical Information Systems HER Historic Environment Record LCA Land Capability for Agriculture LDP Local Development Plan LNR Local Nature Reserve NBN Gateway National Biodiversity Network Gateway NERC National Environment Research Council NGR National Grid Reference NNR National Nature Reserve OS Ordnance Survey RIGS Regionally Important Geological Sites RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SAC Special Area of Conservation SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest STAG Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance SWT Scottish Wildlife Trust WFD Water Framework Directive WHS World Heritage Site WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works

IV SECTION 1 Laurencekirk Environmental Baseline

1.1 Introduction In December 2013, CH2M HILL were commissioned to develop a robust evidence case for a preferred solution for access between the A90 Trunk Road and Laurencekirk and Montrose. This report details the environmental information for the study and aims to satisfy elements of both STAG and DMRB Stage 1 Assessment. This report provides the environmental baseline for the study, and includes contextual information not directly supportive of the transport appraisal within the main body of the STAG Report. The environmental baseline has been informed through a review of existing information, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping, consultation, and a review of Ordnance Survey mapping for the study area. Environmental constraints mapping has been produced and available within appendix A, supporting the STAG Appraisal Report. 1.2 Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline of the study area has been established through a review of available information, which has been collated for the various environmental disciplines. The information provided below compliments the requirements of both Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Stage 1 Assessment. Table 1.1 – Synergies between Stag and DMRB across the Environmental Disciplines

STAG Discipline Associated DMRB Discipline Environmental Baseline Section Headings

Noise & Vibration Noise ‐ Assessment and Reporting Noise & Vibration Global Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Local Air Quality Water Quality, Drainage and Flood Defence Road Drainage & Water Environment Road Drainage & Water Environment Geology Geology & Soils Geology & Soils Biodiversity & Habitats Ecology and Nature Conservation Biodiversity & Habitats Landscape Landscape Landscape Effects Visual Amenity Visual Amenity Agriculture & Soils Land Use Land Use Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage ‐ Pedestrians, Cyclists and Community Pedestrians, Cyclists and Community Effects Effects ‐ Vehicle Travellers Vehicle Travellers ‐ Material Resources Material Resources

There is a natural symmetry between the two guidance documents for a number of environmental disciplines, however, there are some environmental topics where there is no overlap, to which Table 1.1 below provides a summary of the synergies and remaining environmental section headings.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-1 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 1.3 Noise & Vibration It is important to establish the key sources of noise on the A90 near Laurencekirk (between Aberdeen and Dundee) where emerging options may be considered to improve access to Laurencekirk, and whether any information on the current noise levels generated by the A90 is available. Figure 1.1 shows a study location plan.

Figure 1.1 – A90/A37 Junction location plan

Changes to the road layout and changes to traffic flow have the potential to change the noise climate at sensitive receptors. DMRB Volume 11, section 3, part 7 HD 213/11 provides a scale indicating various magnitudes of impact from changes in noise at sensitive receptors. These are provided for the short and long term, and are also used as ‘threshold values’ to determine an affected route. These ‘threshold values’ are a permanent change of 1 dB(A) or more in the short term, and 3 dB(A) or more for the long term. Values for changes in vibration that may cause an adverse impact are also provided within HD 213/11. There is currently no guidance available on the value of noise sensitive resources and therefore no overall significance of impact can be evaluated. Sensitive receptors for a noise and vibration assessment are considered to include dwellings, hospitals, schools, community facilities, designated areas (e.g. AONB, National Park, SAC, SPA, SSSI, SAM), and public rights of way. This assessment at this stage is based on a desktop study, with no site visit or noise survey having been undertaken. At the northern most junction of the A90/A937, there are currently a few isolated sensitive receptors. The closest of these is about 230m from the junction to the south‐west (at Conveth Mains). The mid junction of the A90 with the B1920 has sensitive receptors (dwellings) closer at just under 100m to the west of the junction. At the southern junction of the A90/A937 the closest sensitive receptors are to the north‐west at

1-2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE just over 500m from the junction. The A90 at Laurencekirk does not benefit from a low noise surface, and there also does not appear to be any noise barriers along the route. The European Parliament and Council Directive for Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise (more commonly known as the EU Noise Directive (2002/49/EC)) was transposed into Scottish law in the form of the Environmental Noise (Scotland) Regulations (2006). The 2006 Regulations placed a requirement on the Scottish Government to produce strategic noise maps for major roads, rail, airports, and industry, and for competent authorities to draw up noise action plans to manage noise. A review of the Scottish Government’s Scottish Noise Mapping website1 identified that noise mapping is available for the A90 around Laurencekirk. The noise maps show data for Lden (day‐evening‐night level Lden in decibels (dB)), and Lnight is the A‐weighted long‐term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996‐2:2007, determined over all the night periods of a year.

The Lden map is reproduced in Figure 5.38 and shows that noise levels are at their highest adjacent to the carriageway, and are at a level less than 55 dB at 100m. As would be expected, lower levels are experienced further from the carriageway. The Lnight map is reproduced in Figure 1.2 and shows levels of less than 55 dB at 100m. Other noise sources within the study corridor include the Aberdeen to Dundee railway line which passes through Laurencekirk and also local roads. HD 213/11 gives a procedure for assessing impacts, including a flow chart for screening if impacts are likely. This includes the following criteria:‐

 Does the project alter the line or level of the carriageway?;  Will the project cause a change in traffic flow?;  Will the project cause a change in traffic speed?; and  Are there other changes to the infrastructure that may cause a change in noise levels? As a result of improving access to Laurencekirk:

 The scheme could alter the line or level of some parts of the road;  The scheme is unlikely to change the traffic flow or speed; and  The changes to infrastructure will be limited which will not alter the current noise climate. Based on this, the assessment should proceed to the next level. At this stage it is not clear if there will be changes of noise of more than 1 dB(A) so the next level of assessment should be a simple level assessment.

1 Source: http://gisapps.aecomgis.com/scottishnoisemapping_p2/default.aspx#/Main

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-3 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Figure 1.2 – Lden (day –evening‐night level Lden in decibdels (dB)

Figure 1.3 – Lnight (night level Lnight in decibels (dB)

1-4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

1.3.1 Air Quality 1.3.1.1 Local Air Quality Management The air quality objectives applicable to Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) in Scotland are set out in the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (Scottish SI 2000 No 97), the Air Quality (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (Scottish SI No 297), and are shown in Table 1.2. This table shows the objectives in units of microgrammes per cubic metre, μg/m3 with the number of exceedances in each year that are permitted (where applicable). These objectives are maximum ambient concentrations that are not to be exceeded either without exception or with a permitted number of exceedances over a specified timescale. Air quality objectives are set out for the protection of human health and therefore only apply where members of the public are likely to be regularly present for the averaging time of the objective. Table 1.2 – Air quality objectives (Scotland)

Date to be Pollutant Concentration Measured As achieved by

200 μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 time a 1‐hour mean 31.12.2005 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) year 40 μg/m3 Annual Mean 31.12.2005 50 μg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a 24‐hour mean 31.12.2004 year

50 μg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 7 times a 24‐hour mean 31.12.2010 Particles (PM10) (gravimetric) year 40 μg/m3 Annual Mean 31.12.2004 18 μg/m3 Annual Mean 31.12.2010

1.4 Existing and baseline knowledge 1.4.1 Aberdeenshire Council The Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process as set out in Part IV of the Environment Act (1995) and the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 2007 places an obligation on all local authorities to regularly review and assess air quality in their areas, and to determine whether or not air quality objectives are being achieved. Where it is anticipated that an air quality objective will not be met, it is a requirement of the Act that an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) be declared. Where an AQMA is declared, the local authority is obliged to produce an Action Plan in pursuit of the achievement of the air quality objectives. AC has issued its latest Air Quality Progress Report in June 2013 focusing on reviewing monitoring data and emissions sources within Aberdeenshire. No AQMAs have been declared by AC. 1.4.2 Air Quality Monitoring There are two principle methods used for measuring air quality, either using passive sampling techniques such as diffusion tubes or through the use of sophisticated continuous monitoring equipment. AC does not operate or have within its boundaries any automatic monitoring stations and only monitors air quality from a network of eight diffusion tube sites. The nearest monitoring to Laurencekirk is located in Stonehaven, approximately 20 km north east of the proposed scheme. Table 1.3 shows the annual bias adjusted NO2 concentrations at the two nearest monitoring sites to Laurencekirk.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-5 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Table 1.3 – No2 Non‐automative monitoring in Aberdeenshire – Annual mean objective

Annual mean NO2 concentration Site ID Location Site Type Data Capture for 2011 (Bias adjustment factor = 0.85) 2011 (μg/m3)

Stonehaven 1 Allardice St Kerbside 83% 22.4 Westhill 2 Elrick Cottages Kerbside 83% 20.9 Annual mean AQS (Scotland) = 40 μg/m3

NO2 concentrations monitored within Aberdeenshire are below the annual AQS objectives according to the latest Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment (September 2012). AC does not carry out any monitoring for PM10.

The study area within or nearby any AQMAs and background NO2 concentrations for the area are below 10 3 2 μg/m (according to 2010 Defra background maps ). NO2 and PM10 concentrations are expected to be well below air quality objectives within the vicinity of the scheme. 1.4.3 Sensitive receptors Only one of the three junctions providing access to Laurencekirk from the A90 (off the B9120) has sensitive receptors within 200 m which could be exposed to dust nuisance during the construction phase. Approximately 25 residential properties have been identified. These residential properties are unlikely to be impacted by any significant changes in traffic. A review of Scottish Natural Heritage’s GIS datasets identified that there are no designated sites within 200m of the study area. The nearest designated site is West Bradieston and Craig of Garvock grassland Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located approximately 1.5 km south east of the proposed scheme. 1.5 Road Drainage & Water Environment The STAG Technical Database (paragraph 7.4.4.1) states that “the development and operation of new transport infrastructure has the potential to have a significant effect on water quality” and that “New structures may affect the capacity of flood plains or flood defences”. A review has therefore been undertaken of the current water quality of watercourses within the study area, as well as identifying any areas of flood plain which may be within the study area. DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD45/09) provides methodologies for assessing the potential impacts from four key areas relating to the water environment; routine runoff to surface water, groundwaters, spillages and flood risk. Scoping is a desk‐based exercise to determine if there is need for any assessment of the impact of the project on the water environment. HD45/09 does not specifically identify what baseline information is required to be gathered to inform the scoping stage assessment, however the scoping criteria is provided in HD45/09. From this, in the absence of information on any potential options, the following information will be required for the assessment; details of existing watercourses and floodplains which may be affected and the location of source protection zones. 1.5.1 Water Quality In 2003, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) resulted in the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS Act) being transposed into law in Scotland. The WEWS Act resulted in the Scottish Ministers having the power to introduce regulatory controls over water activities, in order to protect, improve and promote sustainable use of Scotland’s water environment. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) introduced a water monitoring and classification system that will provide data to support the aim of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), to ensure that all water

2 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review‐and‐assessment/tools/background‐maps.html

1-6 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE bodies are of good status, or similar objective, by 2015 and where this cannot be achieved by 2027. Table 5.19 sets out those waterbodies classified under the WFD that pass through the study area (i.e. within 500m of the A90 corridor) and their current classification status. Table 1.4 – Classified Waterbodies within study area

Water Body Name and ID Water body Status Associated Protected Area Length (km)

Luther Water (Source to 18.49 Overall status of Moderate (with High River North Esk – Freshwater Fish (existing) Dowrie Burn Confluence) (ID confidence in 2008) with overall Strathmore / Fife – Nitrate Vulnerable Zone 5706) ecological status of Moderate and overall chemical status of Pass. Ducat Water 5.81 Overall status of Moderate (with High River North Esk – Freshwater Fish (existing) (ID 5709) confidence in 2008) with overall Strathmore / Fife – Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ecological status of Moderate and overall chemical status of Pass. Kirk Burn (ID 5710) Classified as a small waterbody – no WFD data available Devilly Burn 12.04 Overall status of Good (with Medium River North Esk – Freshwater Fish (existing) (ID 5708) confidence in 2008) with overall Strathmore / Fife – Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ecological status of Good and overall chemical status of Pass

There are also several other watercourses that cross the A90 within the study area that are un‐named on Ordinance Survey maps or not classified under the WFD. All the watercourses originate from the Hill of Garvock to the south east of Laurencekirk. All the watercourses generally flow north westwards and discharge into Luther Water. From south to north these include the following:

 A small watercourse originating above Stoneydale which crosses the A90 at Oatyhill (NGR NO 69903 69825);

 Gaugers Burn, which crosses the A90 at NGR NO 71277 70373;  Kirk Burn (as listed above) is in its lower reaches classified as a small waterbody under the WFD. The Burn originating above Burn Head crosses the A90 at NGR NO 72186 71123;

 A field drain crossing the A90 at approximately NGR NO 72552 71827;  An un‐named watercourse which originates near St James’s Loch’s and crosses the A90 near Conveth Mains at NGR NO 72599 71990 and NO 72616 72047;

 A field drain which crosses the A90 at approximately NGR NO 72662 72217.; and  An un‐named watercourse which originates near St James’s Loch’s and flows through Corbies Den and Keilburn to cross under the A90 at NGR NO 72750 72545. Options for the proposed scheme may directly impact watercourses crossing the A90 by requiring culverting, alteration or diversions and indirectly should they receive road runoff from the A90. 1.5.2 Flooding A review of the SEPA Flood Maps3 has identified existing areas at risk of river flooding and surface water flooding within the study area. Areas either side of Luther Water within the study area are at High, Medium and Low risk of river flooding. These areas do not extend to the A90 and thus the A90 carriageway along with the A937 is located outside of the floodplain of Luther Water. The floodplains of the smaller watercourses (as

3 SEPA’s Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map ‐ http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-7 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

listed above) are not shown on SEPAs flood maps. This does not mean there is no flood risk as all watercourses naturally come out of bank and will have an associated floodplain. There are some areas identified on SEPAs online flood maps as being at high risk of surface water flooding as follows:

 On the A90 carriageway where Gaugers Burn crosses the A90; and  On the A90 carriageway where the un‐named watercourse which originates near St James’s Loch’s and crosses the A90 near Conveth Mains at NGR NO 72599 71990 and NO 72616 72047. Data on SEPAs online flood maps show that there are no flood defences within the study area. 1.5.3 Baseline Traffic Data Please refer to the main Laurencekirk STAG Report. 1.5.4 Groundwater The Laurencekirk bedrock and localised sand and gravel aquifers underlie the study area (ID 150269). Under the WFD SEPA have classified this ground water body as having and overall status of poor due to both water quality and water quantity. For this water body, which covers 256km2 there is an upward trend in pollutants. SEPA have identified the pressures on this water body as a result of diffuse source pollution associated with arable farming (including nitrates) and abstraction due to whisky production. The poor quantity in the groundwater body has been identified as having an impact upon surface waters. 1.6 Solid Geology Please refer to the engineering chapter for solid geology. 1.6.1 Drift Geology Please refer to the engineering chapter for drift geology. 1.6.2 Soils Under the European Soil Bureau Description as shown on NERCs online soil portal4 the Laurencekirk area is covered by soils classed as Glacial Till. 1.6.3 Protected Sites There are no geologically designated sites within 2km of Laurencekirk. No Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) have been identified within the study area; however, further consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) will be required to confirm this. 1.6.4 Contaminated Land The Public Register of Contaminated Land5 produced by Aberdeenshire Council in November 2011 does not identify any contaminated land sites within the study area. Further consultation with Aberdeenshire Council will be required to confirm this. 1.7 Biodiversity & Habitats The STAG Technical Database Section 7.4.6.1 states that “The development of transport infrastructure has a number of potential effects on biodiversity, including:

. Direct damage to important nature conservation sites or the habitats of protected species;

4 http://www.bgs.ac.uk/nercsoilportal/maps.html

5 http://aberdeenshire.gov.uk/environmental/strategy/index.asp

1-8 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

. Fragmentation or loss of habitats, thereby reducing species diversity and opening the way for the influx of other species; . Creation of barriers to the movement and genetic interchange between populations; and . Disturbance of habitats and species due to factors such as noise, light pollution and contaminated run‐off which may depress populations and reproduction in some flora and fauna”.

The STAG guidance is further supplemented by the requirements of baseline gathering in order to inform the Stage 1 DMRB assessment. DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 4 states that in order to inform the Stage 1 Environmental Assessment the assessor should “obtain details of the location and nature of any designated sites in route corridors…….Gather information on existing surveys of the area, including Phase 1 Habitat Surveys …”.

A review has therefore been undertaken of all statutory and non‐statutory designated sites, as well as a review of data held by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the NBN Gateway6 in relation to species and habitat types which may be found along the route corridor.

1.7.1 Designated Sites 1.7.1.1 International Statutory Sites A search was made for internationally designated statutory sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Ramsar sites) within 30km of the proposed scheme.

Montrose Basin, which is designated as an SPA, Ramsar Site, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Nature Reserve (LNR), is located approximately 12km south of the proposed scheme. The site’s qualifying features include over wintering migratory bird species including greylag goose Anser anser, knot Calidris canutus, pink‐footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus and redshank Tringa totanus. It also has assemblages of internationally important wetland birds including: dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, eider Somateria mollissima, wigeon Anas penelope, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, knot greylag goose Anser anser, pink‐footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus.

Habitats within the study area are unlikely to provide suitable habitat for these bird species. However, further assessment would be required to confirm this.

1.7.1.2 National and Local Statutory Sites A search was made for nationally and locally designated statutory sites (SSSIs, National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)) within 2km of the proposed scheme. West Bradieston and Craig of Garvock SSSI is located approximately 2km south‐east of the proposed scheme at NGR NO729688. The site is designated for its heathland, grassland and fen communities. It is considered unlikely that the proposed scheme would have a negative impact on this site. However, further assessment is required to confirm this. 1.7.1.3 Non-statutory Sites A search was made for ancient woodland, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) reserves and Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) Reserves within 2km of the proposed scheme. There are a large number of semi‐natural and replanted ancient woodland sites within 2km of Laurencekirk. The closest of these are adjacent to the A90 carriageway. The locations of ancient woodland sites are shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 in Appendix A. There are no RSPB or SWT reserves within 2km of the proposed scheme.

6 NBN Gateway. Available at: https://data.nbn.org.uk

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-9 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

1.7.2 Habitats At present, no habitat surveys have been undertaken for the proposed scheme. However, aerial photographs7 have been utilised and general habitats have been identified adjacent to the A90 carriageway. The area is dominated by semi‐natural and plantation woodland, arable fields, scattered trees, semi‐improved grassland and tall ruderal herbs. Several watercourses and ditches cross under the A90 as described above in section 1.5. 1.7.3 Species At present, no species surveys have been undertaken. However, the NBN Gateway identified historic records of water vole Arvicola amphibious, otter Lutra lutra, bat species and adder Vipera berus from within the 10km grid square NO77. There are recent records of badger meles meles from within 1km of the proposed scheme. 1.7.4 Surveys At present, no habitat or species surveys have been undertaken to inform the baseline assessment, this will be a requirement of the STAG 2 assessments, and an updated baseline will be set out as part of this reporting. 1.8 Landscape The STAG Technical Database states that “the visual appearance of linear transport infrastructure (both the infrastructure itself and the traffic it carries) can have a major impact on the existing landscape. Major trunk roads and railways must have gentle, not sharp, curves and gradients…….. Changes to elements which are fundamental to the character of the landscape, such as the removal of field boundaries or vegetation or the introduction of alien materials, can affect the sense of place”. The STAG guidance identifies that the following information should be collated to inform the baseline and subsequent assessment of transport options: information on designated landscapes (National Parks, National Scenic Areas, Natural Heritage Zones) and landscape character assessments; Areas of Great Landscape Value, Regional Parks, Country Parks and details on historic and designed landscapes (this information is set out in Section 1.11 Cultural Heritage). DMRB Interim Advice Note (IAN) 135/10 sets out the criteria required to inform the baseline assessment for DMRB studies which broadly follows the same methodology for acquiring baseline data as set out within STAG in order to identify the local and wider landscape context. 1.8.1 Landscape Character Assessment  A review of the South and Central Landscape Character Assessment8 produced for SNH by ERM in 1998 has identified that the dominant regional landscape type is Agricultural Heartlands which is subdivided into the following local landscape character areas in the vicinity of Laurencekirk: Howe of Mearns This landscape character area covers the area to the north west of Laurencekirk. It covers a large area of agricultural land and includes some of Scotland’s most fertile soils derived from the underlying old red sandstone. It is flat and this is emphasised by the steep moorland slopes of the highland fault immediately to the north. The distinctive character derives from the large scale pattern of field crops and woods. Key landscape characteristics

 Almost uniformly Flat;  Intensive agriculture;  Expansive views;  Road/rail corridor;

7 Google Maps. Available at: https://maps.google.com/

8 http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting‐scotlands‐nature/looking‐after‐landscapes/lca/

1-10 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

 Mature beech woodlands and avenues; and  Pocket woodland ‐ rowan and birch. Sensitivities The landscape is highly visible and landscape change will be widely seen Specific guidance aims to:  Maximize the integration of roads and other linear structures through the areas;  Clearly define transport corridors to restrict the impact;  Good design to help integrate roads with the landscape – landscape planting is key but linearity must not be emphasised [clumped planting is preferable]; and

 Street lighting – highly intrusive in this open landscape – minimise spillage.

Garvock and Glenbervie This landscape character area covers Laurencekirk and the A90 around the town as well as the area to the south east roughly between Stonehaven and Brechin, almost reaching as far as the coast. It is an extensive area of rolling farmland, the character of the area stems from its relief a series of sweeping rolling hills that present distant views the geometric field pattern is poorly defined by field boundaries. Scattered conifer plantations but more widespread sycamore shelterbelts enhance the landscape pattern. Key landscape characteristics  Large scale landscape with open rolling ridges;  Large fields of arable land and pasture – red soils;  Scarcity of hedges or stone dykes;  Prominent radio masts;  Scattered settlements;  Numerous archaeological remains; and  Long distant views. Sensitivities The landscape is able to absorb some development due to its rolling relief and large scale but visibility can be high. Long uninterrupted views are sensitive to intrusive elements which may disrupt the flow or scale of landscape features. Specific guidance aims to  Enhance the large scale simple and bold landscape pattern;  Roads and pylons may be intrusive but are accommodated better when following smooth patterns of landform and natural breaks of slopes. Linear features which break up curves in the landform will create visual disharmony; and

 Distinct field boundaries emphasise the landscape structure; improvement to drystone dykes and hedges will be beneficial.

1.8.2 Sensitive Landscape Areas  The Marr, Garioch and Kincradine and Mearns – Uplands Area of landscape significance is a local landscape designation in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan. It is 5km from the A90 at Laurencekirk but there may be some intervisibility.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-11 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

1.8.2.1 Designated Sites There are no landscape designated sites within 1km of the A90 at Laurencekirk. 1.9 Visual Amenity  The Marr, Garioch and Kincradine and Mearns – Uplands Area of landscape significance is a local landscape designation in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan. It is 5km from the A90 at Laurencekirk but there may be some intervisibility. The visual amenity of the A90 at Laurencekirk is dominated by the adjoining wide agricultural landscape. There are sections of open views however these are interrupted by shelterbelts and woodland. Following the identification of proposed options to improve access to Laurencekirk a greater appreciation of the number and type of visual receptor that will likely be impacted will be gained. There are two nearby viewpoints identified in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan as having valued views which include the A90 at Laurencekirk. These are:  The view of Johnston Tower from the Cairn O’Mount Viewpoint; and  The view of Strathfinella/Cairn O’Mount from Garvock Hill. The potential impacts from these viewpoints will be reviewed as part of the visual assessment. 1.10 Land Use 1.10.1 Private Property Requiring Demolition At this stage of the process options have not been developed and therefore it is not known if any property demolitions will be required. 1.10.2 Community Land & Facilities A review of the online mapping facility on Aberdeenshire Council’s website9 shows that there are the following facilities within Laurencekirk:

 Laurencekirk Primary School located in the southern end of the village on Frain Drive and at its nearest point is 195m from the A90 carriageway;

 Mearns Community Campus is located at the northern end of the village on Aberdeen Road. At its closest point the secondary school is located around 350m from the A90;

 Mearns Sports Centre is located at the northern end of the village on Aberdeen Road. At its closest point the sports centre is located 380m from the A90;

 Laurencekirk police station is also located on Aberdeen Road adjacent to the secondary school, approximately 480m west of the A90;

 Healthcare facilities in Laurencekirk include the Laurencekirk Healthcare Centre on Blackiemuir Avenue to the west of the railway line;

 There is a recreation ground, including a playground at Kinnear Square at the southern end of the village. At its closest point this is located 250m away from the carriageway of the A90;

 There is a recreation ground located alongside Garvock Road which contains a skate park, playground, Laurencekirk Pavilion, war memorial, a bowling green and tennis court. At its closest point the recreation ground is located 115m from the A90;

 Mearns Community Centre located at 148 High Street, Laurencekirk is located over 500m from the A90;

9 http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/local/map.asp

1-12 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

 Laurencekirk Fire Station is located on Station Road in the centre of the village;  Laurencekirk Library is located in the Burgh Buildings on Johnston Street over 400m from the A90; and  There is a cemetery off Cairn Gardens which is immediately adjacent to the A90, south west of the B9120 junction. Following the identification of potential options a further review of community facilities will be required to be undertaken to determine whether any community facilities will be impacted. At this stage information on land registered as common land or village greens has not been obtained, this data will be obtained from Aberdeenshire Council. 1.10.3 Agricultural Land The Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture (LCA) classification10 is the official agricultural classification system used in Scotland. The LCA classification is used to rank land on the basis of its potential productivity and cropping flexibility. This is determined by the extent to which the physical characteristics of the land (soil, climate and relief) impose long term restrictions on its use. The LCA is a seven class system. Four of the classes are further subdivided into divisions. Class 1 represents land that has the highest potential flexibility of use whereas Class 7 land is of very limited agricultural value. Agricultural land to the west of the A90 in the Laurencekirk area is considered to be Class 2 (land capable of producing a wide range of crops and the land is highly productive). Land south of Laurencekirk east of the A90, between the A90 and the A937 is also Class 2. At the southern end of the village, to the east of the A90 there is also an area of Class 3.2 (land capable of producing moderate range of crops) between the A937 and the B9120. On the eastern side of the A90 at the northern end of the village the land is considered to be Class 3.1 (land capable of producing a moderate range of crops with high yield of cereals and grass) and 4.2 (land primarily suited to grassland with some limited potential for other crops). There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) 11 within the Laurencekirk area. ESAs were designated under the Agricultural Act 1986 and relate to areas of the countryside where important environmental features can be affected by farming practices. Aerial imagery on google maps12 shows that the agricultural land lies adjacent to the A90 around Laurencekirk and that this land is used for arable farming. Denlethen Wood, owned and managed by the Forestry Commission is located at NGR NO 70142 70592. The wood which is publically accessible, is located to the west of the railway line approximately 450m west of the southern junction of the A90/A93. 1.10.4 Development Land The Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan (LDP) 201213 sets out the ground rules for the development of land under the land use planning acts. Its main purpose is to set out statements of the policies to be used for assessing planning applications. In its proposals it also confirms the principle of development on sites across Aberdeenshire. The Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan contains settlement statements as part of Supplementary Guidance Volume H. The Settlement statement for Laurencekirk states the following:

10 http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/explorescotland/lca_map.pdf

11 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/07/15133/9011

12 https://maps.google.co.uk/

13 http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/finalised/

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-13 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Key Planning Objectives for the Settlement

 Meet the demand for new housing in the strategic growth area;  Sustain existing services;  Provide opportunity for employment; and  Relieve town centre congestion through provision of a distributor road. Protected Land  Site P1 is protected to provide a landscape buffer. This is a strip of land on the western side of the A90 running from the Aberdeen Road/A937 junction with the A90 to the B9120 junction with the A90;

 Site P2 is protected to conserve the playing fields (off Garvock Road);  Site P3 is protected to conserve the playground and recreation ground (at Kinnear Square);  Site P4 is protected to conserve Denlethen Woods;  Site R1 is reserved for the replacement of Mearns Academy. This site is located to the north west of Aberdeen Road between the Laurencekirk Business Park and Conveth Mains. At its northern boundary this site is located 275m from the Aberdeen Road/A937 junction with the A90; and

 Site R2 is reserved for a cemetery expansion and to protect the existing cemetery. This site is located adjacent to the northern edge of the A90, south west of the B9120. Existing Sites  Site EH1 was identified in the previous local plan for 210 houses and is carried forward. This site is located to the western side of the village bounded by Railway Road and Blackiemuir Avenue/B9120; and

 Site EH2 was identified in the previous local plan for 10 houses and is carried forward. This site is located on land currently used for agriculture located between Johnston Street, Garvocklea Gardens and Garvock Street. At its closest point the sites eastern boundary is 310m from the A90. Settlement Infrastructure  There are substantial infrastructure requirements for Laurencekirk. In terms of transportation, a section of distributor road around Laurencekirk is required (from the Fordoun Road to the A90), and grade separated access onto the A90. Upgrades are required to the water main, Causeywell Service Reservoir and Laurencekirk WWTW which located adjacent to Luther Water (at NGR NO 70623 72075); and

 A new primary school and contribution to a new academy are required. A contribution to extension to the health centre is required, and an additional recycling point and extension of the household waste recycling centre (or replacement) is required. Open space contributions should include two community grass pitches and changing facilities and allotments. Proposed Sites Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 885 houses in two phases, with 485 houses in the first phase and 400 houses in the second phase. Approximately 11ha of employment land is required within the site. Approximately 16 hectares of employment land is required for strategic reserve. A development framework and masterplan(s) are required for the site. Site M1 is located at the northern end of Laurencekirk and is immediately adjacent, on its eastern boundary, to the A90 north of the Aberdeen Road/A937 junction with the A90. Cultural Heritage

1-14 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

GIS information has been obtained from Historic Scotland and Pastmaps14; this has been reproduced and included within Appendix D, for those cultural heritage resources within 2km of Laurencekirk as per the recommendations in HA208/07. The following resources have been identified within 2km of Laurencekirk, as per the guidance set out in STAG and the DMRB: 1.10.5 World Heritage Sites There are no World Heritage Sites (WHS) within 10km of Laurencekirk. 1.10.6 Scheduled Monuments There are no Scheduled Monuments located within 2km of the centre of Laurencekirk. However the following schedule monument is located within 2km of the northern junction of Aberdeen Road/ A937 junction with the A90:

 Erskine’s Knap, a burial mound located 600m south east of Scotston and approximately 1.5km north east of the A937/ A90 junction. This SAM comprises of a burial mound of the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age situated in arable land. The Cairn of Sheils Schedule Monument also lies to the east of the junction but is located just over 2km away. The following Scheduled Monument is located approximately 2km south east from the A937/ A90 junction at the southern end of Laurencekirk:

 Tower of Johnston, Cairn and Tower, comprises of the substantial remains of a Bronze Age burial cairn, 29m in diameter and over 2m in height. 1.10.7 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes There are no Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes located within 2km of the centre of Laurencekirk. The nearest sites are located at Fasque House west of Laurencekirk and at Arbuthnott House to the north east of the town. 1.10.8 Listed Buildings Listed Buildings within the study area are shown on Figure 1.2 in Appendix D. The following listed buildings are within 2km of the A937/ A90 junction at the northern end of Laurencekirk.

 Mill of Conveth (9528) at NGR NO 7287 7430 – Category C building.;  Scotston Farmhouse including Ancillary Buildings (49842) located at NGR NO73303 73850 – Category C building; and

 Mains of Haulerton Bridge over Luther Water (9529) located at NGR NO 7121 7262 – Category C building. Listed buildings within 2km of both the A937/ A90 junction at the northern end and southern end of Laurencekirk include the following:

 Laurencekirk Railway Station including canopy (47653) located at NGR NJ 7173 7180 – Category B building;  “East View” formerly Parish Kirk Manse (37231) located at NGR NO 7177 7165 – Category C building;  Laurencekirk Parish kirk (37229) located at NGR NO 7181 7162 – Category B building;  Gardenstone Arms Hotel, High Street (37230), located at NGR NO 7187 7157 – Category C building;  13‐15 High Street (43682) located at NGR NO 7181 7154 – Category C building;  1 Alma Place and 17 High Street (43684), located at NGR NO 7180 7153 – Category B building;

14 http://pastmap.org.uk/

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-15 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

 4‐6 Alma Place, Laurence’s (43643), located at NGR NO 7183 7150 – Category B building;  11 Alma Place (43683), located at NGR NO 7183 7148 – Category C building;  Frogfield off Station Road (37232), located at NGR NO 7163 7154 – Category B building;  High Street, adjoin High Street at corner of Charters Avenue (37233), located at NGR NO 7167 7141 – Category C building; and

 Johnston Lodge – Beattie Lodge (37234), located at NGR NO 7164 7077 – Category B building. Listed buildings within 2km of the A937/ A90 junction at the southern end of Laurencekirk include the following:

 Johnston Lodge – west lodge gates (37235) located at NGR NO 7104 7067 – Category C building;  Johnston Lodge (9524) located at NGR NO 7175 7016 – Category B building;  Johnston Lodge – Chalybeate Well (9526) located at NGR NO 7196 7001 – Category B building;  Johnston Lodge – Mains farmhouse (9525) located at NGR NO 7213 7018 – Category C building;  Johnston Lodge Gardener’s cottage (6752), located at NGR NO 7222 7012 – Category B building; and  Blackiemuir Mill Bridge over Luther Water (9527) located at NGR NO 6982 7150 – Category B building. 1.10.9 Conservation Areas There are no conservation areas within 2km of Laurencekirk. 1.10.10 Battlefield Sites There are no Battlefield Sites located within 2km of Laurencekirk. 1.10.11 Historic Environment Record Sites Further consultation is required to obtain Historic Environment Records (HER) within the study area. 1.11 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects 1.11.1 Introduction This section identifies the baseline environment with respect to pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and other community effects. DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8, ‘Pedestrians and Others’ identifies that the main impacts likely to be experienced from a road scheme are, severance, changes to the length of journeys and changes in amenity value. 1.11.2 Community Facilities A search has been undertaken to establish the community facilities within 500 metres of NGR NO720709. The results are detailed within Table 5.20.

1-16 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Table 1.5 – Community effects

Community Facility Distance from Road (approximate)

Laurencekirk Post Office 530m Laurencekirk Police Station 480m Laurencekirk Community Centre >500m Laurencekirk Clinic >800m Laurencekirk Medical Centre 800m Laurencekirk Dentist 1km Laurencekirk Library >400m Laurencekirk Primary School 195m Laurencekirk Mearns Sports Centre 380m Mearns Academy Secondary School 350m

1.12 Vehicle Travellers 1.12.1 Introduction The STAG Technical Database does not include specific advice on the assessment of vehicle travelers, however the DMRB Guidance identifies that the following baseline information should be collated to inform the assessment process:

 Establishing the existing views from the roads within the network to be considered, and  Baseline traffic flow figures and speeds to establish the existing levels of driver stress across the network. 1.12.2 Views from the Road As detailed within Section 1.9 above, the visual amenity of the A90 corridor in this area predominately relates to the undulating countryside within which the route passes. From the road corridor (in this area) there are limited views of adjacent settlements, including Laurencekirk, which are largely screened from view by existing vegetation and the natural topography. There are however brief views from the road of the residential outskirts of Laurencekirk in the vicinity of the junction B9120. Regular open views across the surrounding countryside and farmland occur from the road corridor, with limited visual intrusions in terms of electricity pylons and transport infrastructure. 1.12.3 Material Resources 1.12.3.1 Regional Context Data collated by SEPA in 2009 states that the Construction and Demolition Waste Produced and Managed in Aberdeenshire in 2009 was 330,948 tonnes. It has not been possible to obtain more recent data from SEPA at this stage and its impacts to National, Regional and Local waste policy has not been considered. 1.12.3.2 Waste Management Infrastructure A desk based search has been conducted to establish the waste facilities within Aberdeenshire. The search has focused upon landfill and has not considered transfer or public facilities. Table 5.21 below details the existing landfills within Aberdeenshire as well as a hazardous landfill in Falkirk and provides their remaining capacity as of 2010/ 2011. Table 1.6 – Existing waste management infrastructure in Aberdeenshire (Including hazardous infill)

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2 1-17 SECTION 1 LAURENCEKIRK ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Waste Type Accepted Waste Facility Detail Remaining Capacity (2010/2011)

Inert Landfill D. Geddes Ltd Prethyar Landfoll, Farofar 174,465 tonnes Hazardous Landfill Avondale Environmental, Falkirk (PPC/E/0020086) NOT IN 342,971 tonnes ABERDEENSHIRE Non‐hazardous Landfill Savoch Landfill, Newton of Savoch (PPC/A/1003256) 74,000 tonnes Inert Loch Hills Quarry, Parkhill Dyce, Aberdeen 1,454,833 tonnes (PPC/A/1008691) Inert Park Quarry, South Deeside Road, Aberdeen (PPC/A/1008856) 970,000 tonnes Inert A&M Smith, Portlethen (PPC/A/1008883) 99,323 tonnes Non‐hazardous Wester Hatton Landfill Berdeen (PPC/N/0020001) 2,523,612 tonnes Non‐hazardous Stoneyhill Landfill Site (PPC/N/0020010) 3,600,00 tonnes Non‐hazardous Easter Hatton Farm, Balmedie (PPC/N/020026) 447,737 tonnes

1-18 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE_SUPPORTING REPORT_V2

Appendix E Appraisal Summary Tables

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) Proposal Name: PACKAGE 2 Name of Planner: CH2M £18.7M (with parking rationalisation)/ £18.6M 2014 prices at Q1 Capital costs (undiscounted) Grade separation of south Annual revenue support – unknown at this Total Public Sector Funding Proposal Description: junction with rationalisation time Requirement: of parking on High Street Present Value of Cost to Government -£13.87M at 2010 prices Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire on the eastern side of Scotland, and has a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area, this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling. Due to travel distances, travel by car or public transport is generally required in order to access service centres such as Montrose, Stonehaven Geographic Context: and Aberdeen.

The A90 is the main trunk road within the vicinity of the town and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk rail station re-opened in May 2009. The station is situated on the East Coast main line and provides a link to Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to the south. Laurencekirk is also served by a number of bus routes, which can be accessed via bus stops on the High Street.

Background Information

Laurencekirk has low levels of unemployment (2.2% in 2011) and a relatively high proportion of the working population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations (38%). The proportion of skilled trades occupations are higher amongst Laurencekirk residents (16%) than in Hillside (14%), Marykirk (12%) or Social Context: Montrose (15%). Within the Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), Laurencekirk is ranked amongst the 25% least deprived places in Scotland. It ranks within the 15% least deprived places in Scotland in terms of employment and health. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census and it has a larger economically active population (76%) than the average for Scotland (69%) and Aberdeenshire (75%). The proportion of retired people is also higher (at 16%) than the average for Aberdeenshire (14%), but the proportion of permanently sick/disabled people is lower than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

Queuing and delay is experienced on the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the A937/A90 junction to the south of Laurencekirk, this increases journey times for motorists on the A937. The occurrence of these queues and delays is sporadic, which has a negative impact on journey time reliability. In order to address safety concerns a 50mph speed limit is in place on the A90 at the Laurencekirk south junction. The 50mph speed limit increases journey times for through traffic on the A90.

Laurencekirk is allocated as a Strategic Growth Area in Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework. Economic Context: Laurencekirk and the north Angus area have links with the north east oil industry, this generates demand for commuter travel to Aberdeen. Growth in the oil and gas industry would generate further demand for travel in the future.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package delivers a minor positive benefit due to the reduction in accidents numbers.

The largest improvement is at the south junction, which can be attributed to the change to a grade separated junction. TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. As a grade separated junction will be provided at the south junction, it will be perceived as the safest access point to and from Laurencekirk. As such, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may choose to bypass the north and centre at grade junctions and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This would further reduce the number of accidents at the centre and north junctions. Moderate positive benefit, as the variability in the queuing/ delay on the approach to the stop-lines has been reduced at the south junction only. The largest benefit TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound approach to the south towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by junction during the AM period. reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. The introduction of the grade separated junction at the south greatly reduces delay at this location. Grade separation of the south junction would improve journey times on the A937 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Grade separation of this TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency junction would also allow the 50 mph section on the A90 to be removed. experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this to support sustainable economic growth in the south of junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk.

Moderate positive benefit.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements TPO4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable across the A90 at the south junction by providing a grade separated junction at modes. the south, giving a minor positive benefit.

Pedestrians and cyclists are still able to navigate the centre and north junction as with the current situation. This package is considered to have a neutral impact on the flows on Laurencekirk High Street. TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk The provision of the grade separation at the south does not draw additional traffic community. to or from the other junctions based on the modelled proposed 2033 committed development situation. In practice, however it may be that some traffic would reroute to use the new south junction to benefit from the grade separation, but such flows are relatively low.

Rationale for Selection or The proposal addresses the core problems and meets four of the TPOs for the study, with TPO5 being neutral. Rejection of Proposal:

Implementability Appraisal Technical: The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Laurencekirk south junction would not present any significant technical difficulties, and is considered to be feasible to construct.

Operational: There are no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a new grade separated junction. New parking restrictions on the High Street may require subsequent on-going enforcement by Aberdeenshire Council to maintain their effectiveness.

Financial: This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £18.6M (Q1 2014 prices).The existing infrastructure could be utilised wherever possible to limit the overall scheme cost. Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal in sum.

Public: This option is likely to meet with public acceptability as the provision of a grade separated junction has been an aspiration of the public for a number of years.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: Not applicable (Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

No significant increase in households Network does not experience Noise and Vibration affected Neutral increase in flow of over 10%

Low level of change Change in CO2 emissions -0.00002 Global Air Quality – CO2 Neutral recorded. tonnes. NPV = -£0.25M

Local Air Quality – PM10 and Negligible increases in PM10 Not applicable Neutral NO2 and NO2.

May impact on minor Water Quality, Drainage and No significant watercourses recorded watercourses, dependent on Neutral Flood Defence within vicinity detailed design.. This package does not have No impact on designated geological Geology any impacts upon geological Neutral sites or mineral reserves sites, or mineral reserves. This package does not impact upon protected No protected species identified within Biodiversity species or areas of Neutral vicinity designated sites as these are not present in the area. The introduction of an overbridge would have the potential for increased visual impact. There is some Limited number of dwellings Visual Amenity Negative Minor potential for night-time identified as visual receptors impact due to light pollution due to additional street lighting.

Negligible loss of agricultural Agriculture and Soils Class 3.2 land affected Neutral land. No designated sites Cultural Heritage No designated sites within vicinity Neutral identified within vicinity. No designated sites Landscape No designated sites within vicinity Neutral identified within vicinity. Physical Fitness Negligible impact Not applicable Neutral -£0.25M Monetised summary

0.02 Monetary Impact Ratio

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Change in junction form at the south Accidents Change in Annual junction from at grade priority to -9 Personal Injury Accidents pa. Personal Injury Accidents grade separation leads to a decrease in the number of accidents. Adopting local accident rates, the number of casualties is predicted to Slight Serious Fatal decrease on both links and junctions. Change in Balance of This is predominantly due to the ‐20 ‐3 0 Severity change in junction form at the south junction, from an at-grade priority to Casualties per annum. a grade-separated junction.

Total Discounted Savings £0.92M

Security This package would not have a Neutral significant impact on actual or perceived security of transport users.

Monetised summary £0.92M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.07

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Grade separation of the south junction lead to significant journey time savings northbound and southbound on the A937 approaching the A90 during the AM and PM periods. There would also be a moderate benefit to journey times on User Benefits Travel Time the A937 southbound approaching £19.09M the A90 during the PM period.

This package would enable the removal of the 50mph speed limit on the A90. This would provide a minor journey time saving to vehicles on the A90 but there would be a large

cumulative effect due to the number of vehicles on the A90.

This package would have no impact User Charges £0M on User Charges.

Business and non-business vehicle operating costs (comprised of fuel Vehicle Operating Costs and non-fuel VOC, commuter fuel and -£0.55M non-fuel VOC, and other fuel and non fuel VOC) The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade Quality / Reliability separation at this location. The Not monetised Benefits largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the south junction. Not Applicable Investment Costs Not applicable

Fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating -£0.24M Operating & Maintenance costs Costs Private Sector Operator Impacts Not Applicable Revenues Not applicable

Grant/Subsidy payments No impact £0M

Monetised summary

£18.30M

Monetary Impact Ratio 1.32

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Not applicable Not applicable Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Not applicable Monetised summary

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Planning permission for new Not assessed Location Impacts developments that impact on the A937/A90 Laurencekirk south

junction are unlikely to be granted without conditions until a grade separated junction is built. This constrains the expansion of businesses and housing areas. Laurencekirk and north Angus. Delays in navigating the A90 junctions add costs and hinder normal business activities. The south junction acts as a constraint on economic activity in Laurencekirk and the surrounding area. Moreover, several significant development sites in Laurencekirk and north Angus cannot proceed with development, as they would increase

demand at the south junction. The A90 north junction is also an economic constraint, with impacts felt mainly in Laurencekirk.

National Economic This package would not have an Not assessed Impacts economic impact at a national level.

Distributional Impacts Economic impacts of a grade Not assessed separated junction would apply to Laurencekirk and the surrounding areas of Howe of the Mearns and north Angus. Montrose is a larger economic centre than Laurencekirk and the largest development site which is constrained by the south junction (Montrose Airfield) is in north Angus. Montrose Port has also expanded in recent years and its ability to attract businesses from the oil and gas support sector is likely to be enhanced by grade separation of the south junction.

Integration

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Services & Ticketing No significant impact Not applicable Transport Interchanges

Infrastructure & Information No Significant Impact Not applicable

Land-use Transport Proposal provides a positive fit Not applicable Integration with land use policy including

Aberdeen City and Shire SDP and Aberdeenshire LDP.

Policy Integration Proposal does not directly Not applicable benefit people with disabilities

or impact health.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Community Accessibility Public Transport Network No Significant Impact Not applicable Coverage

Access to Other Local No Significant Impact Not applicable Services

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps all groups negotiate south Not applicable by Social Group junction more easily.

Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps improve access to Not applicable by Area Laurencekirk to a minor extent.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken. where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information Public Sector Investment Not undertaken £14.58M Costs Not applicable Public Sector Operating & Not applicable Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Taxation impacts Indirect tax revenues -£0.71M

Cost to Funding Agency Unknown Unknown

Monetised Summary Total PVB = PV1 + PV2 + PV3 + PV11 Present Value of Transport Benefits £18.97M (Negative values = disbenefits) Total PVC = PV16 + PV17 + PV18 + PV19 + PV20 Present Value of Cost to Government -£13.87M (Negative values =cost to Government)

Net Present Value £5.1M Total NPV = PVB + PVC

Benefit-Cost to Government 1.37 / 1.35*Ratio = PVB/(PVC x-1) Ratio Benefit-Cost to Government 1.37 Ratio = (PVB + PV15)/(PVC x -1) Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Unknown Ratio = PVB/(PV21x-1) Agency Ratio *ASTs are based on the current template, however in line with current guidance, a BCR calculation has been undertaken that treats the Indirect Tax Revenue as a benefit

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) Package 3 (without Western Proposal Name: Name of Planner: CH2M Distributor Road) £18.82M 2014 prices at Q1 Capital Closure of central reserve at costs/grant (undiscounted) north junction and grade Total Public Sector Funding Annual revenue support – unknown at this Proposal Description: separation at south junction, Requirement: time without western distributor road Present Value of Cost to Government - £13.87M at 2010 prices Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire on the eastern side of Scotland, and has a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area, this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling. Due to travel distances, travel by car or public transport is generally required in order to access service centres such as Montrose, Stonehaven and Aberdeen. Geographic Context: The A90 is the main trunk road within the vicinity of the village and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk rail station re-opened in May 2009. The station is situated on the East Coast main line and provides a link to Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to the south. Laurencekirk is also served by a number of bus routes, which can be accessed via bus stops on the High Street.

Laurencekirk has low levels of unemployment (2.2% in 2011) and a relatively high proportion of the working population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations (38%). The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are higher amongst Laurencekirk residents (16%) than in Hillside (14%), Marykirk (12%) or Social Context: Montrose (15%). Within the Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), Laurencekirk is ranked amongst the 25% least deprived places in Scotland. It ranks within the 15% least deprived places in Scotland in terms of employment and health. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census and it has a larger economically active population (76%) than the average for Scotland (69%) and Aberdeenshire (75%). The proportion of retired people is also higher (at 16%) than the average for Aberdeenshire (14%), but the proportion of permanently sick/disabled people is lower than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package delivers a moderate positive benefit due to the reduction in accident numbers experienced at all the junctions.

The largest improvement is at the north junction which can be attributed to the TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate removal of the right-turn movements. approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. As a grade separated junction will be provided at the south junction, it will be perceived as the safest access point to and from Laurencekirk. Therefore, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may choose to bypass the centre at grade junction and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This would further reduce the number of accidents at the centre junction. The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM period. TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing There is a slight decrease in journey time reliability on approach to the centre the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. junction. This is due to the closure of the central reserve at the north junction as it causes traffic to reroute via the centre junction. The central reserve at the centre junction would remain open to crossing movements.

This package delivers a moderate positive benefit. Grade separation of the south junction would improve journey times on the A937 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Grade separation of TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency this junction would also allow the 50 mph section on the A90 to be removed. experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this support sustainable economic growth in the south of junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk.

Due to the closure of the north junction central reserve, southbound A90 right

turning traffic would have to reroute via the south or centre junctions. This would in turn increase trip lengths for these vehicles and would lead to increased delays at the centre junction.

This package delivers a moderate positive benefit. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the south junction by providing a grade separated junction at the south, giving a minor positive benefit. TPO4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. The closure of the north junction to movements across the A90 at this location will remove the ability to cross the central reserve for pedestrian/cyclist.

Pedestrians and cyclists are still able to use the centre junction as in the current situation. This package is considered to have an overall neutral impact.

There would be some changes to the flows on the High Street, with some TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central moderate increases at certain sections, except in the PM peak when there is a place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk reduction in vehicles using the north junction to access Laurencekirk. This is due community. to the closure of the central reserve at the north junction. Vehicles previously using the north junction are modelled to re-route to use the centre junction. In practice, however it may be that some traffic would reroute to use the new south junction to benefit from the grade separation, but such flows are anticipated to be relatively low.

Rationale for Selection or The proposal addresses the core problems and meets four of the TPOs for the study, with TPO5 being neutral. Rejection of Proposal:

Implementability Appraisal

Technical:

The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Laurencekirk south junction would not present any technical difficulties and is feasible.

Operational:

There are no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a new grade separated junction. Closure of central reserve will push traffic to other two junctions but can be accommodated.

Financial:

This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £18.82M (Q1 2014 prices). The design for such a scheme would influence the cost in respect of the junction. Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal.

Public: This option is likely to receive general support, as it helps address existing south junction crossing movement issues to a significant extent and would help accommodate new development. However there may be objections to the proposed closure of the north junction central reserve.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: Not applicable (Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

Network does not experience No significant increase in households Noise and Vibration Negative minor increase in flow of over 10%. affected

Change in CO2 emissions +0.00002 Global Air Quality – CO2 Low level of change recorded Neutral tonnes. NPV = -£0.31M

Local Air Quality – PM10 and Negligible increases in PM10 Not applicable Neutral NO2 and NO2.

The introduction of an overbridge would have the potential for increased visual Limited increase in dwellings Visual Amenity impact. There is some Negative minor identified as visual receptors potential for night-time impact due to light pollution due to additional street lighting. Negligible loss of agricultural Agriculture and Soils Class 3.2 land affected. Neutral land. No designated sites identified Cultural Heritage No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. No designated sites identified Landscape No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. Physical Fitness Negligible impact Not applicable Neutral -£0.31M Monetised summary

-0.02 Monetary Impact Ratio

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Change in junction form at the south Accidents Change in Annual junction from at grade priority to grade -18 Personal Injury Accidents pa. Personal Injury Accidents separation leads to a decrease in the number of accidents Adopting local accident rates, the number of casualties is predicted to Slight Serious Fatal decrease on both links and junctions. Change in Balance of This is predominantly due to the ‐35 ‐4 ‐1 Severity change in junction form at the south junction, from an at-grade priority to a Accidents pa. grade-separated junction.

Total Discounted Savings £1.54M

Security This package would not have a Neutral significant impact on actual or perceived security of transport users.

Monetised summary £1.54M 0.11 Monetary Impact Ratio

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Grade separation of the south junction would lead to significant journey time savings northbound and southbound on the A937 approaching the A90 during the AM and PM periods. There would also be a moderate benefit to journey times on the A937 southbound Travel Time approaching the A90 during the PM £19.61M period but there would be a large cumulative effect due to the number of vehicles on the A90..

This package would enable the removal of the 50mph speed limit on the A90, providing a minor journey time saving. User Benefits This package would have no impact on User Charges £0M User Charges.

Business and non-business vehicle operating costs (comprised of fuel and Vehicle Operating Costs non-fuel VOC, commuter fuel and non- -£1.38M fuel VOC, and other fuel and non fuel VOC) The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade Quality / Reliability separation at this location. The largest Not monetised Benefits benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the south junction.

Investment Costs Not applicable Not applicable

Operating & Maintenance Fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating £0.08M Private Sector Operator Costs costs Impacts Not applicable Not applicable Revenues Not applicable

Grant/Subsidy payments No impact £0M

Monetised summary £18.31M

Monetary Impact Ratio 1.32

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Not applicable Not applicable Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Not applicable Monetised summary

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Planning permission for new Not assessed Location Impacts developments that impact on the A937/A90 Laurencekirk south junction

are unlikely to be granted without conditions until a grade separated junction is built. This constrains the expansion of businesses and housing areas. Laurencekirk and north Angus. Delays in navigating the A90 junctions add costs and hinder normal business activities. The south junction acts as a constraint on economic activity in Laurencekirk and the surrounding area. Moreover, several significant development sites in Laurencekirk and north Angus cannot proceed with development as they would increase demand at the south junction. The A90 north junction is also an economic constraint, with impacts felt mainly in Laurencekirk.

This package would not have an National Economic Impacts Not assessed economic impact at a national level.

Economic impacts of a grade separated Distributional Impacts Not assessed junction would apply to Laurencekirk and the surrounding areas of Howe of the Mearns and north Angus. Montrose is a larger economic centre than Laurencekirk and the largest development site which is constrained by the south junction (Montrose Airfield) is in north Angus. Montrose Port has also expanded in recent years and its ability to attract businesses from the oil and gas support sector is likely to be enhanced by grade separation of the south junction.

Integration

Quantitative Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Information Services & Ticketing Closure of central reserve at north junction will require services Not to use other junction, affecting routing. applicable Transport Interchanges

Infrastructure & Information No significant impact Not applicable

Land-use Transport Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including Not Integration Aberdeen City and Shire SDP and Aberdeenshire LDP. applicable

Policy Integration Proposal does not directly benefit people with disabilities or Not impact health. applicable

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Quantitative Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Information Community Accessibility Public Transport Network No Significant Impact Not Coverage applicable

Access to Other Local No Significant Impact Not Services applicable

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps all groups negotiate south junction more easily. Not by Social Group applicable

Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps improve access to Laurencekirk to a minor extent except Not by Area southbound A90 traffic using central reserve at north junction. applicable

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information Public Sector Investment Not applicable £14.74M Costs Not applicable Public Sector Operating & Not applicable Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Taxation impacts Indirect tax revenues -£0.87M

Cost to Funding Agency Unknown Unknown

Monetised Summary Total PVB = PV1 + PV2 + PV3 + PV11 Present Value of Transport Benefits £19.54M (Negative values = disbenefits) Total PVC = PV16 + PV17 + PV18 + PV19 + PV20 Present Value of Cost to Government -£13.87M (Negative values =cost to government)

Net Present Value £5.67M Total NPV = PVB + PVC

Benefit-Cost to Government 1.41/ 1.38* Ratio = PVB/(PVC x-1) Ratio Benefit-Cost to Government 1.41 Ratio = (PVB + PV15)/(PVC x -1) Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Unknown Ratio = PVB/(PV21x-1) Agency Ratio *ASTs are based on the current template, however in line with current guidance, a BCR calculation has been undertaken that treats the Indirect Tax Revenue as a benefit

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) PACKAGE 4 (with High Street Proposal Name: Name of Planner: CH2M Parking Rationalisation) No change at north junction. £21.83M 2014 prices at Q1 Capital Closure of central junction, costs/grant (undiscounted) with a link road to the A937 Total Public Sector Funding Annual revenue support – unknown at this Proposal Description: from the B9120, grade Requirement: time separation at the south junction with High Street Present Value of Cost to Government - parking rationalisation £16.20M at 2010 prices Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire on the eastern side of Scotland, and has a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area, this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling. Due to travel distances, travel by car or public transport is generally required in order to access service centres such as Montrose, Stonehaven and Aberdeen. Geographic Context: The A90 is the main trunk road within the vicinity of the village and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk rail station re-opened in May 2009. The station is situated on the East Coast main line and provides a link to Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to the south. Laurencekirk is also served by a number of bus routes, which can be accessed via bus stops on the High Street.

Laurencekirk has low levels of unemployment (2.2% in 2011) and a relatively high proportion of the working population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations (38%). The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are higher amongst Laurencekirk residents (16%) than in Hillside (14%), Marykirk (12%) or Social Context: Montrose (15%). Within the Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), Laurencekirk is ranked amongst the 25% least deprived places in Scotland. It ranks within the 15% least deprived places in Scotland in terms of employment and health. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census and it has a larger economically active population (76%) than the average for Scotland (69%) and Aberdeenshire (75%). The proportion of retired people is also higher (at 16%) than the average for Aberdeenshire (14%), but the proportion of permanently sick/disabled people is lower than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package delivers a major positive benefit. It removes all accidents from the centre junction (which would be closed) and reduces the number of accidents at the south junction due to the implementation of grade separation. There would potentially be a minor increase in the numbers of accidents at the north junction. The potential increase in accidents at the north junction is due to TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate traffic re-routing as a result of the closure of the centre junction. approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. As a grade separated junction will be provided at the south junction, it will be perceived as the safest access point to and from Laurencekirk. Therefore, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may choose to bypass the north at grade junction and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This may reduce the number of potential accidents at the north junction. The variability in delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM period. TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing The full closure of the centre junction prevents analysis of delay at this location. the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. Reliability decreases at the northern junction due to increased traffic from the closure of the centre junction.

The package delivers a minor positive benefit. Grade separation of the south junction would improve journey times on the A937 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Grade separation of this junction would also allow the 50 mph section on the A90 to be removed. TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade support sustainable economic growth in the south of separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk.

Closure of the centre junction leads to increased trip distances for traffic turning to/from the A90. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the south junction by providing a grade separated junction at the south, giving a minor positive benefit.

TPO4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable The north junction will still allow pedestrians and cyclists to navigate the modes. junction but this will not be made any safer by this package.

The full closure of the centre junction will restrict the ability to cross the central reserve for pedestrians/cyclists at this location. This package impacts on traffic flows along the High Street, due to the full closure of the centre junction. TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk Traffic previously using the centre junction has to re-route to use the south or community. the north junctions, resulting in vehicles travelling longer distances along the High Street. However, the actual increase in levels of traffic is relatively modest resulting in an overall neutral impact on the High Street.

Rationale for Selection or The proposal addresses the core problems and meets four of the TPOs for the study, with TPO5 being neutral. Rejection of Proposal:

Implementability Appraisal

Technical: The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Laurencekirk south junction would not present any technical difficulties and is feasible. The closure of the central junction and associated new link road from the B9120 to the A937 may present some technical challenges due to the proposed alignment’s relative closer

proximity to the Forties Pipeline. However previous studies have suggested that an alignment running parallel with the A90 can be achieved. Early consultation with BP also confirmed that the proposed link would be a sufficient distance away and hence it is considered that there were no potential feasibility concerns.

Operational: There are no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a new grade separated junction. Closure of central junction will push traffic to other two junctions, but can be accommodated.

The new A937/B9120 link road will have future maintenance requirements for Aberdeenshire Council, but are minor in nature. Parking restrictions on the High Street may require subsequent on-going enforcement by

Aberdeenshire Council to maintain their effectiveness.

Financial:

This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £21.83M (Q1 2014 prices). The design of the link road would influence the cost in respect of the junction. Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal. Changes to High Street parking should be nominal compared with the rest of the scheme costs.

Public: This package is likely to receive general support as it helps address existing south junction crossing movement issues to a significant extent and would help accommodate new development. The closure of the central junction may be met with concerns from the public, however it is anticipated that these would be substantially outweighed by the provision of a grade separated crossing and link road which would facilitate the majority of movements at the central junction which come via the B9120.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: Not applicable (Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

Network does not experience Limited increase in households Noise and Vibration Negative minor increase in flow beyond 10%. affected

Change in CO2 emissions +0.00003 Global Air Quality – CO2 Low level of change recorded Neutral tonnes; NPV = -£0.32M

Local Air Quality – PM10 and Negligible increases in PM10 Not applicable Neutral NO2 and NO2.

May impact on minor Water Quality, Drainage and No significant watercourses recorded watercourses, dependent on Neutral Flood Defence within vicinity detailed design. This package does not have No impact on designated geological Geology any impacts upon geological Neutral sites or mineral reserves. sites, or mineral reserves. This package does not impact upon protected species or No protected species have been Biodiversity areas of designated sites as identified within the proposed junction Neutral these are not present in the vicinity area. The introduction of an overbridge would have the potential for increased visual impact. There is some Limited increase in dwellings Visual Amenity Negative Minor potential for night-time impact identified as visual receptors due to additional light pollution due to additional street lighting.

Loss of agricultural land at a Agriculture and Soils Class 3.2 land affected Neutral minimum No designated sites identified Cultural Heritage No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. No designated sites identified Landscape No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. Physical Fitness Negligible impact Not applicable Neutral

Monetised summary -£0.32M

Monetary Impact Ratio -0.02

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Change in junction form at the south Accidents junction from at grade priority to grade separation and closure of the centre junction lead to a decrease in the number of accidents. Change in Annual 10 Personal Injury Accidents pa. Personal Injury Accidents Closure of the central junction would, however, lead to an increase in travel distance for vehicles accessing the A90 (by way of the new link road) the impact of which is not offset by the reduction in accident numbers at the junctions. Adopting local accident rates, the number of casualties is predicted to Slight Serious Fatal Change in Balance of decrease on both links and junctions. ‐3 ‐2 ‐0 Severity This is predominantly due to the change in junction form at the south Casualties pa. junction and the closure of the centre

junction.

An increase in the number of casualties on links is predicted due to the closure of the centre junction and the related increase in travel distance for vehicles on the new link road. This increase is, however, offset by the decrease in the total number of casualties predicted at the south and centre junctions.

Total Discounted Savings £0.15M

Security This package would not have a Neutral significant impact on actual or perceived security of transport users.

Monetised summary £0.15M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.01

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Grade separation of the A90/A937 south junction would lead to significant journey time savings northbound and southbound on the A937 approaching the A90 during the AM and PM periods. There would also be a moderate benefit to journey times on the A937 southbound approaching the A90 Travel Time during the PM period. £15.56M

This package would enable the removal of the 50mph speed limit on the A90. This would provide a minor journey time saving to vehicles on the A90 but there would be a large cumulative effect due to the number of vehicles on User Benefits the A90.

This package would have no impact on User Charges £0M User Charges

Business and non-business vehicle operating costs (comprised of fuel and Vehicle Operating Costs non-fuel VOC, commuter fuel and non- -£1.48M fuel VOC, and other fuel and non fuel VOC) The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade Quality / Reliability separation at this location. The largest Not monetised Benefits benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the south junction.

Private Sector Operator Investment Costs Not applicable Not applicable Impacts

Operating & Maintenance Fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating -£0.04M Costs costs

Revenues Not applicable Not applicable

Grant/Subsidy payments No impact £0M

Monetised summary £14.04M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.87

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Not applicable Not applicable Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Not applicable Monetised summary

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Planning permission for new Not assessed Location Impacts developments that impact on the A937/A90 Laurencekirk south junction

National Economic Impacts This package would not have an Not assessed economic impact at a national level.

Distributional Impacts Economic impacts of a grade separated Not assessed junction would apply to Laurencekirk and the surrounding areas of Howe of the Mearns and north Angus. Montrose is a larger economic centre than Laurencekirk and the largest development site which is constrained by the south junction (Montrose Airfield) is in north Angus. Montrose Port has also expanded in recent years and its ability to attract businesses from the oil and gas support sector is likely to be enhanced by grade separation of the south junction.

Integration

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Services & Ticketing No significant impact Not applicable

Transport Interchanges

Infrastructure & Information No significant impact Not applicable

Land-use Transport Proposal provides a positive fit Not applicable Integration with land use policy including

Aberdeen City and Shire SDP and Aberdeenshire LDP.

Policy Integration Proposal does not directly benefit Not applicable people with disabilities or impact

health.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Community Accessibility Public Transport Network No significant impact Not applicable Coverage

Access to Other Local No significant impact Not applicable Services

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps all groups negotiate south Not applicable by Social Group junction more easily.

Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps improve access to Not applicable by Area Laurencekirk to a minor extent except some groups affected by closure of centre junction

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Public Sector Investment Not applicable £17.11M Costs Not applicable Public Sector Operating & Not applicable Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Taxation impacts Indirect tax revenues -£0.91M

Cost to Funding Agency Unknown Unknown

Monetised Summary £13.87MTotal PVB = PV1 + PV2 + PV3 + PV11 Present Value of Transport Benefits (Negative values = disbenefits) £16.20M Total PVC = PV16 + PV17 + PV18 + PV19 + Present Value of Cost to PV20 Government (Negative values =cost to government)

Net Present Value -£2.33M Total NPV = PVB + PVC

Benefit-Cost to Government 0.86 / 0.86* Ratio = PVB/(PVC x-1) Ratio

Benefit-Cost to Government 0.86 Ratio = (PVB + PV15)/(PVC x -1) Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Unknown Ratio = PVB/(PV21x-1) Agency Ratio * ASTs are based on the current template, however in line with current guidance, a BCR calculation has been undertaken that treats the Indirect Tax Revenue as a benefit

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) PACKAGE 5b (without Proposal Name: Name of Planner: CH2M Western Distributor Road) Closure of central reserve at £21.90M 2014 prices at Q1 costs/grant north junction and closure of (undiscounted) centre junction, with a new link road to the A937 from Total Public Sector Funding Annual revenue support – unknown at this Proposal Description: time the B9120 and grade Requirement: separation of the south Present Value of Cost to Government - junction, without western £15.66M at 2010 prices distributor road Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire on the eastern side of Scotland, and has a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area, this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling. Due to travel distances, travel by car or public transport is generally required in order to access service centres such as Montrose, Stonehaven and Aberdeen. Geographic Context: The A90 is the main trunk road within the vicinity of the village and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk rail station re-opened in May 2009. The station is situated on the East Coast main line and provides a link to Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to the south. Laurencekirk is also served by a number of bus routes, which can be accessed via bus stops on the High Street.

Laurencekirk has low levels of unemployment (2.2% in 2011) and a relatively high proportion of the working population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations (38%). The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are higher amongst Laurencekirk residents (16%) than in Hillside (14%), Marykirk (12%) or Social Context: Montrose (15%). Within the Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), Laurencekirk is ranked amongst the 25% least deprived places in Scotland. It ranks within the 15% least deprived places in Scotland in terms of employment and health. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census and it has a larger economically active population (76%) than the average for Scotland (69%) and Aberdeenshire (75%). The proportion of retired people is also higher (at 16%) than the average for Aberdeenshire (14%), but the proportion of permanently sick/disabled people is lower than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package delivers a major positive benefit. It removes all accidents associated with at-grade crossing of the A90, though accidents at the south junction would increase, due to:

 The south junction accommodating the traffic from the closed centre junction and crossing traffic from the north junction; TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate  The new B9120 link road connecting to the A937 at a new priority junction; approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of  The addition of this new junction to the network. traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. Whilst overall accident numbers show the least reduction, it is likely that the removal of at-grade crossing movements would reduce accident severity.

There will be an increase in the traffic flows at the south junction and on the north junction northbound, due to the closure of the centre junction and the rerouting of traffic. The variability in delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM period. TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing The full closure of the centre junction prevents analysis of delay at this location. the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. At the north junction, closure of the central reserve improves northbound merging, but eliminates the southbound right turn from the A90.

This package delivers a major positive benefit. Grade separation of the south junction would improve journey times on the TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency A937 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Grade separation of experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and this junction would also allow the 50 mph section on the A90 to be removed. crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support sustainable economic growth in the south of Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may

accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk.

There is however a slight increase in the A90 mainline southbound journey time during the PM peak. This is due to traffic to Laurencekirk not being able to use the north and centre junctions. This results in a higher number of diverges at the south junction slowing some mainline traffic.

Closure of the centre junction leads to increased trip distances for traffic turning to/from the A90. All vehicles travelling to Laurencekirk from the north must travel to the south junction. This increases trip lengths and journey time for vehicles making the movement from the A90 southbound into Laurencekirk.

The package delivers moderate positive benefit. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the south junction, by providing a grade separated junction at TPO4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable the south, giving minor positive benefit. modes. The full closure of the centre junction and closure of the north junction to movements across the A90 will remove the ability to cross the A90. This package has a noticeable impact on traffic flows along the High Street, notably at the south end. TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk This is due to the full closure of the centre junction and the closure of the community. centre reserve at the north junction to traffic to/from the A90. As a result, vehicles previously using the north and centre junctions to access Laurencekirk will have to re-route and use the south junction, thereby increasing flows to the south of the High Street. This results in a minor negative benefit.

Rationale for Selection or The proposal addresses the core problems and meets four of the TPOs for the study but has a minor disbenefit Rejection of Proposal: on TPO5.

Implementability Appraisal

Operational: There are no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to a new grade separated junction. Closure of central junction and north central reserve will push traffic to the south junction, but this demand can be accommodated by the new junction.

The new A937/B9120 link road will have future maintenance requirements for Aberdeenshire Council but these

are minor in nature.

Financial: This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £21.90M (Q1 2014 prices). The design for such a scheme would influence the cost in respect of the junction. Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal.

Public: This package is likely to receive general support as it helps address existing south junction crossing movement issues to a significant extent and would help accommodate new development. This package includes the closure of the central junction together with the closure of the central reserve at the north junction and so may

be met with some disapproval by local road users.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: Not applicable (Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

Limited increase in households Network does not experience Noise and Vibration affected Negative Minor increase in flow beyond 10%.

Change in CO2 emissions -0.00004 Global Air Quality – CO2 Low level of change recorded Neutral tonnes. NPV = -£0.53M

Local Air Quality – PM10 and Negligible increases in PM10 Not applicable Neutral NO2 and NO2.

area. The introduction of an overbridge would have the potential for increased visual Limited increase in dwellings Visual Amenity impact. There is some Negative Minor identified as visual receptors potential for night-time impact due to light pollution due to additional street lighting. Loss of agricultural land at a Agriculture and Soils Class 3.2 land affected. Neutral minimum. No designated sites identified Cultural Heritage No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. No designated sites identified Landscape No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. Physical Fitness Negligible impact Not applicable Neutral

Monetised summary -£0.53M

Monetary Impact Ratio -0.03

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Change in junction form at the south Accidents junction from at grade priority to grade separation and prevention of at-grade crossing movements at the centre and north junctions lead to a decrease in Change in Annual the number of accidents at junctions. 6 Personal Injury Accidents pa. Personal Injury Accidents Prevention of at-grade crossing movements at the centre and north junctions would, however, lead to an increase in travel distance for vehicles using the A90. The impact of which is

not offset by the reduction in accident numbers at the junctions.

Adopting local accident rates, the number of casualties is predicted to decrease on both links and junctions. This is predominantly due to the change in junction form at the south, centre and north junctions. Slight Serious Fatal An increase in the number of casualties Change in Balance of ‐9 ‐4 ‐1 Severity on links is predicted due to the prevention of at-grade crossing movements at the centre and north Casualties pa. junctions and the related increase in travel distance for vehicles. This increase is, however, offset by the decrease in the total number of casualties predicted at the south, centre and north junctions.

Total Discounted Savings £0.67M

Security This package would not have a Neutral significant impact on actual or perceived security of transport users.

Monetised summary £0.67M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.04

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Grade separation of the south junction would lead to significant journey time savings northbound and southbound on the A937 approaching the A90 during the AM and PM periods. There would also be a moderate benefit to journey times on the A937 southbound User Benefits Travel Time approaching the A90 during the PM £12.44M period.

This package would enable the removal of the 50mph speed limit on the A90. This would provide a minor journey time saving to vehicles on the A90 but there would be a large cumulative

effect due to the number of vehicles on the A90.

This package would have no impact on User Charges £0M User Charges

Business and non-business vehicle operating costs (comprised of fuel and Vehicle Operating Costs non-fuel VOC, commuter fuel and non- -£3.47M fuel VOC, and other fuel and non fuel VOC) The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade Quality / Reliability separation at this location. The largest Not monetised Benefits benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the south junction.

Investment Costs Not applicable Not applicable

Operating & Maintenance Fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating -£0.23M Costs costs Private Sector Operator Impacts Revenues Not applicable Not applicable

Grant/Subsidy payments No impact £0M

Monetised summary £8.74M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.56

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Not applicable Not applicable Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Monetised summary Not applicable

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Planning permission for new Not assessed Location Impacts developments that impact on the A937/A90 Laurencekirk south junction

National Economic Impacts This package would not have an Not assessed economic impact at a national level.

Integration

Quantitative Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Information Services & Ticketing Existing bus routes would need to be reconfigured due to Not applicable the closure of the centre junction and the closure of the Transport Interchanges central reserve at the north junction.

Infrastructure & Information No significant impact Not applicable

Land-use Transport Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy Not applicable Integration including Aberdeen City and Shire SDP and Aberdeenshire

LDP.

Policy Integration Proposal does not directly benefit people with disabilities or Not applicable impact health.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Quantitative Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Information Community Accessibility Public Transport Network No significant impact Not applicable Coverage

Access to Other Local No significant impact Not applicable Services

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts No significant impact. Helps all groups negotiate south Not applicable by Social Group junction more easily.

Distribution/Spatial Impacts No significant impact. Not applicable by Area

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken. where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information Public Sector Investment Not applicable £17.17M Costs

Public Sector Operating & Not applicable Not applicable Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Taxation impacts Indirect tax revenues -£1.51M

Cost to Funding Agency Unknown Unknown

Monetised Summary £8.88M Total PVB = PV1 + PV2 + PV3 + PV11 Present Value of Transport Benefits (Negative values = disbenefits) -£15.66M Total PVC = PV16 + PV17 + PV18 + PV19 + Present Value of Cost to PV20 Government (Negative values =cost to government)

Net Present Value -£6.78M Total NPV = PVB + PVC

Benefit-Cost to Government 0.57 / 0.61* Ratio = PVB/(PVC x-1) Ratio Benefit-Cost to Government Ratio = (PVB + PV15)/(PVC x -1) Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Ratio = PVB/(PV21x-1) Agency Ratio * ASTs are based on the current template, however in line with current guidance, a BCR calculation has been undertaken that treats the Indirect Tax Revenue as a benefit

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) Proposal Name: PACKAGE 6 Name of Planner: CH2M £37.12M 2014 prices at Q1 Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Grade separation of the north junction and grade Total Public Sector Funding Annual revenue support – unknown at this Proposal Description: separation of the south Requirement: time junction Present Value of Cost to Government - £28.27M at 2010 prices Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire on the eastern side of Scotland, and has a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area, this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling. Due to travel distances, travel by car or public transport is generally required in order to access service centres such as Montrose, Stonehaven and Aberdeen. Geographic Context: The A90 is the main trunk road within the vicinity of the village and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk rail station re-opened in May 2009. The station is situated on the East Coast main line and provides a link to Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to the south. Laurencekirk is also served by a number of bus routes, which can be accessed via bus stops on the High Street.

Laurencekirk has low levels of unemployment (2.2% in 2011) and a relatively high proportion of the working population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations (38%). The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are higher amongst Laurencekirk residents (16%) than in Hillside (14%), Marykirk (12%) or Social Context: Montrose (15%). Within the Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), Laurencekirk is ranked amongst the 25% least deprived places in Scotland. It ranks within the 15% least deprived places in Scotland in terms of employment and health. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census and it has a larger economically active population (76%) than the average for Scotland (69%) and Aberdeenshire (75%). The proportion of retired people is also higher (at 16%) than the average for Aberdeenshire (14%), but the proportion of permanently sick/disabled people is lower than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package delivers a major positive benefit due to the reduction in accident numbers experienced at the north and south junctions.

TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate The largest improvement is at the north junction which can be attributed to the approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of change to a grade separated junction. traffic turning or crossing at the junctions.

This package removes at grade crossings at the north and south junctions, however, some crossing risk remains at the centre junction. The variability in delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM period.

TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude The centre junction is showing a very minor increase in potential variability of towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing delay in the PM. the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. The variability in the delay on the approach to the north junction is reduced due to the grade separation at this location. This is particularly the case in the AM period as crossing movements are eliminated.

This package delivers a major positive benefit. Grade separation of the south junction would improve journey times on the A937 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Grade separation of this junction would also allow the 50 mph section on the A90 to be removed. TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade support sustainable economic growth in the south of separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk.

Grade separation of the north junction provides increased capacity to

accommodate proposed development at the north of Laurencekirk.

This package delivers a major positive benefit. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at both the south and north junctions by providing the ability to TPO4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable incorporate crossing facilities in to the design of the grade separated junctions, modes. which delivers a moderate positive benefit. Pedestrians and cyclists are still able to navigate the centre junction as in the current situation. This package is not anticipated to lead to a significant change in flows on the High Street. The traffic model predicts that under this option some traffic would TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central reroute from the north junction to the centre junction. In practice however, it is place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk considered that drivers would prefer to use the grade separated junction at the community. north as it is perceived to be safer. Therefore, overall traffic volumes on the High Street would be unchanged. Overall, this package has a neutral impact.

Rationale for Selection or The proposal addresses the core problems and meets four of the TPOs for the study, whilst TPO5 is neutral. Rejection of Proposal:

Implementability Appraisal The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Laurencekirk south junction would not present Technical: any technical difficulties and is considered feasible. The provision of a grade separated junction at the north would require larger land take parcel than the south but is considered fairly straightforward to implement in terms of construction.

The BP pipeline would need some further consideration at the north junction due to the proximity of some side roads. This may slightly influence future design options. Early consultation with BP has however suggested that the junction is of a sufficient distance that major feasibility concerns can be avoided.

There would be some disruption to traffic flows during construction of the junctions.

Operational:

There are no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to the new grade separated junctions.

Financial:

This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £37.12M (Q1 2014 prices). The specific design for

such a scheme would influence the cost, however it is thought that existing infrastructure could be utilised wherever possible to limit the overall scheme cost. Operational/maintenance costs are envisaged to be nominal.

Public:

This option is likely to receive general support, as it helps address both existing south and north junction crossing movement issues to a significant extent and would help accommodate new development.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included:

(Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

Limited increase in households Network does not experience Noise and Vibration affected Negative Minor increase in flow beyond 10%.

Change in CO2 emissions +0.00002 Global Air Quality – CO2 Low level of change recorded Neutral tonnes. NPV = -£0.29M

Local Air Quality – PM10 and Negligible increases in PM10 Not applicable Neutral NO2 and NO2.

No main watercourses recorded within May impact on minor Water Quality, Drainage and vicinity, however disruption to minor watercourses, dependent on Negative Minor Flood Defence watercourse over a wider area due to detailed design. grade separation of 2 junctions. This package does not have No impact on designated geological Geology any impacts upon geological Neutral sites or mineral reserves. sites, or mineral reserves. This package does not impact No protected species have been Biodiversity upon protected species or identified within the proposed junction Neutral areas of designated sites as locations.

these are not present in the area. The introduction of two overbridges would have the potential for increased visual impact. There is some Limited increase in dwellings identified Visual Amenity Negative Moderate potential for night-time as visual receptors impact due to light pollution due to additional street lighting. Negligible loss of agricultural Agriculture and Soils Class 3.2 land affected. Neutral land. No designated sites identified Cultural Heritage No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. No designated sites identified Landscape No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. Negligible impact on physical Physical Fitness Not applicable Neutral fitness

Monetised summary -£0.29M

Monetary Impact Ratio -0.01

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Change in junction form at the north Accidents Change in Annual and south junctions from at grade -33 personal injury Accidents pa. Personal Injury Accidents priority to grade separation leads to a decrease in the number of accidents

Adopting local accident rates, the number of casualties is predicted to Slight Serious Fatal decrease on both links and junctions. Change in Balance of This is predominantly due to the change ‐55 ‐7 ‐1 Severity in junction form at the south and north junctions, from at-grade priority to Casualties pa. grade-separated layouts.

Total Discounted Savings £2.48M

Security This package would not have a Neutral significant impact on actual or perceived security of transport users.

Monetised summary £2.48M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.09

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Grade separation of the south junction would lead to significant journey time savings northbound on the A937 approaching the A90 during the AM and PM periods. There would also be a User Benefits Travel Time moderate benefit to journey times on £19.37M the A937 southbound approaching the A90 during the PM period.

Grade separation of the north junction does not lead to a significant journey

time benefit due to the low level of delay experienced at this location in the do-minimum situation.

This package would have no impact on User Charges £0M User Charges

Business and non-business vehicle operating costs (comprised of fuel and Vehicle Operating Costs non-fuel VOC, commuter fuel and non- -£1.16M fuel VOC, and other fuel and non fuel VOC) The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade Quality / Reliability separation at this location. The largest Not monetised Benefits benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the south junction.

Investment Costs Not applicable Not applicable

Private Sector Operator Operating & Maintenance Fuel and non-fuel operating costs £0.04M Impacts Costs

Revenues

Grant/Subsidy payments No impact £0M

Monetised summary £18.25M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.65

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Not applicable Not applicable Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Not applicable Monetised summary

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Not assessed Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Planning permission for new Location Impacts developments that impact on the A937/A90 Laurencekirk south junction

are unlikely to be granted without conditions until a grade separation is built. This constrains the expansion of businesses and housing areas. Laurencekirk and north Angus. Delays in navigating the A90 junctions add costs and hinder normal business activities. The south junction acts as a constraint on economic activity in Laurencekirk and the surrounding area. Moreover, several significant development sites in Laurencekirk and north Angus cannot proceed with development as they would increase demand at the south junction. The A90 north junction is also an economic constraint, with impacts felt mainly in Laurencekirk.

This package would not have an Not assessed National Economic Impacts economic impact at a national level.

Economic impacts of two grade Not assessed Distributional Impacts separated junctions would apply to Laurencekirk and the surrounding areas of Howe of the Mearns and north Angus. Montrose is a larger economic centre than Laurencekirk and the largest development site which is constrained by the south junction (Montrose Airfield) is in north Angus. Montrose Port has also expanded in recent years and its ability to attract businesses from the oil and gas support sector is likely to be enhanced by grade separation of the south junction.

Integration

Quantitative Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Information Services & Ticketing No significant impact Not applicable Transport Interchanges

Infrastructure & Information No significant impact Not applicable

Land-use Transport Proposal provides a positive fit with land use policy including Not applicable Integration Aberdeen City and Shire SDP and Aberdeenshire LDP.

Grade separation of both north and south junctions would accommodate all future development aspirations for Laurencekirk.

Policy Integration Proposal does not directly benefit people with disabilities or Not applicable impact health.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Quantitative Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Information Community Accessibility Public Transport Network Not applicable Coverage No significant impact

Access to Other Local No significant impact Not applicable Services

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps all groups negotiate north and south junctions more Not applicable by Social Group easily.

Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps improve access to Laurencekirk to a minor extent. Not applicable by Area

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information Public Sector Investment Not applicable £29.10M Costs Not applicable Not applicable Public Sector Operating & Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Indirect tax revenues -£0.83M Taxation impacts

Unknown Unknown Cost to Funding Agency

Monetised Summary £20.44M Total PVB = PV1 + PV2 + PV3 + PV11 Present Value of Transport Benefits (Negative values = disbenefits) -£28.27M Total PVC = PV16 + PV17 + PV18 + PV19 + Present Value of Cost to PV20 Government (Negative values =cost to government)

Net Present Value -£7.83M Total NPV = PVB + PVC

Benefit-Cost to Government 0.72 / 0.73* Ratio = PVB/(PVC x-1) Ratio Benefit-Cost to Government Ratio = (PVB + PV15)/(PVC x -1) Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Ratio = PVB/(PV21x-1) Agency Ratio * ASTs are based on the current template, however in line with current guidance, a BCR calculation has been undertaken that treats the Indirect Tax Revenue as a benefit

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) Proposal Name: PACKAGE 7 Name of Planner: CH2M £37.22M 2014 prices at Q1 Capital Grade separation of the north costs/grant (undiscounted) junction, closure of the central junction except the Total Public Sector Funding Annual revenue support – Unknown at this Proposal Description: left in/out from the B9120 Requirement: time and grade separation of the Present Value of Cost to Government - south junction £28.17M at 2010 prices Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire on the eastern side of Scotland, and has a population of 2,925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area, this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling. Due to travel distances, travel by car or public transport is generally required in order to access service centres such as Montrose, Stonehaven and Aberdeen. Geographic Context: The A90 is the main trunk road within the vicinity of the village and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk rail station re-opened in May 2009. The station is situated on the East Coast main line and provides a link to Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to the south. Laurencekirk is also served by a number of bus routes, which can be accessed via bus stops on the High Street.

Laurencekirk has low levels of unemployment (2.2% in 2011) and a relatively high proportion of the working population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations (38%). The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are higher amongst Laurencekirk residents (16%) than in Hillside (14%), Marykirk (12%) or Social Context: Montrose (15%). Within the Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), Laurencekirk is ranked amongst the 25% least deprived places in Scotland. It ranks within the 15% least deprived places in Scotland in terms of employment and health. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census and it has a larger economically active population (76%) than the average for Scotland (69%) and Aberdeenshire (75%). The proportion of retired people is also higher (at 16%) than the average for Aberdeenshire (14%), but the proportion of permanently sick/disabled people is lower than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland.

Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: This package delivers a major positive benefit at all the junctions by removing all accidents associated with the at-grade crossings of the A90.

The largest improvement is at the centre junction which can be attributed to the TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate closure of the central reserve and the Laurencekirk arm. The reductions at the approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of north and south are due to the construction of grade separated junctions. traffic turning or crossing at the junctions.

With the substantial closure of the centre junction, there is re-routing of vehicles to the north and south junctions. This slightly reduces the accident savings at these junctions when compared to Package 6. The variability in delay on the approach to both the north and south junctions is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at these locations. This is particularly the case in the AM period as crossing movements are eliminated. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude approach to the south junction during the AM period. towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. The centre junction shows a very minor increase in reliability for the permitted movements.

TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency Grade separation of the south junction would increase the capacity of this experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and junction and accommodate the traffic impact of proposed development. Grade crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to separation at the south junction would provide increased capacity that may support sustainable economic growth in the south of accommodate the traffic generated by new developments over a wide area Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. including the north of Angus and Laurencekirk.

Grade separation of the north junction provides increased capacity to accommodate proposed development at the north of Laurencekirk.

This package delivers a major positive benefit. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at both the south and north junctions by providing the ability to incorporate crossing facilities in to the design of the grade separated junctions. TPO4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable modes. The closure of the centre junction to movements across the A90 at this location will restrict the ability to cross the central reserve for pedestrians/cyclists.

This package delivers a moderate positive impact. This package has a minor impact on the High Street due to the closure of the TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central central reserve to vehicles to/from the A90 at the centre junction. This means place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk any vehicle previously using the centre junction will need to re-route to the community. north or south junction but flows are low. Impact is considered to be neutral overall. Rationale for Selection or The proposal addresses the core problems and meets four of the TPOs for the study, whilst TPO5 is neutral. Rejection of Proposal: Implementability Appraisal The construction of a grade separated junction at the existing Laurencekirk south junction would not present Technical: any technical difficulties and is considered feasible. The provision of a grade separated junction at the north would require larger land take parcel than the south but is considered fairly straightforward to implement in terms of construction.

There would be some disruption to traffic flows during construction. Operational:

There are no significant operational issues envisaged with regard to the new grade separated junctions.

Financial:

This proposal has an outline cost estimate of approximately £37.22M (Q1 2014 prices). The specific design for

Public:

This option is likely to receive significant support as it helps address existing north and south junction crossing movement issues to a significant extent and would help accommodate new development.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: Not applicable (Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

Network does not experience No significant increase in households Noise and Vibration Negative Minor increase in flow beyond 10%. affected

Change in CO2 emissions -0.00003 tonnes. Global Air Quality – CO2 Low level of change recorded. Neutral NPV = -£0.36M

Local Air Quality – PM10 and Negligible increases in PM10 Not applicable Neutral NO2 and NO2.

any impacts upon geological or mineral reserves. sites, or mineral reserves. This package does not impact upon protected species or No protected species have been identified Biodiversity areas of designated sites as Neutral within the proposed junction locations. these are not present in the area. The introduction of overbridges would have the potential for increased visual Limited increase in dwellings identified as Visual Amenity impact. There is some Negative Moderate visual receptors potential for night-time impact due to light pollution due to additional street lighting. Negligible loss of agricultural Agriculture and Soils Class 3.2 land affected. Neutral land. No designated sites identified Cultural Heritage No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity. No designated sites identified Landscape No designated sites within vicinity Neutral within vicinity.

Physical Fitness Negligible impact Not applicable Neutral

Monetised summary -£0.36M

Monetary Impact Ratio -0.01

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Change in junction form at the north and Accidents south junctions from at grade priority to Change in Annual grade separation and prevention of at- -24 Personal Injury Accidents pa. Personal Injury Accidents grade crossing movements at the centre junction leads to a decrease in the

number of accidents.

Prevention of at-grade crossing movements at the centre junction would lead to an increase in travel distance for vehicles accessing the A90. This increase is, however, offset by the reduction in accident numbers at the junctions. Adopting local accident rates, the number of casualties is predicted to decrease at junctions. This is predominantly due to the change in junction form at the north and south junction, from at grade priority to grade-separated junctions and closure of the centre junction to some Slight Serious Fatal movements. Change in Balance of ‐49 ‐9 ‐1 Severity An increase in the number of casualties on links is predicted due to the prevention of Casualties pa. at-grade crossing movements at the centre junction and the related increase in travel distance for vehicles. This increase is, however, offset by the decrease in the total number of casualties predicted at the south, centre and north junctions.

Total Discounted Savings £2.58M

Security This package would not have a significant Neutral impact on actual or perceived security of transport users.

Monetised summary £2.58M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.09

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Grade separation of the south junction would lead to significant journey time savings northbound on the A937 approaching the A90 during the AM and PM periods. There would also be a moderate benefit to journey times on the A937 southbound approaching the A90 User Benefits Travel Time during the PM period. £16.25M

Grade separation of the north junction does not lead to a significant journey time benefit due to the low level of delay experienced at this location in the do- minimum situation.

Closure of the central reserve at the centre junction increases travel distance and journey times for some traffic to and from the Garvock area.

This package would enable the removal of the 50mph speed limit on the A90, providing a minor journey time saving to vehicles on the A90 but there would be a large cumulative effect due to the number of vehicles on the A90..

This package would have no impact on User Charges £0M User Charges

Business and non-business vehicle operating costs (comprised of fuel and Vehicle Operating Costs -£1.59M non-fuel VOC, commuter fuel and non-fuel VOC, and other fuel and non fuel VOC) The variability in the delay on the approach to the south junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at Quality / Reliability this location. The largest benefit to Not monetised Benefits journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound and southbound approaches to the south junction.

Investment Costs Not applicable Not applicable

Private Sector Operator Operating & Maintenance Fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating costs -£0.18M Impacts Costs

Revenues Not applicable Not applicable

Grant/Subsidy payments No impact. £0M

Monetised summary £14.48M

Monetary Impact Ratio 0.51

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Not applicable Not applicable Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Not applicable Monetised summary

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Planning permission for new Not applicable. Location Impacts developments that impact on the A937/A90 Laurencekirk south junction

an economic constraint, with impacts felt mainly in Laurencekirk.

National Economic Impacts This package would not have an Not applicable. economic impact at a national level.

Distributional Impacts Economic impacts of the grade Not applicable. separated junctions would apply to Laurencekirk and the surrounding areas of Howe of the Mearns and north Angus. Montrose is a larger economic centre than Laurencekirk and the largest development site which is constrained by the south junction (Montrose Airfield) is in north Angus. Montrose Port has also expanded in recent years and its ability to attract businesses from the oil and gas support sector is likely to be enhanced by grade separation of the south junction.

Integration

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Services & Ticketing No significant impact Not applicable Transport Interchanges

Infrastructure & Information No significant impact Not applicable

Land-use Transport Proposal provides a positive fit Not applicable Integration with land use policy including

Aberdeen City and Shire SDP and Aberdeenshire LDP. Grade separation of both north and south junctions would accommodate all future development aspirations for Laurencekirk

Policy Integration Proposal does not directly benefit Not applicable people with disabilities or impact

health.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Community Accessibility Public Transport Network No significant impact Not applicable Coverage

Access to Other Local No significant impact Not applicable Services

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps all groups negotiate north Not applicable by Social Group and south junctions more easily

Distribution/Spatial Impacts Helps improve access to Not applicable by Area Laurencekirk to a minor extent

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information Public Sector Investment Not applicable £29.17M Costs Not applicable Public Sector Operating & Not applicable Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Taxation impacts Indirect tax revenues -£1.00M

Cost to Funding Agency Unknown Unknown

Monetised Summary £16.7M Total PVB = PV1 + PV2 + PV3 + PV11 Present Value of Transport Benefits (Negative values = disbenefits) -£28.17M Total PVC = PV16 + PV17 + PV18 + PV19 + Present Value of Cost to PV20 Government (Negative values =cost to government)

Net Present Value -£11.47M Total NPV = PVB + PVC

Benefit-Cost to Government 0.59 / 0.61* Ratio = PVB/(PVC x-1) Ratio Benefit-Cost to Government 0.59 Ratio = (PVB + PV15)/(PVC x -1) Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Unknown Agency Ratio *ASTs are based on the current template, however in line with current guidance, a BCR calculation has been undertaken that treats the Indirect Tax Revenue as a benefit

Part 2 Appraisal Summary Table

Proposal Details Name and address of authority or organisation promoting the proposal: NESTRANS (Principal Promoter) (supported by Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Tactran) (Also provide name of any subsidiary organisations also involved in promoting the proposal) Proposal Name: PACKAGE 8 Name of Planner: CH2M Pedestrian crossings on High Capital costs/grant (undiscounted) Street, upgrade of Unknown at this time pedestrian/cycle link under Annual revenue support – unknown at this the A90 with pedestrian/cycle time connection to east, improved Total Public Sector Funding Proposal Description: pedestrian facilities on the Requirement: High Street at Alma Place/Conveth Place and a Present Value of Cost to Govt travel behaviour change awareness campaign Funding Sought From: Unknown at this time Amount of Application: Unknown at this time (if applicable) Background Information Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire, and has a population of 2925 as of the 2011 Scottish Census. Aberdeenshire is a predominantly rural area with an ageing demography and this presents challenges with regard to access to services. Both car and public transport are therefore important modes of travel for residents of the area. Within Laurencekirk the majority of services are accessible by walking or cycling, In Geographic Context: terms of travelling to and from the town, it is served by a number of bus services, with the main interchange bus stops located on the High Street. The A90 is the main trunk road within vicinity of the village and provides a strategic route north to Aberdeen and south to Dundee. Laurencekirk is also linked by rail and the station, re-opened in May 2009, is located on the east coast main line and provides a link between Aberdeen to the north, and Dundee, Edinburgh/Glasgow to the south.

Laurencekirk has a high rate of employment particularly those within full time employment and this is significantly higher than the Scottish average. Laurencekirk also has a lower proportion of economically inactive population than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland. Caring, leisure and other service occupations are Social Context: also higher than both the regional and national average. Laurencekirk ranks within 30% least deprived Social Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) data zones within Scotland. In terms of employment and health, it ranks within the 15% least deprived zones in Scotland. Laurencekirk has seen an increase of over 60% in working age population since the 2001 census, however when compared to Aberdeenshire as a whole, it has a higher proportion of retired people. Laurencekirk has a noticeably lower proportion of permanently sick/disabled people than both Aberdeenshire and Scotland. Road traffic in the local area experiences delays accessing the A90, which has a negative impact on journey time reliability. Due to ongoing safety concerns at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions, particularly the south, a 50mph speed limit is imposed on the A90 which has implications on journey time on the A90. Laurencekirk is allocated as a Strategic Growth Area in Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework. It and the north Angus area have links with the north east oil industry, this has resulted in demand for commuter travel to Aberdeen. Economic Context: Growth in the oil and gas industry would generate further demand for travel in the future.

There is demand for new development, particularly in association with the oil and gas industry. The proposed Aberdeenshire and Angus LDPs set out land allocations, both in terms of housing and employment, which in conjunction with their associated development is also envisaged to generate additional traffic, some of which would use the A90, thereby increasing existing traffic levels on the trunk road. In particular, it is likely that development in and around Montrose would generate additional traffic that would seek to use the A90/A937 south junction, thereby exacerbating existing problems that are occurring at the junction. Planning Objectives Objective: Performance against planning objective: TPO1: To achieve a reduction in accidents at or on immediate approach to the A90 Laurencekirk Junctions and as a result of No significant impact. traffic turning or crossing at the junctions. TPO2: To achieve a significant improvement in the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions by reducing No significant impact. the delay and improving the opportunities to cross the A90. TPO3: To achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to No significant impact. support sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. TPOP4: To enable safe crossing of the A90 by sustainable This package would provide an upgraded pedestrian and cycle link under the modes. A90, giving a moderate positive benefit.

TPO5: To contribute to the High Street’s role as a central This package would improve pedestrian facilities on Laurencekirk High Street, place for the continued vitality of the Laurencekirk giving a moderate positive benefit. community.

The proposal does not address the core problems relating to the three junctions but has moderate positive Rationale for Selection or benefit on two of the TPOs for the study. However, this package is seen as being complementary to the other Rejection of Proposal: packages.

Implementability Appraisal

Technical: This option package is feasible, with no technical delivery issues likely to be incurred.

The format and extent of the travel behaviour change awareness campaign would require further consideration.

Operational: There are no significant operational issues envisaged. Improved pedestrian and cycle facilities would require future maintenance but likely to be minimal.

Financial: The option is considered to be low cost, as it does not include any significant new infrastructure, and only minor improvements to the existing.

Public: Consultation with local people has shown a desire for pedestrian improvements on the High Street and improvements to the existing underpass of the A90. It is therefore considered the option would gain public acceptability.

Environment

Mitigation Options Included: Not applicable (Costs & Benefits)

Sub-criterion Qualitative Information Quantitative Information Significance of Impact

The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Noise and Vibration Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Global Air Quality – CO2 Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets.

Very minor impacts associated Local Air Quality – PM10 and with the stopping of vehicles The impacts have not been quantified and Neutral NO2 as a result of pedestrian only a qualitative appraisal undertaken crossings. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. Water Quality, Drainage and The impacts have not been quantified and Much of the intervention Neutral Flood Defence only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Geology Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Biodiversity Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Visual Amenity Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Agriculture and Soils Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets. The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Cultural Heritage Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets.

The impacts resulting from this package will be negligible. The impacts have not been quantified and Landscape Much of the intervention Neutral only a qualitative appraisal undertaken. involves maintenance of existing assets.

Physical Fitness Negligible impact. Not applicable. Neutral

Monetised summary Not applicable

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Safety

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Accidents Change in Annual Not applicable Not quantified Personal Injury Accidents

Change in Balance of Not applicable Not quantified Severity

Total Discounted Savings Not applicable Not quantified

Security No significant impact Not quantified

Monetised summary Not applicable

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Travel Time Not applicable Not applicable

Travel Time savings by Not applicable Not applicable size User Benefits

User Charges Not applicable Not applicable

Vehicle Operating Costs Not applicable Not applicable

Quality / Reliability Not applicable Not applicable Benefits

Investment Costs Not applicable Not applicable

Operating & Maintenance Not applicable Not applicable Costs Private Sector Operator Impacts Revenues Not applicable Not applicable

Grant/Subsidy payments Not applicable Not applicable

Monetised summary Not applicable

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Wider Economic Benefits)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Wider Economic Benefits Agglomeration economies (WB1)

Not applicable Not applicable

Increased output in perfectly competitive markets (WB3)

Not applicable Not applicable

Wider benefits arising from improved labour supply (WB4)

Not applicable Not applicable

Monetised summary Not applicable

Monetary Impact Ratio Not applicable

Economy (Economic Activity and Location Impacts)

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Economic Activity and Local Economic Impacts Location Impacts

Not applicable Not applicable

National Economic Impacts

Not applicable Not applicable

Distributional Impacts

Not applicable Not applicable

Integration

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Services & Ticketing Transport Interchanges

Not applicable Not applicable

Infrastructure & Information

Not applicable Not applicable

Land-use Transport Integration

Not applicable Not applicable

Policy Integration

Improved pedestrian crossing Not applicable facilities would help some people with mobility difficulties.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Sub-criterion Item Qualitative Information Quantitative Information

Community Accessibility Public Transport Network Coverage Not applicable Not applicable

Access to Other Local Services Not applicable Not applicable

Comparative Accessibility Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Social Group Not applicable Not applicable

Distribution/Spatial Impacts by Area Not applicable Not applicable

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Summary of SEA outcome Not undertaken. where appropriate

Cost to Public Sector Item Qualitative information Quantitative information

Public Sector Investment Unknown Unknown Costs

Public Sector Operating & Not applicable Not applicable Maintenance Costs Not applicable Not applicable Grant/Subsidy Payments

Not applicable Not applicable Revenues

Taxation impacts Not applicable Not assessed

Cost to Funding Agency Unknown Unknown

Monetised Summary Present Value of Transport Not assessed Benefits Present Value of Cost to Not assessed Government

Net Present Value Not assessed

Benefit-Cost to Government Not assessed Ratio Benefit-Cost to Government Not assessed Ratio (including WEBs) Benefit-Cost to Funding Not assessed Agency Ratio

Appendix F Drawings

CH2MHill NESTRANS J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK G.Kelly 14.08.14 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS G.Kelly 14.08.14 LOCATION PLAN

488086-STAG-001 01 N.T.S -- 01 R.M. G.K. G.K. 09.02.15 FINAL ISSUE 00 J.M. G.K. G.K. 14.08.14 FOR REVIEW

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES KEY PLAN J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-002 01

N.T.S

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 1 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-003 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 2 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-004 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 3 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-005 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 4 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-006 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 5 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-007 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 6 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-008 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 7 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-009 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING FEATURES SHEET 8 OF 8 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-010 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING ROAD TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-011 01

1:100 @ A3

- - 01 R.M. G.K. G.K. 09.02.15 FINAL ISSUE 00 J.M. G.K. G.K. 14.08.14 FOR REVIEW

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING A90 / A937 LAURENCEKIRK SOUTH JUNCTION J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-012 01

1:1000 @ A3

CH2MHill

LOOK LEFT City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU

LOOK LEFT LOOK Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING A90 / B9120 LAURENCEKIRK CENTRE JUNCTION J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-013 01

1:1000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS A90 / A937 LURENCEKIRK NORTH JUNCTION

J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-014 01

1:1000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING UTILITIES SHEET 1 OF 3 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-015 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING UTILITIES SHEET 2 OF 3 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-016 01

1:5000 @ A3

CH2MHill City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel 0141 552 2000 Fax 0141 552 2525 www.CH2MHill.com

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK

STAG / DMRB STAGE 1 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING UTILITIES SHEET 3 OF 3 J.Mcinnes 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14 G.Kelly 14.08.14

488086-STAG-017 01

1:5000 @ A3

Appendix G Traffic Modelling

MEMORANDUM

Access to Laurencekirk Model Methodology

PREPARED FOR: NESTRANS Transport Scotland COPY TO: Aberdeenshire Council TACTRAN PROJECT NUMBER: 488086

Document History

Access to Laurencekirk – Model Methodology

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1.0 10/07/2014 Draft for client review IA AF DA

2.0 27/02/2015 Final IA DA MT

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 1 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY . Study Background

CH2M HILL has been appointed by Nestrans to undertake an appraisal of access to Laurencekirk. The study looks at access to/ from the A90 trunk road and will be undertaken in accordance with Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) assessment guidance. A data collection and stakeholder consultation exercise has been undertaken for this study in order to inform knowledge of problems, constraints and opportunities in the area. This process has identified issues regarding the operation of the junctions on the A90 in the vicinity of Laurencekirk. A number of proposed options have been identified in the STAG appraisal including road based measures. A traffic model will be developed in order to aid in the appraisal of these options. This note sets out the modelling methodology to be adopted for the study. Purpose of Traffic Model: The traffic model will be required in order to test proposed improvement options identified in the emerging STAG assessment to be undertaken as part of the Access to Laurencekirk study. Of the options identified during the initial appraisal, the following may require to be assessed through traffic modelling: • Junction improvement at A90/ A937 (Laurencekirk North Junction): the proposed options include amendment to the existing priority junction layout, central reserve closure and grade separation; • Junction improvement at A90/ B9120 (Laurencekirk Central Junction): the proposed options include amendment to the existing priority junction layout, central reserve closure and grade separation; and • Junction improvement at A90/ A937 (Laurencekirk South Junction): the proposed options include grade separation. The traffic model would be used in order to assess performance of the options against some of the transport planning objectives developed for the Access to Laurencekirk STAG. The planning objectives against which the traffic model could provide information for are indicated by Table 1 overleaf. Table 1: Transport Planning Objectives Draft Transport Planning Objective Draft Indicator

Driver Behaviour: To achieve a significant improvement in • Variance in delay in seconds to stop the attitude towards safety at the A90 Laurencekirk line on A90 side arms at Laurencekirk Junctions by reducing the delay and improving the junctions opportunities to cross the A90.

Efficiency of the Network and Economic Development: To • Change in Total Junction Delays for side-road traffic at A90 achieve an improvement in network efficiency experienced Laurencekirk junctions by traffic travelling on the A90 and accessing and crossing • Change in veh_hrs on A90 for strategic traffic against 2014 the A90 at the Laurencekirk junctions in order to support observed sustainable economic growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the north of Angus. • Change in veh_km due to trip diversions against 2014 observed (as proxy for change in carbon footprint)

Laurencekirk High Street: To seek to develop the role of the • Change in through trips on High High Street’s role as a central place for the continued vitality Street of the Laurencekirk community.

2 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

In order to address the option testing described above, the traffic model should be able to facilitate the assessment of the following issues: • Traffic flows and delays at the A90/ A937 junctions and the A90/B9120 junction; • Operation of the High Street in Laurencekirk; • The impact of committed development and future traffic growth on network operation; and • Changes in network operation due to potential interventions at this part of the network.

Traffic surveys in the area surrounding Laurencekirk were commissioned as part of the STAG study. A detailed description of traffic surveys undertaken as part of the Access to Laurencekirk STAG is provided in the Survey Specification note dated 19 March 2014. The surveys included: • 17 Manual Classified Counts (MCC); • 17 Queue Length Locations; • Delay Analysis at Laurencekirk North, Central and South junctions; • 7 Temporary Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC); • 9 Journey Time Routes; and • Parking Survey. Information on network operation and travel behaviour in the area surrounding Laurencekirk has also been obtained through stakeholder engagement. This has included 2 workshops, an open day, one to one meetings and ad-hoc feedback from the public. The following actual and perceived traffic and network operation issues were identified during the stakeholder engagement and/or data collection process for the STAG assessment and may manifest in the present and/or future: • Peak traffic volumes at Laurencekirk and the nearby A90 junctions occur during the following time periods – 07:00 to 08:30 and 16:30 to 18:00; • Vehicles can experience delay at the at-grade junctions on the A90 near to Laurencekirk. A queue of up to around 18 vehicles in length has been recorded on the A937 northbound approach at the junction with the A90 during the AM peak period. This was the largest queue recorded at the A90 Laurencekirk junctions during the data collection process; • Vehicles can experience delay when using the High Street in Laurencekirk and there are concerns over the potential impact of any increase in traffic volumes in future; • New development in the Kincardine and Mearns area and in Angus has the potential to increase travel demand through the A90 at-grade junctions at Laurencekirk; and • Stakeholders from the local community have indicated that they can change travel behaviour due to the operation of the A90 at-grade junctions at Laurencekirk. Specifically, some local residents stated that they did not like pulling out from the side arms onto or across the A90. In particular, people rerouted to avoid the A937/ A90 southern junction, specifically the right turn from the A937 to the A90. Stated changes to travel behaviour included re-routing to avoid the junctions and trip suppression. Concern over safety was the most frequently given reason by local residents for any change in travel behaviour. However, delay on the A937 was also given as a reason. Potential for Rerouting and Suppressed Demand During consultation, local residents named the following routes as alternatives to using the A90 at grade junctions near to Laurencekirk (the three non-A90 routes are also indicated by Figure 1): • B966 between Laurencekirk and Stonehaven; • B966 between Laurencekirk and Brechin; • A92 between Montrose and Stonehaven; and • A90 at grade junctions not adjacent to Laurencekirk.

4 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Figure 1: Alternative Routes

ATC Data Temporary ATC locations were surveyed as part of this study during March 2014. The ATC locations are indicated by Figure 2 and include some of the alternative routes mentioned by local residents during consultation.

Figure 2: ATC Locations

Table 2 indicates the surveyed traffic flow data at the ATC locations: Table 2: ATC Traffic Flows Two-Way Traffic Volume (Weekday Average)

ATC Location 24 Hour AM Peak Hour* PM Peak Hour*

A – A937 (Between Marykirk and Laurencekirk) 3,648 236 385

B – B9120 Blackiemuir Avenue 1,020 71 117

C – Fordoun Road 1,133 81 118

D – High Street, Laurencekirk 3,982 276 377

E – B966 (Between Edzell and Laurencekirk) 910 54 95

F – B966 (Between Laurencekirk and Auchenblae) 303 25 29

G – Unnamed Road (North of Glenbervie) 131 7 11 *Note: The specific peak hour identified at each location varies. Table 2 indicates that traffic volumes recorded at the ATC locations are low. Therefore, even if a relatively high proportion of vehicles on these links are rerouting to avoid the A90 at grade junctions, the absolute volume of traffic doing so would be low.

6 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Turn Count Data Turn counts have been recorded over a 13 hour period at junctions in the study area. The turn count survey data includes the A90 junctions at Laurencekirk and the alternative access points onto the A90 to the south. The side arm traffic flows at the three A90 junctions at Laurencekirk are indicated by Table 3. This data indicates that demands on the side arms are relatively low. The survey data also indicates the tidal nature of flows on the A90 with the northbound movement towards Aberdeen greatest in the AM period with the southbound greater in the PM. Table 3: Traffic Flows at A90 Laurencekirk Junctions (Vehicles) Junction Approach 13 Hour AM Peak PM Peak 0600-1900 0700-0800 1630-1730 A937 1,468 192 120 Farm Access 11 2 0 A90 North A90 Northbound 9,609 1,481 495 Junction A90 Southbound 11,369 484 1,906 Total Flow 22,457 2,159 2,521 Garvock Road 777 66 110 B9120 370 43 30 A90 Central A90 Northbound 9,793 1,498 520 Junction A90 Southbound 10,145 429 1,693 Total Flow 21,085 2,036 2,353 A937 North 1,102 86 82 A937 South 1,605 166 115 A90 South A90 Northbound 9,207 1,447 495 Junction A90 Southbound 10,509 457 1,753 Total Flow 22,423 2,156 2,445

The A92 between Montrose and Stonehaven is also covered by turn count data. This is the main alternative route to the A90 between these two towns. Table 4 indicates surveyed traffic volumes on the A937 and the A92, these are the two main routes from Montrose to the north. This will allow a comparison of flows on the main route from Montrose to the A90 and on the A92, the main alternative for travelling to/ from the north.

Table 4: A937 and A92 Traffic Volumes (Vehicles) A937 (South of Marykirk) A92 (West of B9120) Time Period Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound

13 Hour 06:00-19:00 1,883 2,069 1,986 1,918

AM Peak 07:00-08:00 242 126 227 109

PM Peak 16:30-17:30 140 338 178 330

The data summarised in Table 4 indicates that traffic volumes on the A937 and the A92 are similar and relatively low, the northbound movement is greatest in the AM period and the southbound is highest in the PM. The northbound flow is slightly higher than the southbound direction over the 13 hour survey period on the A92 whilst the opposite is true on the A937. When considering the data in Table 4, it should be noted that the A937 and A92 provide for local access and do not solely carry through trips. Analysis of Potential Routing Patterns During stakeholder consultation, it was highlighted that a number of drivers may be avoiding using the A90 at grade junctions due to concerns over safety and/ or delay. Consultees stated that they did not like to pull out from the side arms onto the A90, this was perceived to be a particular problem at the A90/ A937 southern junction. The turning count survey data has been analysed in order to determine if there is a discrepancy in the vehicles turning right out of the A937 to the A90 and the number making the corresponding left turn in. This might be an indicator of the number of vehicles avoiding making the right turn out from the A937 approach from Marykirk/ Montrose. Surveyed turning movements at the A937/ A90 and the potential alternative routes that could be used by traffic heading north from Montrose and the surrounding area are indicated by Table 5. The location of the turn counts in Table 5 is indicated by Figure 3. These turn counts provide a screenline covering the north-south movement from Montose/ Marykirk to the north. 1. A90/B974 2. A90/Landends/Unnamed Road 3. A90/A937 4. A92/B9210

8 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Figure 3: Turn Count Locations

Table 5: Turning Movement Comparison (Vehicles) Junction Turning Movement 13 Hour 0600-1900 AM Peak 0700-0800 PM Peak 1630-1730

Right Turn from the 1,051 122 72 A90/ A937 South A937 to the A90 Junction Left Turn from the 1,443 76 296 A90 to the A937

Right Turn to the A90 133 45 5 A90/ Landends/ northbound Unnamed Road Left Turn from the 46 5 7 A90 southbound

Right Turn to the A90 120 44 5 northbound A90/ B974 Left Turn from the 25 9 1 A90 southbound

Northbound 1,978 227 178 A92/ B9120 Southbound 1,902 111 330

To North 3,282 438 260 Total Flows Across From North 3,416 201 634 Screenline Difference 134 -237 374

It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions on routing from an analysis of turn count data. However, it is possible to infer some potential routing behaviour based on the traffic flow data. The 13 hour turn counts show that the number of vehicles turning left from the A90 onto the A937 is around 400 higher than the number that makes the corresponding right turn. If it was assumed that the 1,443 vehicles recorded making the left turn represents part of a two-way trip, up to around 400 vehicles may be rerouting to avoid making the right turn from the A937 to the A90. This suggests that of traffic travelling south to north, approximately 400 vehicles over the 13 hour period are avoiding the right turn onto the A90 from the A937. The 400 vehicles is equivalent to around 25-30% of the volume of vehicles making the corresponding left turn. This suggests that a relatively high proportion of vehicles that could be using the A937 to turn right onto the A90 may be avoiding it, however, the absolute volume of vehicles doing so is low. The surveyed turn counts also indicate a higher right than left turn for the 13 hour period at the A90 junctions to the south of the A90/ A937 Laurencekirk south junction. This indicates that of the 400 vehicles avoiding the right turn at the A937/ A90 junction, around 250 of these drivers could be using the two at grade junctions located to the south: • A90/ Landends/ Unnamed Road; and • A90/ B974 In addition, the northbound flow on the A92 is around 80 vehicles higher than the southbound direction over the 13 hour survey period. This could account for another 80 of the 400 vehicles that may be avoiding the right turn. 134 vehicles are unaccounted for in the calculation contained in Table 5. It is important to note that this remaining difference in vehicle numbers could have been caused in several ways, including one or more of the following reasons: • Surveys cover 13 hour period, not the full day, and would therefore not capture all two-way trips; • Gap in survey screenline; • Vehicles not making a return trip during that particular day; • Vehicles making outward or return trips via routes not covered by the survey data; and • Margin of error in survey. Queue Length Data Queue length surveys were undertaken at the junctions within the study area. At the A90 junctions near to Laurencekirk, the three longest recorded queues are indicated by Figures 4, 5 and 6. Figure 4 shows the queue length at the right turn filter on the A90 southbound carriageway at the Laurencekirk northern junction which peaks at 7 vehicles at around 16:40.

10 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Figure 4: A90 Right Turn Queue – Laurencekirk Northern Junction A90/A937 Northern Junction A90 Northern Arm Right Turn to A937 Queue Length (Vehicles) 8

NumberVehicles of 2

06:05 06:30 06:55 07:20 07:45 08:10 08:35 09:00 09:25 09:50 10:15 10:40 11:05 11:30 11:55 12:20 12:45 13:10 13:35 14:00 14:25 14:50 15:15 15:40 16:05 16:30 16:55 17:20 17:45 18:10 18:35 19:00

Figure 5 shows the queue length on the A937 northbound approach to the A90/ A937 southern junction which peaks at 18 vehicles at around 06:30. The average queue during the AM period (06:00-09:00) is 9 vehicles, during the PM period it is 5 vehicles. Figure 5: A937 Queue Length – Northbound Approach from Montrose/Marykirk A90/A937 Southern Junction A937 Southern Arm Queue Length (Vehicles) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Number Vehicles of 4 2 0

06:05 06:30 06:55 07:20 07:45 08:10 08:35 09:00 09:25 09:50 10:15 10:40 11:05 11:30 11:55 12:20 12:45 13:10 13:35 14:00 14:25 14:50 15:15 15:40 16:05 16:30 16:55 17:20 17:45 18:10 18:35 19:00

Figure 6 overleaf shows the queue length on the A937 southbound approach to the A90/A937 southern junction which peaks at 17 vehicles at around 17:20. The average queue during the AM period (06:00- 09:00) is 2 vehicles, during the PM period it is 4 vehicles.

Figure 6: A937 Queue Length – Southbound Approach from Laurencekirk A90/A937 Southern Junction A937 Northern Arm Queue Length (Vehicles) 18

6 Number Vehicles of 4

06:05 06:30 06:55 07:20 07:45 08:10 08:35 09:00 09:25 09:50 10:15 10:40 11:05 11:30 11:55 12:20 12:45 13:10 13:35 14:00 14:25 14:50 15:15 15:40 16:05 16:30 16:55 17:20 17:45 18:10 18:35 19:00

The survey data indicates that queue lengths at the junctions within the study area are relatively low. It is considered that the level of queuing and delay revealed by the survey data would mean that any rerouting based on these factors may be limited. However, drivers may perceive that the queues are significant as they occur in a rural area. Junction Delay Delay experienced by vehicles when using the A90/ A937 southern junction has been surveyed during the weekday period. The survey included delays on approach to the side arm stopline and also in the central reserve. Delay data for the A937 south to A90 north movement is summarised in Table 6. Table 6: Delay per Vehicle - A937 South to A90 North Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve Turning Time Periods Average Delay Maximum Average Delay Maximum Movement Delay Delay 06:00-07:00 00:15 02:05 01:19 02:46 07:00-08:00 00:30 01:23 02:37 05:07 A937 Southern 09:00-10:00 00:09 00:44 01:34 03:06 Arm to A90 Eastern Arm 06:00-10:00 00:18 02:05 01:47 05:07 (Right Turn 16:00-17:00 00:03 00:17 01:18 03:59 Movement onto the A90) 17:00-18:00 00:03 00:12 01:06 02:37 18:00-19:00 00:02 00:12 00:24 00:43 16:00-19:00 00:03 00:17 00:59 03:59

12 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Delay data for the A937 south to A937 north movement is summarised in Table 7: Table 7: Delay per Vehicle - A937 South to A937 North Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve Turning Time Periods Average Delay Maximum Average Delay Maximum Movement Delay Delay 06:00-07:00 00:18 01:25 01:51 02:47 07:00-08:00 00:19 00:47 03:02 03:48 A937 Southern 09:00-10:00 00:09 00:21 01:15 02:12 Arm to A937 Northern Arm 06:00-10:00 00:15 01:25 01:59 03:48 (Straight Through 16:00-17:00 00:06 00:18 01:25 03:20 Movement to Laurencekirk) 17:00-18:00 00:05 00:11 00:39 03:39 18:00-19:00 00:03 00:10 00:25 00:41 16:00-19:00 00:04 00:18 00:51 03:39

Delay data for the A937 north to A90 north movement is summarised in Table 8: Table 8: Delay per Vehicle - A937 North to A90 South Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve Turning Time Periods Average Delay Maximum Average Delay Maximum Movement Delay Delay 06:00-07:00 00:00 00:00 00:46 02:03 07:00-08:00 00:02 00:10 00:44 01:40 A937 Southern 09:00-10:00 00:12 00:59 00:25 01:17 Arm to A90 Eastern Arm 06:00-10:00 00:06 00:59 00:37 02:03 (Right Turn 16:00-17:00 00:10 00:28 01:01 03:32 Movement onto the A90) 17:00-18:00 00:35 01:42 01:12 02:13 18:00-19:00 00:03 00:12 00:10 00:19 16:00-19:00 00:16 01:42 00:49 03:32

Delay data for the A937 north to A937 south movement is summarised in Table 9:

Table 9: Delay per Vehicle - A937 North to A937 South Central Reserve Only Cumulative Delay at Side Arm Give Way and Central Reserve Turning Time Periods Average Delay Maximum Average Delay Maximum Movement Delay Delay 06:00-07:00 00:00 00:00 00:21 00:37 07:00-08:00 00:05 00:20 00:15 00:28 A937 Southern 09:00-10:00 00:04 00:10 00:30 01:19 Arm to A90 Eastern Arm 06:00-10:00 00:04 00:20 00:23 01:19 (Right Turn 16:00-17:00 00:24 01:24 00:43 01:37 Movement onto the A90) 17:00-18:00 00:21 00:46 01:15 03:00 18:00-19:00 00:06 00:25 00:13 00:28 16:00-19:00 00:17 01:24 00:46 03:00

The data in Tables 6 to 9 indicates that the average delay recorded during the surveys was highest between 07:00-08:00 on the straight through movement on the A937 at the A90 Laurencekirk southern junction with a delay of around 3 minutes. Journey Times Journey time surveys have been undertaken in the study area. Surveyed journey times on the two main routes between Montrose and Stonehaven are indicated by Table 10. The data in Table 10 demonstrates that the journey times via the A937-A90 and A92 area similar. In ‘free-flow’ conditions the survey data suggests that travelling via the A937-A90 route is around 2 to 3 minutes quicker than travelling via the A92. However, the addition of delays on the A937-A90 during the peak hours results in journey times via the two routes being within 1 minute of each other. This indicates that the both routes would be attractive for journeys between Montrose and the north. Table 10: Surveyed Journey Times between Montrose and Stonehaven via A937-A90 and A92 Difference between A937-90 A937-A90 A92 and A92 (seconds) Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound 06:00- 0:25:15 0:24:32 00:27:02 00:25:59 -126.9 -102.9 07:00 07:00- 0:27:49 0:24:30 00:27:45 00:27:15 5.4 -194.6 08:00 08:00- 0:27:32 0:25:15 00:27:58 00:27:56 -31.2 -189.6 09:00 16:00- 0:27:18 0:26:34 00:26:37 00:27:28 48.4 -63.3 17:00 17:00- 0:27:05 0:27:07 00:26:45 00:26:28 23.6 45.9 18:00 18:00- 0:25:41 0:25:41 00:25:45 00:26:01 -4.7 -24.6 19:00

14 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Summary of Survey Data Analysis The traffic survey data collected for this study indicates that the absolute number of vehicles that may be rerouting would be small. Analysis of queues and delays suggests that congestion experienced at the A90 at grade junctions is limited. However, journey times on the A937 and the A92 are similar and therefore there is a potential for switching between the routes. It is likely that the removal of delay at the A937/A90 junction would have some influence on this. Consideration of surveyed traffic flow data suggests that the volume of vehicles that could be rerouting would be low. With the exception of the A90, recorded traffic volumes in the study area are low. If suppressed demand is occurring, it would need to raise flows by a very high proportion in order to lead to a large change in the absolute number of vehicles. Recommended Approach It is recommended that an S-Paramics microsimulation model is developed in order to fulfil the study requirements. The network area for the S-Paramics model will be focussed on the local area surrounding Laurencekirk and Marykirk due to the lack of potential for wider rerouting. S-Paramics will enable a detailed operational assessment of the key junctions within the study area and the proposed improvement measures emerging from the STAG. The assignment capabilities of the S- Paramics software will enable routing issues within the study area to be analysed. A fixed trip matrix assumption will be adopted for the modelling as the traffic volumes in the study area mean that realistic estimates for supressed demand are unlikely to have a significant impact on network operation. Economic appraisal of options will be undertaken using the Program for Economic Assessment of Road Schemes (PEARS) and an accident only Network Evaluation from Survey and Assignment (NESA) model. Future Year demands will be informed by data from the strategic Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM4A).

ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 15 COPYRIGHT 2015 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY . Paramics Model Parameters

The Paramics model of Laurencekirk will be developed for a base year of 2014. The model will be developed using version 2013.1 of the S-Paramics software. The network coding stage of the model development will be facilitated by a digitised Ordnance Survey map of the area. The following modelled scenarios will be prepared: • 2014 Base; • 2018 Opening Year Do-Minimum; • 2018 Opening Year Do-Something (to reflect options from emerging STAG/ DMRB assessment); • 2033 Design Year Do-Minimum; and • 2033 Design Year Do-Something (to reflect options from emerging STAG/DMRB assessment). The following time periods will be modelled: • AM Weekday Peak Period: 06:00-09:00; and • PM Weekday Peak Period: 16:00-19:00. The traffic modelling will be undertaken on a fixed trip basis, this will allow PEARS to be used for the economic appraisal of the proposed options. The following matrix levels will be applied within the model: • Matrix Level 1 – Lights; and • Matrix Level 2 – Heavies. Public transport service buses will be added to the model on a fixed route basis according to published timetables. Network coverage of the Paramics model is indicated by the red shaded area in Figure 7 overleaf.

16 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY

Figure 7: Paramics Model Network Coverage

The demands for the model will be developed from turning count surveys that will be undertaken as part of the project. Constraints will be applied to the matrix development in order to control the number of trips from the zones that are not covered by turning count data. These will be some of the internal zones within Laurencekirk. With regard to route hierarchy, the A90 and A937 will be coded with ‘major’ link types whilst the remainder of the modelled network will be classified as ‘minor’ link types. All model parameters specified above will be subject to ongoing review as part of the calibration process. Due to limitations in the modelling software, the model will not be able to directly replicate some of the activities on the High Street such as on-street parking, informal pedestrian movements, vehicle loading and some of the impacts of road width restrictions. This means that the model will not be able to directly simulate operating conditions on the High Street such as journey times and vehicle speeds. As such, it may be necessary to manually adjust speed limits within the model on the High Street links in order to reflect observed data. The model will be calibrated based on the link and junction turning count information collected for the study. A comparison will also be made between modelled and surveyed queue lengths. The survey data will also be used to prepare release profiles for traffic in 5 minute intervals. These profiles will be applied in order to load traffic demand onto the modelled network. The journey time surveys will provide an independent set of traffic data and will therefore be used in the validation of the model. DMRB guidelines state that any data used in model validation must not have been used in matrix building or network calibration. The calibration and validation of the model will be reported in accordance with the guidance specified in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 12a. Traffic Survey Data for Paramics Model From the overall survey dataset, the following set of data will be used in the development of the Paramics model.

All traffic survey data was collected during the neutral months of March and May 2014 on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. The following survey data was collected in 5 minute intervals between 06:00- 19:00 on a weekday: • Manual Classified Counts (MCC) – manual counts recording turning movements by vehicle, data from the following locations will be used in the model: • A90/ A937/ Farm Access (North of Laurencekirk); • A90/ B9120; • A90/ A937 (South of Laurencekirk); • High Street/ Aberdeen Rd/ Conveth Pl/Alma Pl; • High Street/ Blackiemuir Avenue (include Frain Dr); • A90/ Landends Staggered priority junction; and • B974/ A90 Junction. • Queue Length – Queue length surveys recording total vehicles queuing at the MCC locations • Delay Analysis – Delay time at the A90 Laurencekirk south and north junction. • Journey Times (JT) – Journey time surveys were collected on 9 routes between 06:00-19:00 with a minimum of 5 runs per hour. The Coverage of the journey time routes includes the following locations within the Paramics model network coverage: • A90; • A937; and • High Street. Future Year Development Future year models will be prepared for an opening year and a 15 year horizon in advance of the opening year. Demands in the future year models will be derived from ASAM. Future year forecasts in ASAM will be based on the following development scenarios: • Committed development only; and • Committed and proposed development. Committed developments being defined as those for which a planning application has been submitted. Land allocations with the Local Development Plans for Aberdeenshire and Angus will be defined as proposed developments. Sensitivity tests will be undertaken in order to assess the performance of the best performing option under different flow conditions. The following sensitivity tests will be undertaken: • Assessment of network operation with the addition of traffic rerouting from off-network. The estimate of the number of vehicles that may potentially reroute into the model are from off-network would be based upon the turn count analysis indicated by Table 5. • Assessment of the impact of seasonality on network operation. This would involve an assessment of network operation with demands factored in order to reflect any peaks in monthly demand. Consultation with NESTRANS and Aberdeenshire Council indicates that this is likely to be February or October. Seasonality of traffic flows would be assessed through analysis of ATC data from the A90.

18 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY NOTE V2/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - MODEL METHODOLOGY Reporting The following modelling reports will be produced during the study: • Calibration/Validation (Interim Report) – this report will summarise the calibration and validation of the base model; and • Final Model Development Report.

Forecasting Method Note

Access to Laurencekirk

Prepared for NESTRANS

February 2014

City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU +44 141 552 2000 +44 141 552 2525

Contents

Section Page Introduction ...... 1‐2 1.1 Background ...... 1‐3 1.2 Outline Methodology ...... 1‐3 1.3 Note Purpose ...... 1‐4 Modelled Scenarios ...... 2‐5 2.1 S‐Paramics Base Model ...... 2‐5 2.2 S‐Paramics Future Year Modelling Scenarios ...... 2‐6 2.3 Future Year Scenario Assumptions and Methodology ...... 2‐9 2.3.1 Inventory and Correspondence of ASAM and S‐Paramics models ...... 2‐9 2.3.2 Development ...... 2‐9 2.3.3 Infrastructure ...... 2‐11 Aberdeen Sub Area Model ...... 3‐13 3.1 ASAM Model Parameters ...... 3‐13 3.2 ASAM Growth Summary ...... 3‐14 3.3 Observed Growth Trend ...... 3‐16 S‐Paramics Forecast Demands ...... 4‐20 4.1 Application of ASAM Forecast to S‐Paramics Model ...... 4‐20 4.2 ASAM Data Processing ...... 4‐20 4.2.1 Modelled Time Period ...... 4‐22 4.2.2 ASAM to S‐Paramics Zoning System Assumptions ...... 4‐23 4.3 Risks in Forecasting Process ...... 4‐24

Appendixes A Development Schedule B ASAM Traffic Volume Calibration C ASAM and S‐Paramics Zone Correspondence

ANC/LAURENCEKIRK FORECASTING NOTE FINAL (4).DOCX 1-1

Document History

Forecasting Note Access to Laurencekirk NESTRANS

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1.0 14/08/2014 Draft for client review IA GB/DB DA

2.0 25/02/2015 Final IA DA MT

1. INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction

1.1 Background CH2M HILL has been appointed by NESTRANS to undertake an appraisal of Access to Laurencekirk. The study looks at access to/from the A90 trunk road and will be undertaken in accordance with Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) assessment guidance. An S‐Paramics model has been prepared for the study area for a base year of 2014 and covers the AM and PM periods. The development of this model is detailed in the Model Development Report issued in November 2014 for the study. The model has been calibrated and validated to DMRB standards and has a network coverage as shown in Figure 1: Figure 1: S‐Paramics Model Network Coverage

This model will be used to assess the performance of option packages emerging from the STAG appraisal undertaken as part of the Access to Laurencekirk study. The option packages emerging from the STAG appraisal focus on improving access to and from the A90. In order to appraise the option packages within the traffic model and to estimate the benefits that may accrue from each, it is necessary to prepare demand forecasts for the scheme opening and design years. 1.2 Outline Methodology Four future year scenarios will be prepared using demand forecasts that are based on data from a cordon area of the Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM). ASAM has been used to assign development trips to the road network for the baseline and future years. A sub area cordon was set up within ASAM that mirrored

the network coverage of the S‐Paramics model. Demands were produced for the cordon network area from ASAM and have been used to inform the forecast of future year demands for the S‐Paramics model. Demand forecasts have been prepared in ASAM for 2018 and 2033 based on two development scenarios:

 ASAM Demand Forecast 1: External Growth on the A90 and Committed Developments; and  ASAM Demand Forecast 2: External Growth on the A90, Committed and Proposed Developments. The four future year scenarios for the S‐Paramics modelling will be based on the data received for the two ASAM demand forecasts. The future year growth forecast including external growth on the A90 and committed developments only will form the core basis of the economic appraisal to be undertaken on the options emerging from the STAG appraisal. An additional four future year scenarios will be prepared that will include a range of assumptions on additional proposed developments. These forecasts will be used in order to estimate the potential benefits that could be realised with a higher level of future year demand. The four future year scenarios to be prepared are:

 Future Year Scenario 1: Background growth and committed development (excluding developments conditioned on a new A90 access);

 Future Year Scenario 2: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access);

 Future Year Scenario 3: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (expected build out rate); and

 Future Year Scenario 4: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (including accelerated build out rate for development in Laurencekirk). The committed and proposed developments to be included within the forecast have been identified through a review of planning applications, Local Development Plans and housing land audit data. The development assumptions were provided to Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council for review prior to inclusion in the forecasting exercise. Figure 3 summarises the process that has been applied when preparing the future year demand forecasts for the S‐Paramics model. 1.3 Note Purpose The purpose of this Note is to document the future year scenarios to be modelled and to detail the methodology for their preparation.

Section 2 of this note describes the parameters of the S‐Paramics base model and states the future year scenarios that will be modelled. The data received from the ASAM model is summarised in Section 3. Preparation of the forecast matrices including analysis of the ASAM data is covered in Section 4. A summary of the forecast matrices prepared for the S‐Paramics models is also provided in Section 4.

2. MODELLED SCENARIOS 2. Modelled Scenarios

2.1 S-Paramics Base Model This section of the note summarises the main characteristics of the S‐Paramics base model and lists the forecast scenarios that will be prepared. The base S‐Paramics model has been developed with a network coverage that includes Laurencekirk and the A90 as it passes the town. The model includes the A937 from Marykirk to the A90. The network coverage of the model also includes the B974 and an unclassified road that can be used as an alternative to the A937 when accessing the A90. The base model has been prepared for a year of 2014 and covers the following time periods:  AM Weekday – 06:00‐09:00; and  PM Weekday – 16:00‐19:00. The model contains three main matrix levels:  Matrix 1: Light Vehicles (Cars and LGVs);  Matrix 2: Heavy Vehicles (MGVs, HGVs and Coaches); and  Matrix Level 3: Cars (extra trips added to matrix in order to simulate A937 to A90 via B974). Matrix level 3 contains trips between one origin‐destination (O‐D) pair (zone 3 to zone 1) and was added in order to model the use of the B974 as an alternative to the A937. The car vehicle type in matrix level 3 has the same dynamics as that in Matrix Level 1. During consultation for the Access to Laurencekirk study, some members of the public stated that they chose routes for their journeys that allowed them to avoid using the A90/A937 junction to the south of Laurencekirk. Analysis of surveyed traffic data indicated that this would likely include the B974. However, the generalised cost travel via the B974 is too high in the model for many vehicles to assign this way rather than using the alternatives. It should be noted that in practice, drivers may be choosing to reroute via the B974 due to safety concerns rather than to avoid delay. It would not be possible to model this route choice using a time and distance based generalised cost equation. Therefore, the extra matrix level, vehicle type and route restrictions were added to the model in order to represent this route choice. Options that may improve the perception of safety at the A90/A937 junction could be tested with and without the restriction in place in order to estimate the benefit that may occur due to traffic re‐routing. Public transport service buses were added to the model on a fixed route basis according to published timetables. The network coverage and zoning system of the S‐Paramics model is indicated by Figure 2.

Figure 2: S‐Paramics Model Network Coverage

2.2 S-Paramics Future Year Modelling Scenarios The modelling will be undertaken on a Fixed Trip Matrix (FTM) basis. The Program for Economic Assessment of Road Schemes (PEARS) will be used in order to appraise the option packages. A range of scenario tests will be undertaken on the best performing option in order to assess the range of benefits that may occur under different flow conditions. The assessment years for the modelling and economic appraisal are:

 2018 Opening Year; and  2033 Design Year. There are four growth forecasts which will be prepared for the future year scenarios of 2018 and 2033 as follows:

 Future Year Scenario 1: Background growth and committed development (excluding developments conditioned on a new A90 access);

 Future Year Scenario 2: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access);

 Future Year Scenario 3: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (expected build out rate); and 2. MODELLED SCENARIOS

 Future Year Scenario 4: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (including accelerated build out rate for development in Laurencekirk). All the option packages emerging from the initial stage of the STAG appraisal will be assessed with the Future Year Scenario 1 demands. This assessment of the option packages under Future Year Scenario 1 will form the core economic analysis and will be reported in the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) section of the STAG document. The best performing option package will then be tested with the remaining Forecast Scenarios above in order to provide a range of benefits that may be accrued under alternative growth scenarios. The results of the testing undertaken based on Future Year Scenario 2, 3, and 4 will be reported in the Risk and Uncertainty section of the STAG document. Demands from ASAM have been used as the basis for the preparation of all 4 of the Future Year demand scenarios. The methodology to prepare the Future Year demands is outlined in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Methodology to Prepare Future Year Demands

Development Planning Data Kincardine and Montrose Area 2014 S‐Paramics Model Validated Base ‐ Demands ‐ Committed Development ‐ Land Allocations

ASAM Forecast Demands for 2010, 2018 and 2033

ASAM Data Processing ‐ Convert from 1 hour to 3 hour ‐ ASAM to S‐Paramics Zone Correspondence

Apply ASAM Data to S‐Paramics Matrices ‐ Absolute trip numbers for development in Laurencekirk ‐ Growth Factors on existing trips

Future Year Scenario 2: 2018 and 2033 Future Year Scenario 3: 2018 and 2033 Committed Development Scenario Committed and Proposed Development Demands for S‐Paramics Model Scenario Demands for S‐Paramics Model

Remove Montrose Airfield and High Street Add Trips for Additional Residential Units at Development from Committed Forecast M1 Site

Future Year Scenario 1: 2018 and 2033 Future Year Scenario 4: 2018 and 2033 Committed Development Scenario Committed and Proposed Development Demands for S‐Paramics Model Scenario Demands for S‐Paramics Model 2. MODELLED SCENARIOS

2.3 Future Year Scenario Assumptions and Methodology 2.3.1 Inventory and Correspondence of ASAM and S-Paramics models Table 1 lists the ASAM demand forecasts and the correspondence with the S‐Paramics Future Year scenarios. Table 1: ASAM and S‐Paramics Forecasts Modelled Years ASAM S‐Paramics Future Year Models

ASAM Demand Forecast 1: External Future Year Scenario 1 Growth on the A90 and Committed Development Future Year Scenario 2 2018 and 2033 ASAM Demand Forecast 2: External Future Year Scenario 3 Growth on the A90 and Committed and Proposed Development Future Year Scenario 4

2.3.2 Development The site relocation of Mearns Academy will be included in all S‐Paramics Future Year model scenarios. Future Year Scenario 1: In order to prepare Future Year Scenario 1, it will be necessary to remove the trips associated with the Montrose Airfield and the development at the southern end of Laurencekirk located between the A937 and the A90 from the ASAM Demand Forecast 1 as these are committed developments dependent on the new A90 junction. The developments are defined as dependant according to the definition contained in TAG Unit A2.3: ‘Dependent development refers to new development that is dependent on the provision of a transport scheme and for which, with the new development but in absence of the transport scheme, the existing transport network would not provide a reasonable level of service to existing and/or new users. This has the implication that the development would not be delivered in the absence of the transport scheme’. Montrose Airfield (All references are to the ASAM zone numbers): The Montrose Airfield development includes 100,000sqm of employment floorspace and is a mixture of Class 4, 5 and 6 land uses. It is not possible to directly identify the trips associated with the Montrose Airfield development in the demand data received from ASAM. This is because the Airfield site is included in a zone together with demands from base land uses and other developments, these are a mixture of trip generators and attractors. Through a set of assumptions, it is possible to estimate the level of trip attraction at the Montrose Airfield site. The level of trip attraction for the Airfield site would be estimated based on the proportion of employment land that the site contains relative to the total amount in the zone. This method would enable the trip attraction at the Airfield site to be estimated. These trips would then be removed from the model. Trips associated with the Montrose Airfield development would be added back into Future Year Scenarios 2 to 4 based on the Transport Assessment prepared for the development. Laurencekirk Residential Development (All references are to the ASAM zone numbers): The development in Laurencekirk that is to be removed from the forecast has 75 residential units. It is included within ASAM zone 3, this zone include other developments and base trips. It is possible to estimate the generation and distribution of trips through reference to the demands in Zone 4. This zone contains the EH1 residential development (201 units).

Both zone 3 and 4 are located at the southern end of Laurencekirk. If it is assumed that the type of residential units built at both developments will be similar then the demands in zone 4 would form a reasonable basis to estimate the demands of the 75 unit development. The demand from zone 3 would be used to estimate the demand for the 75 unit development based on a pro‐rata reduction from the current 201 units. The demands would be removed from zone 4 based on the distribution of trips applied at zone 3. This method assumes that the trips estimated and removed for the 75 unit housing development would not be replaced elsewhere. Future Year Scenarios 2 and 3: Demand forecasts have been prepared in ASAM for 2018 and 2033 based on two development scenarios:

 ASAM Demand Forecast 1: External Growth on the A90 and Committed Developments; and  ASAM Demand Forecast 2: External Growth on the A90, Committed and Proposed Developments. Future Year Scenario 2 in the S‐Paramics modelling work would be based on ASAM Demand Forecast 1. ASAM Demand Forecast 2 (External Growth, Committed and Proposed Development) contains the development traffic included in the S‐Paramics Future Year Scenario 3. In order to input into the demand forecasting undertaken in ASAM, a list of future developments was identified based on a review of planning application data, Local Development Plans and housing land audit data. The list was issued to Aberdeenshire Council and Angus Council for review and verification. The list of developments included those within the Aberdeenshire and Angus Council areas that could have a significant impact on traffic flows in the study area. The planning status of each of the developments contained within the lists was ascertained. Developments for which a planning application had been submitted were categorised as committed for the purposes of preparing the ASAM demand forecasts. Those developments for which a planning application had not been submitted were categorised as proposed. The finalised list of developments is shown in Appendix A. A summary of the total level of development included within the growth forecasts is indicated by Table 2 for residential development and Table 3 for employment development. Table 2: Residential Development Summary Number of Residential Units

Location Development Category 2018 2033

Committed Development 860 5,222

Aberdeenshire Council Area Proposed Development 361 1,849

Total 1,221 7,071

Committed Development 155 631 Angus Council Area Proposed Development 45 449 (Montrose and Hillside Only) Total 200 1,080

Within the Aberdeenshire Council area, 4,045 of the committed development residential units are located at the Elsick site to the north of Stonehaven. This is equivalent to just under 80% of the committed development assumed for the Aberdeenshire Council area. The level of employment development included within the ASAM forecasts is summarised in Table 3. 2. MODELLED SCENARIOS

Table 3: Employment Development Summary Location Development Category Employment Area (ha)

Committed Development 5.5

Aberdeenshire Council Area Proposed Development 12.5

Total 18

Committed Development 12.24 Angus Council Area Proposed Development 12.3 (Montrose and Hillside Only) Total 24.54

Forecast Scenario 4 (All zone references are to the ASAM model): This forecast scenario will see the number of residential units at the M1 development site at the northern end of Laurencekirk increase from 570 to 885. The figure of 885 represents the full level of development that could be achieved at the site. Including all units at the site within the forecast reflects an assumption that the build out rate would increase from 30 to approximately 46 units per year. The M1 development is included within a zone in ASAM that is a mixture of trip generators and attractors. It is therefore considered preferable to use another development zone to estimate the increase in demand due to the extra residential units. The increased trip generation for the extra residential units would be based on the level of demand per unit at zone 4 (EH1 development zone). It is assumed that the residential development in EH1 would contain similar unit types to those in site M1. Both zones are located in Laurencekirk and represent areas approximately 1km apart. The trip distribution from zone 4 would be maintained when the trips associated with the additional residential units are added to the M1 zone. Given that the trip distribution for the existing residential development will be maintained, this method assumes that extra trip attractors would be available in each zone in line with the increase in generated demand. 2.3.3 Infrastructure Aberdeenshire Council and NESTRANS have advised that there are no committed transport infrastructure improvements within the area of network coverage for any of the design years of 2018 and 2033 to be added in to the modelling. Changes to the modelled network will be required in order to provide access to the committed and proposed developments. Laurencekirk LDP Site EH1: Blackiemuir Road Site EH1 has been identified for 210 houses within the LDP, access to the site will be coded into the traffic model via a ghost island priority junction with Blackiemuir Road. This change will be included in the 2018 and 2033 modelled scenarios. Laurencekirk LDP Site M1: Fordoun Road and Aberdeen Road A Transport Assessment has not yet been published for the M1 site at Laurencekirk. The M1 site is allocated for up to 885 houses and 16 ha of employment land. Therefore, the information in the ‘Laurencekirk Development Framework’ document dated September 2013 and prepared by Ryden LLP on behalf of Kirkwood Homes Ltd and A&J Stephen has been used as the basis for identifying the M1 site access measures to go into the S‐Paramics model.

In consultation with Aberdeenshire Council, a build out rate of 30 units per annum for the M1 site has been assumed with a starting year of 2014. By 2033 this gives 570 completed units. Future Year scenario 4 will be undertaken on the full build out of 885 units. Access to the M1 site will be coded into the model as per the layout plans in the ‘Laurencekirk Development Framework’:

 2018 Modelled Scenarios – Two ghost island priority junctions added to Fordoun Road. These are the access points for phase 1 of the development.

 2033 Modelled Scenarios – A priority junction will be added to Aberdeen Road to provide access to Phases 2 and 3 of the development. Details of the junction layout are not provided in the ‘Laurencekirk Development Framework’ document. For the purposes of the traffic modelling it has been assumed that the access will be a staggered ghost island priority junction. As per the indicative site masterplan, a road link will be coded into the model between the Fordoun Road and Aberdeen Road access junctions. ABERDEEN SUB AREA MODEL Aberdeen Sub Area Model

3.1 ASAM Model Parameters SYSTRA were commissioned to provide demand data from the Aberdeen Sub Area Model (ASAM4) for two cordon areas. The work taken to update the ASAM model is detailed in the ‘Laurencekirk A90 Intersection Appraisal: ASAM Model Update’ document issued by SYSTRA on the 30th October 2014. The update included a small cordon which matched the network coverage of the S‐Paramics model and a wider cordon that include Montrose, Stonehaven and the A92. As part of this work, local calibration was undertaken within ASAM for the study area. Traffic flow calibration from ASAM in the local area of the study is included in Appendix B. As part of the ASAM update, calibration was undertaken for the network coverage of the study area. This included uplifting the 2010 baseline to 2014 surveyed traffic flow levels. Future year forecasts were developed within ASAM based upon the list of committed and proposed developments prepared for the Access to Laurencekirk study. The following data has been provided from ASAM for both the small and large cordon areas:

 ASAM Demand Forecasts: o ASAM Demand Forecast 1: External Growth on the A90 and Committed Developments; and o ASAM Demand Forecast 2: External Growth on the A90, Committed and Proposed Developments.

 Modelled Years: o 2010 Baseline; and o 2018, 2033 Forecast Years.  Matrix Levels: o Light Vehicle Matrix; and o Heavy Vehicle Matrix.  Time Periods: o AM Peak Hour (based on 08:00‐09:00 survey data); and o PM Peak Hour (based on 17:00‐18:00 survey data). When preparing the forecast year models in ASAM, the following assumptions were made by SYSTRA:

 All new jobs within the employment developments would be occupied and that these would be additional to the current situation;

 New development in Montrose and Laurencekirk area will not extract from Aberdeen area; and  External growth: 1% growth per year between 2010 and 2033 on A90 has been added in addition to development traffic to represent an increase in trips from the south of the ASAM modelled area. This external growth factor is based on the assumption of continued growth in economy of Aberdeen and the surrounding area. SYSTRA derived the 1% external growth factor through an analysis of ATC data at the locations named in the ‘Laurencekirk A90 Intersection Appraisal: ASAM Model Update’ document issued on the 30th October 2014.

3.2 ASAM Growth Summary The level of growth within the ASAM small cordon network is shown by Table 4 for the Committed Development Scenario and Table 5 for the Committed and Proposed Development Scenario. Table 4: ASAM Demand Forecast 1: Committed Development (Number of Trips): AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total 2010 1,912 299 2,211 2,237 270 2,507 2018 2,201 329 2,530 2,606 299 2,905 Difference from 2010 289 30 319 369 29 398 % Difference from 2010 15.1% 10.0% 14.4% 16.5% 10.7% 15.9% 2033 2,635 404 3,039 3,104 359 3,463 Difference from 2010 723 104 828 867 89 956 % Difference from 2010 37.8% 34.9% 37.4% 38.8% 32.8% 38.1%

Table 5: ASAM Demand Forecast 2: Committed and Proposed Development (Number of Trips): AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total 2010 1,912 299 2,211 2,237 270 2,507 2018 2,285 334 2,619 2,688 303 2,991 Difference from 2010 373 35 408 451 33 484 % Difference from 2010 19.5% 11.7% 18.5% 20.2% 12.3% 19.3% 2033 2,983 426 3,409 3,470 378 3,848 Difference from 2010 1,071 127 1,199 1,233 108 1,341 % Difference from 2010 56.0% 42.5% 54.2% 55.1% 40.1% 53.5%

The growth in demands to/from the A90 and the A937 route zones during the AM period are shown in Table 6 for the Committed Development Scenario and Table 7 for the Committed and Proposed Development Scenario. Table 6: ASAM Demand Forecast 1: Committed Development AM Route Zone Trip Growth (No. of Trips): A90 South (Two‐way) A90 North (Two‐way) A937 (Two‐way) Year Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total

2010 1,237 227 1,464 1,596 292 1,888 279 55 334

2018 1,451 249 1,699 1,860 320 2,181 302 61 363 Difference 214 22 235 264 28 293 24 6 30 from 2010 Difference 17% 10% 16% 17% 10% 16% 9% 11% 9% from 2010 % 2033 1,722 315 2,036 2,273 393 2,666 402 67 469 Difference 485 87 572 677 101 778 123 12 136 from 2010 Difference 39% 38% 39% 42% 35% 41% 44% 22% 41% from 2010 % ABERDEEN SUB AREA MODEL

Table 7: ASAM Demand Forecast 2: Committed and Proposed Development AM Route Zone Trip Growth (No. of Trips): A90 South (Two‐way) A90 North (Two‐way) A937 (Two‐way) Year Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total

2010 1,237 227 1,464 1,596 292 1,888 279 55 334

2018 1,462 250 1,712 1,922 326 2,248 314 61 375 Difference 225 23 248 327 34 360 36 6 42 from 2010 Difference 18% 10% 17% 20% 12% 19% 13% 11% 12% from 2010 % 2033 1,763 318 2,080 2,510 415 2,925 412 72 484 Difference 526 91 616 914 123 1,037 134 17 150 from 2010 Difference 42% 40% 42% 57% 42% 55% 48% 30% 45% from 2010 %

The growth in demands to/from the A90 and the A937 route zones during the PM period are shown in Table 8 for the Committed Development Scenario and Table 9 for the Committed and Proposed Development Scenario. Table 8: ASAM Demand Forecast 1: Committed Development PM Route Zone Trip Growth (No. of Trips): A90 South (Two‐way) A90 North (Two‐way) A937 (Two‐way) Year Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total

2010 1,538 179 1,717 1,950 265 2,215 311 75 387

2018 1,813 199 2,012 2,303 293 2,596 343 81 424 Difference 275 20 295 353 28 381 32 6 38 from 2010 Difference 18% 11% 17% 18% 10% 17% 10% 8% 10% from 2010 % 2033 2,209 247 2,456 2,772 352 3,124 373 92 464 Difference 671 68 739 822 87 909 62 16 78 from 2010 Difference 44% 38% 43% 42% 33% 41% 20% 21% 20% from 2010 %

Table 9: ASAM Demand Forecast 2: Committed and Proposed Development PM Route Zone Trip Growth (No. of Trips): A90 South (Two‐way) A90 North (Two‐way) A937 (Two‐way) Year Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total

2010 1,538 179 1,717 1,950 265 2,215 311 75 387

2018 1,826 199 2,024 2,349 298 2,647 352 83 435 Difference 288 20 307 400 32 432 41 7 48 from 2010 Difference 19% 11% 18% 20% 12% 19% 13% 9% 12% from 2010 % 2033 2,253 248 2,501 2,990 371 3,361 420 97 516 Difference 715 69 784 1,040 106 1,146 108 21 130 from 2010 Difference 46% 39% 46% 53% 40% 52% 35% 28% 34% from 2010 %

ASAM forecasts a high level of growth on the A90 zones with increases of over 40% at the southern A90 route Zone and over 50% at the northern A90 route zone between 2010 and 2033. This equates to approximately 2% growth per annum on the A90 between the 2010 baseline and 2033. Traffic growth on the A937 is also high, particularly in the AM period at around 40% between 2010 and 2033. Growth within the ASAM matrices comes from two sources: trips associated with new development; and external growth assumptions from areas to the south of the modelled network (Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City). An external growth rate is assumed within ASAM for trips travelling between the modelled area and the south. The assumption within ASAM is for growth of 1% per annum on all trips to/from the south between 2010 and 2033. This external growth rate assumption has contributed to the high level of traffic increase. 3.3 Observed Growth Trend An analysis of Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data has been undertaken in order to identify the level of traffic growth that have occurred in recent years. This will help to place the level of growth forecast by ASAM into context. Data from the ATC location JTC00057 has been analysed for the years 2004‐2014 for data recorded in the month of May. The analysis has been undertaken for weekday data only and excludes bank holidays. The ATC is located on the A90 between Brechin and Laurencekirk. Table 10 shows the traffic flow levels recorded at the ATC between 2004 and 2014. Flows have been analysed for the one hour peak represented in ASAM and the three hour peak in the S‐Paramics model. Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) has also been identified.

ABERDEEN SUB AREA MODEL

Table 10: A90 (JTC00057) Weekday Traffic Flow 2004‐2014 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 AM 3 hr Northbound 2405 2414 2561 2939 3021 3178 3173 3185 3469 3735 3968 peak 06:00‐ Southbound 1166 1128 1104 1138 1121 1114 1109 1102 1093 1107 1173 09:00 AM 1 hr Northbound 828 833 859 928 939 973 994 977 1018 1063 1097 peak 08:00‐ Southbound 516 497 487 498 501 499 491 483 470 470 502 09:00

PM 3 hr Northbound 1671 1610 1616 1595 1576 1597 1561 1567 1568 1554 1643 peak 16:00‐ Southbound 2670 2631 2776 3019 3123 3256 3189 3243 3406 3733 4011 19:00 PM 1 hr Northbound 571 559 567 562 555 553 556 548 549 543 564 peak 17:00‐ Southbound 993 969 1041 1110 1169 1218 1192 1226 1272 1367 1457 18:00

Northbound 9439 9361 9556 10159 10152 10455 10355 10398 10949 11396 12090 AAWT Southbound 9598 9518 9702 10347 10436 10775 10527 10597 10961 11772 12609 Total 19037 18879 19258 20506 20587 21231 20882 20996 21909 23168 24699

The year on year growth rate has been calculated based on the traffic flow data recorded at JTC00057, this is indicated by Table 11. The data in Table 11 shows that the AAWT reduces slightly between 2009 and 2011 with a minor rise to 2012. The ATC data shows a significant level of growth between 2004 and 2014. Table 11: A90 (JTC00057) Year on Year % Growth Rates for Weekday Traffic Flow 2004‐ 2005‐ 2006‐ 2007‐ 2008‐ 2009‐ 2010‐ 2011‐ 2012‐ 2013‐ Year 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 AM 3 hr peak Northbound 0% 6% 15% 3% 5% 0% 0% 9% 8% 6% 06:00‐09:00 Southbound ‐3% ‐2% 3% ‐2% ‐1% 0% ‐1% ‐1% 1% 6% AM 1 hr peak Northbound 1% 3% 8% 1% 4% 2% ‐2% 4% 4% 3% 08:00‐09:00 Southbound ‐4% ‐2% 2% 1% 0% ‐1% ‐2% ‐3% 0% 7% PM 3 hr peak Northbound ‐4% 0% ‐1% ‐1% 1% ‐2% 0% 0% ‐1% 6% 16:00‐19:00 Southbound ‐1% 6% 9% 3% 4% ‐2% 2% 5% 10% 7% PM 1 hr peak Northbound ‐2% 1% ‐1% ‐1% 0% 1% ‐1% 0% ‐1% 4% 17:00‐18:00 Southbound ‐2% 7% 7% 5% 4% ‐2% 3% 4% 7% 7% 2004‐ 2005‐ 2006‐ 2007‐ 2008‐ 2009‐ 2010‐ 2011‐ 2012‐ 2013‐ Year 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Northbound ‐1% 2% 6% 0% 3% ‐1% 0% 5% 4% 6% AAWT Southbound ‐1% 2% 7% 1% 3% ‐2% 1% 3% 7% 7% Total ‐1% 2% 6% 0% 3% ‐2% 1% 4% 6% 7%

Figure 4 and 5 indicate the change in AAWT recorded at JTC00057 between 2004 and 2014. This figure demonstrates that the AAWT has risen or remained static year on year with the exception of the period between 2004‐2005 and 2009‐2010.

Figure 4: A90 (JTC00057) 2004‐2014 May AAWT

Figure 5: A90 (JTC00057) Year on Year % Change in May AAWT

Figure 6 shows the change in traffic levels by time period for the three hour modelled S‐Paramics peak for both the northbound and southbound directions. ABERDEEN SUB AREA MODEL

Figure 6: A90 (JTC00057) 3 Hour Traffic Flows (May Weekday)

The data summarised by Figure 6 shows a significant increase in traffic flows towards Aberdeen and the A90 north during the AM 3 hour peak between 2004 and 2014. There is a corresponding increase in traffic in the southbound direction during the 3 hour PM peak. It should be noted that there is a dip in traffic between 2009 and 2010. Between 2011 and 2014, traffic growth northbound in the AM period and southbound in the PM period fluctuates between 5% and 10% year on year. Summary of ATC Analysis The data from JTC00057 indicates that there has been significant increase in traffic volumes between 2004 and 2014. However, some individual years during this period show a decline in traffic. Therefore, the trend is for a fluctuation in traffic levels year on year with a pattern of overall growth over the longer term. It is not possible to discern the main cause of the traffic growth from the ATC data. However, the growth recorded at JTC00057 does provide some context to the traffic flow level forecast by ASAM on the A90.

S-Paramics Forecast Demands

4.1 Application of ASAM Forecast to S-Paramics Model The network coverage of the S‐Paramics model is equivalent to the small cordon area from the ASAM model. Therefore, the S‐Paramics forecast demands are based on the small cordon matrices. The same approach to prepare the forecast demands has been adopted for both the light and heavy vehicle matrices. Data from ASAM will be applied to the S‐Paramics matrices to forecast future year demands as follows: Internal‐Internal:

 Add absolute number of trips to future year matrices for developments located in Laurencekirk. o Assumption that there will be no growth applied to the existing Laurencekirk and Marykirk internal‐internal O‐D pairs in the S‐Paramics forecast matrices. Therefore, it has been assumed that all growth in trips internal to Laurencekirk would be as a result of new development. External‐External, External‐Internal, Internal‐External:

 All other growth forecast by ASAM will be added to the S‐Paramics matrices through the use of growth factors: o Growth factor applied on an individual basis for strategic O‐D pairs e.g. A90 north to A90 south, A937, B9120. o Growth factor applied on a sector basis for O‐D pairs where flows are too low to derive an individual growth rate with confidence e.g. A90 side arms (excluding A937). In part, due to the low number of trips between some of these zones, there was often a mismatch between seeded O‐D pairs in the ASAM and S‐Paramics demands. Therefore, use of a sector based approach to calculating growths rates wa considered to be an appropriate and practical approach. 4.2 ASAM Data Processing There are a number of differences in the parameters of the ASAM and S‐Paramics models that require to be addressed as part of the forecasting process:

 Base Year;  Time Period; and  Zoning System. It will be necessary to address each of these differences in order to apply the ASAM forecasts to the S‐ Paramics model. Table 12 states the actions, assumption and risks associated with addressing each of these issues.

S-PARAMICS FORECAST DEMANDS

Table 12: ASAM to S‐Paramics Conversion Issue Action Assumption Risk Base Year – ASAM has a base The full level of growth in year of 2010, the S‐Paramics demand from the ASAM 2010 model has a base year of base model to 2018 and 2033 2014. However, the ASAM ‐ future year models will be ‐. 2010 baseline model has applied when uplifting the S‐ been adjusted to match 2014 Paramics 2014 base demands surveyed flows. to 2018 and 2033 Used surveyed junction turn Time Period – ASAM count and ATC data collected in represents the peak hour for Convert ASAM peak hour 2014 to calculate expansion Turn count data available the AM and PM periods. The demands to 3 hour S‐ factors. Separate factors for one survey day S‐Paramics model covers 3 Paramics period calculated for light and heavy hours in the AM and PM. vehicle demands. Zoning System – ASAM and S‐ Paramics zoning system do Zone correspondence list was not match in terms of no. of ‐ ‐ prepared zones and identifying numbers

4.2.1 Modelled Time Period Table 13 indicates the expansion factors that have been applied to each of the ASAM zones when expanding to the S‐Paramics time period. The expansion factors have been applied to the trips from each zone. Table 13: Expansion Factors from 1 hour to 3 hours AM PM ASAM Light 1hr Heavy 1 Light 1hr Heavy 1 Location Survey Type Survey Date Zones to 3hr hr to 3hr to 3hr hr to 3hr Laurencekirk Junction Turn 26th March 1 (Development 2.620 2.197 2.721 2.906 Count 4 and 5 2014 zone) Laurencekirk Rail Junction Turn 26th March 2 2.620 2.197 2.721 2.906 Station Count 4 and 5 2014 Laurencekirk Junction Turn 26th March 3 (Existing 2.620 2.197 2.721 2.906 Count 4 and 5 2014 Internal Settlement) Zones Laurencekirk Junction Turn 26th March 4 (Development 2.620 2.197 2.721 2.906 Count 4 and 5 2014 zone) Laurencekirk Junction Turn 26th March 5 (Existing 2.620 2.197 2.721 2.906 Count 4 and 5 2014 Settlement) Junction Turn 26th March 6 Marykirk 2.620 2.197 2.721 2.906 Count 4 and 5 2014 Junction Turn 26th March 7 A90 (North) 2.303 2.052 2.673 2.915 Count 1 2014 Junction Turn 26th March 8 B9120 2.700 1.714 1.828 4.500 Count 2, 6 and 7 2014 Junction Turn 26th March 9 Unclassified Road 2.700 1.714 1.828 4.500 Count 2, 6 and 7 2014 A937 (At 24th to 28th 10 ATC 1 2.842 2.615 2.569 2.444 External Marykirk) March 2014 Zones Junction Turn 26th March 11 A90 (South) 3.539 2.975 2.838 2.773 Count 3 2014 Junction Turn 26th March 12 B974 2.700 1.714 1.828 4.500 Count 2, 6 and 7 2014 24th to 28th 13 B9120 ATC 2 1.682 1.954 2.860 6.095 March 2014 24th to 28th 14 Fordoun Road ATC 3 2.161 1.551 2.819 2.863 March 2014 Note:

 ATC 1 = A937 to north of Marykirk  ATC 2 = Blackiemuir Road  ATC 3 = Fordoun Road  Junction Turn Count 1 = A90/A937/Farm Access (Laurencekirk North Junction)  Junction Turn Count 2 = A90/B9120 (Laurencekirk Central Junction)  Junction Turn Count 3 = A90/A937 (Laurencekirk South Junction)  Junction Turn Count 4 = High Street/Aberdeen Road/Conveth Place/Alma Place  Junction Turn Count 5 = High Street/Blackiemuir Avenue  Junction Turn Count 6 = A90/Landends staggered priority junction  Junction Turn Count 7 = B974/A90

S-PARAMICS FORECAST DEMANDS

4.2.2 ASAM to S-Paramics Zoning System Assumptions The S‐Paramics and ASAM models are based upon different zoning systems. It has therefore been necessary to prepare a zone correspondence list between the two models in order to apply forecast data from ASAM to the S‐Paramics model. The Zone correspondence list is included in Appendix C. The 9 zones representing Laurencekirk in the S‐Paramics model correspond to 2 zones in ASAM. The following approach was adopted in order to distribute the ASAM demands amongst the S‐Paramics Laurencekirk zones:

 Demands to/from the 2 ASAM zones were summed  The summed ASAM demands were distributed amongst the S‐Paramics Laurencekirk zones on a pro‐ rata basis. The base level of demand was used to determine the proportion of trips that would go to each of the S‐Paramics zones Zone 6 in the S‐Paramics model does not have a direct equivalent in the ASAM model. To accommodate this, the demand for zone 12 in the ASAM model were split on a 50/50 basis between zones 5 and 6 in the S‐ Paramics model. Zones 5 and 6 represent low flow side arms on the northern side of the A90 at the southern end of the modelled network. New zones have been added to the S‐Paramics model in order to load in trips associated with the new developments in Laurencekirk. The following zones have been added:

 Zone 20 = EH1 Residential Development  Zone 21 = M1 Mixed Use Development

4.3 Risks in Forecasting Process A schedule of risks in the forecasting process and their effect on the economic appraisal is detailed in Table 14. With regard to accuracy of the forecasting process and economic appraisal, the seriousness of the risks has been categorised on a 1 to 3 scale as follows:

 1 = Minor  2 = Moderate  3 = Major Table 14: Forecasting and Appraisal Risks Risk Consequence Seriousness of Risk An adjustment has been made to ASAM in order to uplift If the matrix adjustment made to the the 2010 baseline demands to enable the model to match 2010 baseline has not been factored to 2014 surveyed flow data. This adjustment has been reflect future year demands this could applied to the 2018 and 2033 forecast demands as a post‐ lead to an underestimate of demand in 2 assignment step. It is unclear if any factoring of the matrix the 2018 and 2033 ASAM scenarios. adjustment is warranted or has taken place when it has been applied to the 2018 and 2033 demands ASAM includes an external growth rate of 1% applied to all The 1% external growth rate may be an trips to from the A90 at the southern extremity of the over or underestimate of demand. modelled area. It is difficult to verify that this level of Therefore, the benefits of any proposed growth is appropriate through reference to historic flow scheme could be over or under 3 data. estimated. Sufficient data has not been provided within the ASAM reporting to determine why this growth rate was applied or if it is appropriate to extrapolate this growth to 2033. A high level of growth on the A90 and A937 is forecast. This may lead to an overestimate of The appraisal is based on the assumption that there will be demand at peak times and consequently no behavioural response to this in terms of trip re‐timing. overestimate any benefits of the 2 If trip re‐timing were to occur it may have the effect of proposed schemes. lessening congestion in the network. A high level of growth is forecast in ASAM due to new The level of trips generated by new development. When developing the ASAM forecast it was developments is likely to be at the upper assumed that the new developments would not extract estimate of what might occur in practice. from existing areas. Therefore, forecast travel demands will also be at upper end of what might be 1 expected. This will increase potential network congestion in the reference case and therefore the potential benefits of any scheme. The process to remove the Montrose Airfield and The margin of error in the forecast is Laurencekirk development site from the ASAM model likely to be relatively small given the contains a margin of error as it was not possible to isolate number of trips associated with each the exact number of trips. An estimate of the number of development. Therefore, it is considered trips associated with the developments has been removed that the margin of error in estimating the 1 instead. trips to be removed would not be In addition, a new reassignment has not been undertaken significant with regard to the level of in ASAM with the removal of the trips. benefit calculated for proposed schemes tested in the model. A zone disaggregation process was undertaken as part of This may lead to an over or under the ASAM update. Detail has not been provided on which estimate of demand at certain locations zones were split and the process for proportioning the in the model and consequently over or 2 trips between these zones, under estimate any benefits of the proposed schemes.

Appendix A

Development Schedule

Appendix A – Development Schedule

Employment Land - Planning Status (As of Council Area Settlement Description Residential Units Committed/ Proposed Area (ha) 23/05/14)

Identified in the previous local plan for 10 houses and is carried Aberdeenshire Auchenblae 15 Full Planning Permission Committed forward.

The site has an application pending for residential (300 units) and employment uses Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 300 houses in which has been agreed Aberdeenshire Edzell Woods two phases, with 150 houses in the first phase. There is an approved 300 subject to a s75 (Ref: Committed masterplan for the site. APP/2012/0037). The site has Application for class 6 storage and Distribution - pending consideration

Aberdeenshire Edzell Woods 5 Under construction Committed

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 4045 houses, with 1845 houses in the first phase, and 2200 houses in the second phase, and up to 11.5 hectares of employment land. Approximately 5 APP/2011/3100 - Approval for hectares of this employment land will be suitable for high quality Aberdeenshire Elsick 4045 5.5 new settlement comprising Committed businesses or company headquarters. An additional 5.5 hectares of 4,045 dwelling houses land within the site is identified as strategic reserve. Within the employment land, a halting site for gypsy/travellers is required. The site will require a development framework and masterplan(s).

Aberdeenshire Fettercairn 38 Under construction Committed Aberdeenshire Fordoun 15 Under construction Committed

Various individual apps for Aberdeenshire Inverbervie Site H1 is allocated for up to 30 houses in the first phase. 29 dwelling houses/pending Committed consideration

Site H2 is allocated for up to 200 houses in two phases, with 100 Residential development - houses in the first phase and 100 houses in the second phase. The pending consideration - Aberdeenshire Inverbervie first section of a new distributor road between the A92 and Townhead 200 Committed lodged 14/0/514 - note that should be included within the site. A masterplan is required for the this app is inclusive of P4 site. Aberdeenshire Laurencekirk 8 Full planning permission Committed Aberdeenshire Laurencekirk 13 Full planning permission Committed Site EH1 was identified in the previous local plan for 210 houses and Approved for 210 dwelling Aberdeenshire Laurencekirk 210 Committed is carried forward. houses Aberdeenshire Luthermuir 9 Full planning permission Committed Aberdeenshire Pittarow 7 Full planning permission Committed Aberdeenshire St Cyrus 5 Full planning permission Committed Aberdeenshire St Cyrus 5 Full planning permission Committed

Site H1 is allocated for up to 110 houses in the first phase. A Pending consideration (ref: Aberdeenshire Stonehaven 110 Committed masterplan is required for the site. APP/2014/2470) Pending decision (ref PHASE Site H3 is allocated to enable the redevelopment of Ury House. The Aberdeenshire Stonehaven 51 1:APP/2012/1617, ref PHASE Committed site is allocated for up to 25 houses in the first phase. 2: APP/2012/1616)

Site H4 is allocated for up to 50 houses, with 30 houses in the first Pending consideration (ref: Aberdeenshire Stonehaven 50 Committed phase and 20 houses in the second phase. APP/2014/2178)

1.2 ha of land at Dungmans Tack is allocated for around 18 dwellings. This backland site is surrounded by residential properties and a nursing home. Development proposals will require to take account of Development of 45 units now Angus Montrose and Hillside 18 Committed guidance in Angus Council Advice Note 6: Backland Housing completed. Development. 25% of the capacity of the site should provide LCHO affordable housing.

0.7 ha of land on the site of Lochside Distillery Tower is allocated for around 40 dwellings. Located on a prominent corner site and visible from the main approaches to the town from the north and west, the site and the existing buildings form a landmark and a gateway to the Approved for 37 residential Angus Montrose and Hillside 40 Committed historic part of the town. Development proposals will require to be of a units high design standard, be of a similar mass and scale to the existing buildings on the site and address the street frontage. (Full planning permission for 37 dwellings was granted in February 2005)

Development of 45 units now Angus Montrose and Hillside 45 1.2 completed (as per site M2 Committed above). 2014 Housing Land Audit: 10 Angus Montrose and Hillside 20 0.24 completions; 10 units left to Committed build 2014 Housing Land Audit: Angus Montrose and Hillside 6 0.15 Committed Only 2 units left to build 2014 Housing Land Audit: 1 Angus Montrose and Hillside 9 0.65 completions; 6 units left to Committed build

Approximately 30 ha of land at Brechin Road is allocated for residential development together with significant areas of landscaping, open space 2014 Housing Land Audit: 26 and associated community facilities. An initial phase of 200 dwellings will be completions; 15 units left to released within the plan period. The scale of further land release in the build. Outline planning period beyond 2011 will be determined by a future Local Plan and take permission in place for the account of development progress at Sunnyside Hospital. Development Angus Montrose and Hillside 493 remaining 293 units. A planning Committed proposals should accord with the approved Development Brief for the site. application to extend the time 25% of the capacity of the site should provide LCHO affordable housing. The limit on the original planning existing land allocation has come forward more slowly than anticipated. conditions was approved on 23 Development is currently progressing on the south east portion of the site. April 2014. The existing phase nears completion and the site could deliver approximately 293 units. 1.2 ha of land at Dungmans Tack is allocated for around 18 dwellings. This backland site is surrounded by residential properties and a nursing home. Development of 45 units now Angus Montrose and Hillside Development proposals will require to take account of guidance in Angus 18 Committed completed. Council Advice Note 6: Backland Housing Development. 25% of the capacity of the site should provide LCHO affordable housing.

APP/2010/2822: Pending Site has planning permission agreed subject to S75 (& requirement to Committed - Aberdeenshire Laurencekirk 77 Consideration (submitted provide upgrade to A90 / A937 junction prior to any development) Dependent October 2010)

Planning Application 14/00480/EIAM submitted in June 2014 for Proposed business 10 ha of land forming part of the former Montrose Airfield adjacent to the park (class 4, 5 and 6) including A92 is allocated for employment uses comprising business (Class 4*), office accommodation and general industry (Class 5*) and storage and distribution (Class 6*). No facilities to support offshore development yet. A landowner has indicated an interest in marketing land renewable energy Committed - Angus Montrose and Hillside at the airfield (including the existing allocation) for employment related 10 developments. Planning Dependent uses including those associated with the renewables industry. Additional application yet to be determined employment land outwith the existing settlement boundary will be and site area covers 50ha. The investigated, which includes additional land within the settlement site will be allocated in the boundary and a possible extension to Forties Road/Brent Avenue. emerging Angus Local Development Plan Proposed Plan

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 75 houses with 35 houses in the first phase and 40 houses in the second phase. A Aberdeenshire Auchenblae minimum of 1ha of employment land will be provided within the site. 75 Allocated Proposed The site will require a masterplan. This site needs to provide an area of land for a Recycling Point.

Aberdeenshire Auchenblae Site H1 is allocated for up to 5 houses in the first phase. 5 Allocated Proposed

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 30 houses in Aberdeenshire Drumlithie two phases, with 15 houses in the first phase and 15 houses in the 30 0.5 Proposed second phase and 0.5ha of employment land.

Site H1 is allocated for up to 30 houses in two phases, with 15 Aberdeenshire Fettercairn 30 No applications Proposed houses in the first phase and 15 houses in the second phase.

Aberdeenshire Fordoun Site BUS is reserved for employment uses. 1 Proposed

Aberdeenshire Fordoun 5 Proposed Site H1 is allocated for up to 15 houses in the first phase. A second Aberdeenshire Fordoun 15 Proposed point of access may be required to the site.

Aberdeenshire Gourdon Site BUS is reserved for employment uses. 2 Proposed

Site H1 is allocated for up to 35 houses, with 25 houses in the first Aberdeenshire Gourdon phase and 10 houses in the second phase with a strategic 35 Proposed landscaping buffer to the north of the site.

Site E1 is allocated for employment land with a strategic landscape Aberdeenshire Gourdon 2 Proposed buffer to the east of the site.

Site EH1 was identified in the previous local plan for 36 houses and is Aberdeenshire Johnshaven carried forward at an increased density for the development of up to 67 Proposed 67 houses. Application for 13 houses Site EH2 was identified in the previous local plan for 10 houses and is Aberdeenshire Laurencekirk 10 back in 2003, however this Proposed carried forward. was withdrawn

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 885 houses in two phases, with 485 houses in the first phase and 400 houses in the second phase. Approximately 11ha of employment land is required Aberdeenshire Laurencekirk 885 11 Pending Consideration Proposed within the site. Approximately 16 hectares of employment land is required for strategic reserve. A development framework and masterplan(s) are required for the site.

Site EH1 was identified in the previous local plan for 25 houses and is Aberdeenshire Luthermuir 20 Site Constrained. Proposed carried forward.

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 25 houses in Aberdeenshire Luthermuir the first phase. Small scale retail and some employment should be 25 Proposed provided within the site. Site M2 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 25 houses, in Aberdeenshire Luthermuir the second phase. Small scale retail and some employment should 25 Proposed be provided within the site.

Application withdrawn in - was Site EH1 was identified in the previous local plan for 19 houses and is Aberdeenshire Marykirk 19 for 15 affordable houses and Proposed carried forward. 8 affordable flats

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 30 houses over Application pending two phases, with 15 houses in the first phase and 15 houses in the Aberdeenshire Marykirk 30 consideration - also includes Committed second phase. Employment and local retail uses require to be 0.5ha of employment incorporated into the site.

Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 30 houses with Aberdeenshire Road side of Kinneff 15 houses in the first phase and 15 houses in the second phase, and 30 Proposed a small scale retail use.

Aberdeenshire St Cyrus 17 Proposed PAC Agreed as Specified in Site M1 is allocated for a mixed use proposal of up to 125 houses Notice. Masterplan was over two phases, with 65 houses in the first phase and 60 houses in Aberdeenshire St Cyrus 125 1.7 submitted for mixed use Proposed the second phase. Approximately 25% of the site will be for development including up to employment and retail uses. The site will require a masterplan. 125 dwelling houses

Site H2 is allocated to enable the redevelopment of Ury House. The Aberdeenshire Stonehaven site is allocated for up to 205 houses, with 75 houses in the first 205 Proposed phase and 130 houses in the second phase.

Aberdeenshire Stonehaven Site E1 is allocated for employment land. 0.2 Proposed

Site E2 is allocated for employment land. A landscape buffer should Aberdeenshire Stonehaven 4 Proposed be provided to the west of the site.

Site CC1 is proposed for a small scale retail use. A traffic impact Aberdeenshire Stonehaven assessment and a retail impact assessment are required prior to the 0.5 Proposed development of the site.

Aberdeenshire West Cairnbeg 5 Proposed

Angus Montrose and Hillside 8 0.5 Outside of LP Proposed

Angus Montrose and Hillside 7 0.04 Outside of LP Proposed

Angus Montrose and Hillside 5 0.05 Outside of LP Proposed

Angus Montrose and Hillside 5 0.14 Outside of LP Proposed

Land and buildings at Sunnyside Hospital Estate provide an opportunity for Discussions ongoing between regeneration and redevelopment for a range of uses as outlined in the Angus Council & NHS regarding approved Development Brief. The preparation of a Master Plan by the marketing of the site. Site prospective developer(s) will be required to provide a framework for the may therefore come forward Angus Montrose and Hillside 320 Proposed coordination and delivery of development. No development yet. before 2019. Site will be Redevelopment may be considered. Need to establish a sustainable future allocated in emerging Angus for the site - Not likely development before 2019 due to substantial costs of Local Development Plan for redevelopment. The site could deliver around 320 new homes. Mixed Use development.

Angus Montrose and Hillside 10 0.16 Proposed

Angus Montrose and Hillside 29 0.41 Proposed Angus Montrose and Hillside 65 Outside of LP Proposed

Angus Montrose and Hillside 11 Outside of LP Proposed

Appendix B

ASAM Traffic Volume Calibration

ASAM4 Laurencekirk: 2010 Baseline Calibrated Traffic Volumes

ASAM4 2010 Baseline Hourly Observed Hourly Traffic Volume Change % Change GEH Statistic Traffic Volume

JTC AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak Ref. Road Direction Description Ref. NB A90 North of Laurencekirk: North of 1,283 602 590 1,261 612 624 - 22 10 34 -2% 2% 6% 0.6 0.4 1.4 1 A A90 SB A937 North Access 597 831 1,698 618 854 1,568 21 24 - 130 3% 3% -8% 0.8 0.8 3.2 NB A90 Laurencekirk: North of A937 South 1,149 545 514 1,081 556 560 - 68 11 46 -6% 2% 9% 2.0 0.5 2.0 3 A A90 SB Access 508 778 1,593 539 783 1,378 31 5 - 215 6% 1% -13% 1.3 0.2 5.6 NB 170 102 111 174 86 131 4 - 16 20 2% -16% 18% 0.3 1.7 1.8 3 B A937 A937 South of A90 at Laurencekirk SB 129 124 349 147 113 258 18 - 10 - 92 14% -8% -26% 1.6 1.0 5.3 NB A90 South of Laurencekirk: South of 1,077 518 498 989 503 487 - 88 - 15 - 11 -8% -3% -2% 2.7 0.7 0.5 3 C A90 SB A937 South Access 467 735 1,334 463 705 1,206 - 4 - 30 - 128 -1% -4% -10% 0.2 1.1 3.6 NB 180 115 143 156 82 143 - 24 - 33 0 -13% -28% 0% 1.8 3.3 0.0 8 B A937 A937 South of Marykirk SB 156 135 331 168 102 198 12 - 32 - 133 8% -24% -40% 0.9 3.0 8.2 NB 152 124 182 275 132 159 123 8 - 23 81% 7% -13% 8.4 0.7 1.7 10 B A92 A92 North of B9120 SB 108 133 257 165 125 278 57 - 8 21 53% -6% 8% 4.9 0.7 1.3 NB A90 Stonehaven Bypass North of 1,568 674 602 1,759 774 746 191 100 144 12% 15% 24% 4.7 3.7 5.6 11 A A90 SB Glasslaw Interchange 536 905 1,972 658 973 1,897 122 68 - 75 23% 8% -4% 5.0 2.2 1.7

Observed traffic data based on Junction Turning Counts collected during 2014. Representing 0800-0900 Morning Peak Hour, Average Hour 1000-1600 & 1700-1800 Evening Peak Hour ASAM4 Updated 2010 Baseline represents 'Present Day' Scenario. Test ID L55, B710. ASAM4 total modelled traffic volumes represent hourly traffic flows described in vehicles (includes Cars, lights & HGV's)

Appendix C

ASAM and S-Paramics Zone Correspondence

Table D1: S‐Paramics and ASAM4 Cordon Model Zone Correspondence S‐Paramics Zone Location/Land Use S‐Paramics Zone Number ASAM Number

A90 North 1 7

B9120 2 8

A937 3 10

A90 South 4 11

B974 5 12

Landends 6 ‐

B9120 Blackiemuir Avenue 7 13

Fordoun Road 8 14

Laurencekirk – Residential + Foodstore 9 3, 5

Laurencekirk ‐ Residential 10 3, 5

Laurencekirk ‐ Residential 11 3,5

Laurencekirk – Residential and Primary 12 3, 5 School

Laurencekirk ‐ Residential 13 3, 5

Laurencekirk ‐ Residential 14 3, 5

Laurencekirk – Secondary School 15 3, 5

Laurencekirk – Industrial Estate and Rail 16 3, 5 Station Car Park

Laurencekirk ‐ Residential 17 3, 5

Marykirk 18 6

Unnamed Road (link between A937 and 19 9 A92)

TECHNICAL NOTE

Access to Laurencekirk - Schedule of Traffic Model Tests

PREPARED FOR: NESTRANS

COPIED TO: Aberdeenshire Council Transport Scotland TACTRAN PROJECT NUMBER: 488086 Document History

Schedule of Option Tests Access to Laurencekirk NESTRANS

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1.0 11/11/2014 Draft for client review IA AF DA

2.0 09/02/2015 Final IA DA MT

Purpose of Note This note states the option packages that will be tested within the Laurencekirk S-Paramics model as part of the overall Access to Laurencekirk study. A schedule of option tests is then provided. The following option packages have emerged from the Access to Laurencekirk STAG Initial Appraisal stage: • Package 2 – grade separation of south junction with rationalisation of High Street parking. • Package 3 – grade separation of south junction with closure of central reserve at north junction with/without western distributor road. • Package 4 – grade separation of south junction with closure of the centre junction, provision of associated A937 link road and rationalisation of High Street Parking. • Package 5 – grade separation of south junction with closure of centre junction, provision of associated A937 link road and closure of the central reserve at the north junction with/without western distributor road. • Package 6 – grade separation of north and south junctions. • Package 7 – grade separation of north and south junctions and closure of the central junction, including the Laurencekirk access and central reserve, with left in/out permitted on the eastern approach.

LAURENCEKIRK SCHEDULE OF OPTION TESTS 1 ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - SCHEDULE OF TRAFFIC MODEL TESTS

The following set of forecast scenarios will be prepared for the Paramics models: • Future Year Scenario 1: Background growth and committed development (excluding developments conditioned on a new A90 access); • Future Year Scenario 2: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access); • Future Year Scenario 3: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (expected build out rate); and • Future Year Scenario 4: Background growth and committed development (including developments conditioned on a new A90 access) and proposed development (including accelerated build out rate for development in Laurencekirk). Future Year Scenarios will be prepared for the following years: • 2018; and • 2033. The option testing will also take account of the following issue: • Test with and without fixed routing assumption on B974. Schedule of Testing The testing of packages will be undertaken in two stages. Stage 1 will consider the performance of all the options with Future Year Scenario 1. The Stage 1 assessment will form the core economic assessment that will be reported in the Transport Economic Efficiency of the STAG report. Stage 2 will involve a number of sensitivity tests in order to assess the range of benefits that could be realised from the schemes. The performance of all option packages at both Stage 1 and Stage 2 will be quantified using the PEARS software and an accident only NESA model. Stage 1 - Package Testing Table 1 shows the schedule of package tests that would be undertaken and feed into the TEE section of the STAG report. Table 1 represents all the tests that would be undertaken for Future Year Scenario 1. All option tests would be undertaken for 2018 and 2033. Package 2 would be tested with and without a fixed routing assumption on the B974. Table 1: Schedule of Option Tests Package No. Future Year Scenario 1 B974 Fixed Routing Test 2 X X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X

2 LAURENCEKIRK SCHEDULE OF OPTION TESTS ACCESS TO LAURENCEKIRK - SCHEDULE OF TRAFFIC MODEL TESTS

Package Assumptions Package 2 includes changes to parking on Laurencekirk High Street. The Laurencekirk traffic model is not capable of directly simulating these changes. Therefore the parking element of this package would not be included within the core economic test undertaken under Future Year Scenario 1. However, the base S-Paramics model does include speed restrictions and pinch points on the High Street that could be removed during option testing. This would simulate the effect of the removal of parking which creates pinch points on the High Street. This test will be included as part of the sensitivity testing. The best performing out of packages 3 and 5 would be tested with the Western Link Road. B974 Fixed Routing Test As noted in the Laurencekirk S-Paramics base model development report, vehicle routing via the B974 was fixed via the use of a restriction. During consultation for the Access to Laurencekirk study, some members of the public stated that they choose routes for their journeys that allow them to avoid using the A90/A937 junction to the south of Laurencekirk. Analysis of surveyed traffic data indicated that this would likely include the B974. However, the generalised cost of travel via the B974 is too high in the model for many vehicles to assign this way rather than using the alternatives. It should be noted that in practice, drivers may be choosing to reroute via the B974 due to safety concerns rather than to avoid delay. It would not be possible to model this route choice using a time and distance based generalised cost equation. Therefore a route restriction would be added to the model in order to represent this route choice. Package 2 includes grade separation of the A90/A937 southern junction. A model sensitivity test will be run with the restriction removed, thus allowing all vehicles to route via the A937. This will simulate the potential for the grade separation of this junction to attract vehicles to the A937. This test will be undertaken for Future Year Scenario 1 only and will enable an assessment of the level of benefit that could occur with a higher estimate of reassignment to the A937. Stage 2 - Sensitivity Testing The best performing package only would also be tested for the following Future Year Scenarios: • Future Year Scenario 2; • Future Year Scenario 3; and • Future Year Scenario 4. The best performing out of packages 2 and 4 would be tested with a simulation of the removal of parking restrictions on the High Street. There is a potential that the inclusion of additional development trips at the northern end of Laurencekirk within Future Year Scenarios 3 and 4 could significantly alter the performance of the packages. In order to test this, Package 6 will also be tested for the following scenarios: • Future Year Scenario 3; and • Future Year Scenario 4. This will enable an assessment of development impact on the case for grade separation of the northern A90/A937 junction. The results of these sensitivity tests would be reported in the Risk and Uncertainty section of the STAG report. The purpose of the additional tests will be to assess the potential level of benefits that could accrue under demand scenarios that reflect a higher level of development. As these higher demand scenario include proposed developments and development conditional on A90 junction upgrades they would not be reported as part of the core economic appraisal in the TEE section of the STAG.

Appendix H

Turn Count Survey Diagrams

Appendix H Turn Count Survey Diagrams

Junction Turning Flow in Vehicles Blackiemuir Avenue Fordoun Road Modelled Scenario Do Minimum Modelled Year 2018 Time Period AM Peak 06:00 ‐ 09:00 336 93 63 94 489 84 59 168 22 280 45 517 High Street High Street

177 33 157 67 B974 Landends 16 38 37 151 31 112 80 179

A937 Aberdeen Road Frain Drive B9120 A937 Aberdeen Road

7 4069 27 46 62 4198 16 8 13 4273 194 201 17 4472 123 130 32 4440 23 0 552 0 4173 24 4282 1 4488 19 4430 0 A90 A90

1365 17 1209 2 1204 17 1321 31 157 33 133 10 1331 149 100 7 1209 19 412 312 1316 19 82 51 1242 0 0 0 1258 0

B974 Unnamed Road A937 (North of Marykirk) B9120 Farm Access Junction Turning Flow in Vehicles Blackiemuir Avenue Fordoun Road Modelled Scenario Do Minimum Modelled Year 2018 Time Period PM Peak 16:00 ‐ 19:00 321 79 80 106 240 89 187 177 21 263 97 199 High Street High Street

413 171 629 185 B974 Landends 27 20 30 363 28 49 175 617

A937 Aberdeen Road Frain Drive B9120 A937 Aberdeen Road

22 1596 38 77 30 1601 16 8 5 1620 184 200 6 1704 68 289 17 1688 27 0 290 0 1610 33 4282 2 1734 32 1697 0 A90 A90

4121 45 4064 9 4082 14 4712 51 660 21 53 3 4048 37 34 8 4065 6 299 842 4725 39 61 102 4525 0 0 0 4559 0

B974 Unnamed Road A937 (North of Marykirk) B9120 Farm Access Junction Turning Flow in Vehicles Blackiemuir Avenue Fordoun Road Modelled Scenario Option 7 Modelled Year 2033 Time Period AM Peak 06:00 ‐ 09:00 160 0 489 101 90 173 741 73 53 181 698 6 0 314 22 428 0 668 81 6 High Street High Street

294 50 268 78 B974 Landends 513 179 15 41 40 245 0 0 0 215 217 0

Slip Roads Southern Flyover Frain Drive B9120 Northern Flyover A937 Aberdeen Road Slip Roads

4812 29 47 62 4900 18 10 13 160 513 5227 12 696 0 4882 25 4902 4733 0 5202 A90 A90

1650 17 1453 0 1326 1531 1522 33 100 11 1616 192 20 9 1452 142 299 102 0 70 87 220

Southern Flyover Slip Roads Northern Flyover Slip Roads

603 171 142 0087 0 0 B974 Unnamed Road B9120 A937 (North of Marykirk) 91 219 206 0 Junction Turning Flow in Vehicles Blackiemuir Avenue Fordoun Road Modelled Scenario Option 7 Modelled Year 2033 Time Period PM Peak 16:00 ‐ 19:00 140 3 426 111 98 131 358 88 145 235 339 21 0 406 21 337 0 270 154 33 High Street High Street

637 233 867 195 B974 Landends 250 156 28 22 33 572 0 0 0 722 831 0

Slip Roads Southern Flyover Frain Drive B9120 Northern Flyover A937 Aberdeen Road Slip Roads

1961 41 74 33 1963 12 9 4 140 513 2067 55 339 0 1974 38 1964 1820 0 2005 A90 A90

5008 44 4924 7 4747 5309 5296 22 55 2 4937 73 13 9 4925 208 657 106 0 162 187 833

Southern Flyover Slip Roads Northern Flyover Slip Roads

339 198 208 0 0 187 0 0 B974 Unnamed Road B9120 A937 (North of Marykirk) 68 833 589 0

Appendix I Policy Appraisal Framework Tables

Qualitative Score (select from list) NTS High Level Strategic Outcomes Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9 Option 10 Option 11 Option 12 Option 13 Option 14 Option 15 Option 16 Option 17 Option 18 Option 19 Option 20 Option 21 Option 22 Option 23 Option 24 Option 25 Option 26 Option 27 Option 28 Option 29 Option 30 Option 31 Option 32 Option 33 Option 34 Option 35 P1 P2 P3a P3b P4 P5 P5b P6 P7 P8 Lower Level Policy Objective Question to be scored Sustainable travel Grade Separation at package: pedestrian Grade Separation at South Junction, Close crossings on the High South Junction, Close Central Junction, with Grade Separated Street and improved A937 Safety A92 Safety Central Junction, with link road from the Junction at North, pedestrian and cycle Add/Extend Add/Extend Add/Extend Improvements (eg Improvements (eg Add/Extend Grade Separation at Grade Separation at link road from the A937 to the B9120, Grade Separated facilities, including the Merge/Diverge Lanes Merge/Diverge Lanes Merge/Diverge Lanes Increase Public advisory speed signs, advisory speed signs, Merge/Diverge and South Junction, Close South Junction, Close Grade Separation at A937 to the B9120, with closure of the Grade Separation Junction at South, upgrade of the existing Grade Separated Improved Pedestrian Extend A90 50 mph Average Speed at A90 North Junction at A90 Central at A90 South Junction Flyover at A90 South Transport Awareness - warning signs, warning signs, Widen Central Extend 50 mph Zone Central Reserve at Central Reserve at South Junction, Close with closure of the north junction centre at both the North close the Laurencekirk underpass of the A90 Pedestrian/Cycle Link Facilities at High Zone to Cover Cameras (including Diverges Junction (including (including Diverges Junction - Bridge with Close Central Close Central Close Central New Grade Separated Travel Behaviour enforcement, safety enforcement, safety Reserve at A90 Close central reserve on A90, Average A90 North Junction, A90 North Junction, Central Junction, with north junction centre reserve, without and South A90 access and close and associated Formalise parking on Pedestrian Crossings of the A90 Utilising Street/Alma Junctions Near (on A90 existing Street Lighting at A90 Street Lighting at A90 Street Lighting at A90 within Central Diverges within within Central Signal Control at A90 Signal Control at A90 Signal Control at A90 Roundabout at A90 Roundabout at A90 Roundabout at A90 Grade Separation at Grade Separation at Grade Separation at Bridge at A90 Central roundabout - maybe Reserve at A90 North Reserve at A90 Reserve at A90 South Junction on A90 near Western Distributor Change (Smarter Driver Behaviour barrier, visbility barrier, visbility Junctions to South of at A90 Junctions to the Link Road between Speed Cameras on Grade Separation at with western without western link road from the reserve, with western western distributor Laurencekirk Central Reserve at cycle/pedestrian link to Promote Economic Growth High Street on High Street Existing Underpass Place/Conveth Place Laurencekirk 50mph section) North Junction Central Junction South Junction Reserve) Central Reserve) Reserve) North Junction Central Junction South Junction North Junction Central Junction South Junction A90 North Junction A90 Central Junction A90 South Junction Junction removed Junction Central Junction Junction to Laurencekirk Road at Laurencekirk Choices) Awareness/ Education improvements) improvements) Laurencekirk South of Laurencekirk A937 and B9120 A90 South Junction distributor road distributor road A937 to the B9120 distributor road. road. junctions Central Junction the east. Promote 'competitive' inter-urban journey times To what extent does the intervention reduce inter-urban journey times? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 1 Reduce inter-urban journey time on public transport To what extent does the intervention reduce inter-urban journey time on Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 2 public transport? Reduce the proportion of driver journeys delayed due to traffic To what extent does the intervention reduce the proportion of driver Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 3 journeys delayed due to traffic? Maximise the labour catchment area in city regions To what extent does the intervention help maximise the labour catchment area in city regions where economic evidence demonstrates Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 4 that this is required? Support the development and implementation of relevant proposed To what extent does the intervention support the development and national developments identified in the National Planning implementation of relevant proposed national developments identified in Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 5 Framework the National Planning Framework? Improve Integration Promote seamless travel To what extent does the intervention improve the integration of journeys made by public transport or via Park and Ride by reducing interchanges Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 6 and interchange times? Policy Integration To what extent does the intervention support or constrain the potential achievement of policy objectives within other sectors or delivery agencies? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive 7 8 Access to amenities and services To what extent does the intervention improve accessibility? Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Protect the environment and improve Health Reduce CO2 emissions per person To what extent does the intervention reduce CO2 emissions per person? Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 9 Meet the targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act To what extent does the intervention help meet the targets set out in the Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 10 2010 Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2010? Improve air quality To what extent does the intervention affect air quality? Is the Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 11 intervention located in an Air Quality Management Area? Improve health To what extent does the intervention enable the population of Scotland to Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive 12 live longer healthier lives Well designed, sustainable places To what extent does the intervention improve landscape, streetscape and Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Moderate Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Positive 13 the local environment? Reduce the overall ecological footprint To what extent does this intervention reduce overall ecological footprint? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 14 Improve safety of journeys Promote continuing reduction in accident rates and severity rates To what extent does the intervention promote continuing reduction in across the strategic transport network recognising the need to accident rates and severity rates across the strategic transport network? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral continue the work of the Strategic Road Safety Plan through the 15 STPR period 16 To reduce the accident and severity rate to the national average Does the intervention have the potential to reduce accident rates? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Promote social inclusion Improve the competitiveness of public transport relative to the car To what extent does the intervention improve the competitiveness of Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 17 public transport relative to the car? To what extent does the intervention improve the choice of modes or Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 18 routes facing public transport users? To what extent does the intervention reduce the relative costs of public Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 19 transport? Reduce Inequality To what extent does the intervention tackle the significant inequalities in Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 20 Scottish society? Improve overall perceptions of public transport To what extent does the intervention Improve overall perceptions of Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 21 public transport?

STAG STPR National Objectives National Performance Framework NTS High Level Strategic Outcomes Package 2 Package 3a Package 3b Package 4 Package 5a Package 5b Package 6 Package 7 P8 Lower Level Policy Objective Question to be scored Grade Separation at Grade separated Grade separated Grade separated grade separated junction Grade separated junction at Grade Grade separated Sustainable travel South Junction junction at south junction at south junction at south at south junction/closure south junction/closure of separated junction at north package: junction /closure of junction /closure of junction /closure of of central reserve at north central reserve at north junction at junction and pedestrian central reserve at central reserve at centre junction, junction /closure of centre junction/closure of centre north junction south junction, crossings on the north junction with north junction with no provision of A937- junction and provision of junction with provision ofA937- and south closure of High Street and western distributor WDR B9120 Link Road and A937-B9120 Link Road B9120 Link Road with no WDR junction Laurencekirk improved road (WDR) High Street parking with WDR access and central pedestrian and rationalisation reserve at the cycle facilities, centre junction, including the with only left upgrade of the in/out permitted existing underpass on the eastern of the A90 and approach. associated cycle/pedestrian link to the east. Promote Economic Growth Promote 'competitive' inter-urban journey times To what extent does the intervention reduce inter-urban journey times? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 1 Reduce inter-urban journey time on public transport To what extent does the intervention reduce inter-urban journey time on Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral public transport? 2 Reduce the proportion of driver journeys delayed due to traffic To what extent does the intervention reduce the proportion of driver Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral journeys delayed due to traffic? 3 Maximise the labour catchment area in city regions To what extent does the intervention help maximise the labour catchment area in city regions where economic evidence demonstrates that this is Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral required? 4 Support the development and implementation of relevant proposed To what extent does the intervention support the development and national developments identified in the National Planning Framework implementation of relevant proposed national developments identified in Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral the National Planning Framework? 5 Improve Integration Promote seamless travel To what extent does the intervention improve the integration of journeys made by public transport or via Park and Ride by reducing interchanges and Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral interchange times? 6 Policy Integration To what extent does the intervention support or constrain the potential achievement of policy objectives within other sectors or delivery agencies? Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive 7 8 Access to amenities and services To what extent does the intervention improve accessibility? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive Protect the environment and improve Health Reduce CO2 emissions per person To what extent does the intervention reduce CO2 emissions per person? Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 9 Meet the targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2010 To what extent does the intervention help meet the targets set out in the Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2010? 10 Improve air quality To what extent does the intervention affect air quality? Is the intervention Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral located in an Air Quality Management Area? 11 Improve health To what extent does the intervention enable the population of Scotland to Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Positive live longer healthier lives? 12 Well designed, sustainable places To what extent does the intervention improve landscape, streetscape and Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Negative Slight Positive the local environment? 13 Reduce the overall ecological footprint To what extent does this intervention reduce overall ecological footprint? Neutral Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Slight Negative Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 14 Improve safety of journeys Promote continuing reduction in accident rates and severity rates To what extent does the intervention promote continuing reduction in across the strategic transport network recognising the need to accident rates and severity rates across the strategic transport network? continue the work of the Strategic Road Safety Plan through the Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral STPR period 15 16 To reduce the accident and severity rate to the national average Does the intervention have the potential to reduce accident rates? Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Slight Positive Neutral Promote social inclusion Improve the competitiveness of public transport relative to the car To what extent does the intervention improve the competitiveness of public Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral transport relative to the car? 17 To what extent does the intervention improve the choice of modes or routes Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral facing public transport users? 18 To what extent does the intervention reduce the relative costs of public Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral transport? 19 Reduce Inequality To what extent does the intervention tackle the significant inequalities in Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Scottish society? 20 Improve overall perceptions of public transport To what extent does the intervention Improve overall perceptions of public Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral transport? 21

STAG STPR National Objectives National Performance Framework

Appendix J Transport Planning Objective Tables

Table 9.4 ‐ TPO 1 – Safety TPO 1 – Safety

Accident Numbers Scoring/ Appraisal Assumptions To achieve a reduction in South Junction Centre Junction North Junction Total of all Junctions accidents at the A90

Laurencekirk junctions as a

result of traffic turning or Scoring Summary of of of of crossing the junctions.

Number Number Number Number “ “ “ “

Accidents reported in this

accidents accidpents accidents accidents

TPO are just for the south, number number number number

of of of of

in in in in

centre and north junctions

minimum” minimum” minimum” minimum” only. The full accident something something something something ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ accidents accidents accidents accidents o o o o

assessment is contained “D Number Change accidents “Do of “D Number Change accidents “Do of “D Number Change accidents “Do of “D Number Change accidents Score within the Safety section of Packages “Do of the Detailed Appraisal. This package delivers a minor positive benefit due to the reduction in accidents numbers.

‐ Scoring is informed by the The largest improvement is at the south junction, which can be attributed to the change to a grade separated total number of accidents junction. across all the 3 junctions. 2 20.3 13.7 ‐6.6 23.7 22.9 ‐0.8 30.4 30.3 ‐0.1 74.4 66.9 ‐7.5 1 ‐ Accident assessment was As a grade separated junction will be provided at the south junction, it will be perceived as the safest access point to carried out using an and from Laurencekirk. As such, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may choose to bypass the north accident‐only NESA. and centre at grade junctions and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This would further reduce the number of accidents at the centre and north junctions. ‐ In line with convention This package delivers a moderate positive benefit due to the reduction in accident numbers experienced at all the Local accident rates have junctions. been used rather than national default at these The largest improvement is at the north junction which can be attributed to the removal of the right‐turn movement junctions. from the A90 southbound to Laurencekirk. ‐ The accident numbers refer 3 to a 60 year appraisal 20.3 14.3 ‐6.0 23.7 22.1 ‐1.6 30.4 20.7 ‐9.7 74.4 57.1 ‐17.3 2 There is a slight increase in accident numbers at the south junction when compared with Package 2, which is due to period. the addition of traffic re‐routing from the busier centre junction to use the south junction.

‐ The NESA software cannot As in Package 2 in practice, as a grade separated junction will be provided at the south junction, it will be perceived model grade‐separated as the safest access point to and from Laurencekirk. As such, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may merges. Therefore there is a choose to bypass the centre at grade junction and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This would risk of a slight further reduce the number of accidents at the centre junction. underestimation of This package delivers a moderate positive benefit overall. It removes all accidents from the centre junction (which accidents in the Do‐ would be closed) and reduces the number of accidents at the south junction. There would be a minor increase in something. the numbers of accidents at the north junction. ‐ the accident numbers include the impact of the The reduction in accidents levels at the south junction is partially offset due to the diversion of traffic from the two new roundabouts that centre junction, and the link road connecting to the A937 at a new priority junction which channels traffic to use the would be included in the south junction. However, the construction of a grade separated south junction removes all accidents associated with the crossing of the A90 at this location. grade separated layouts 4 20.3 12.2 ‐8.1 23.7 0.0 ‐23.7 30.4 31.5 1.1 74.4 43.7 ‐30.7 2

‐ The numbers quoted do The increase in accidents at the north junction is due to traffic re‐routing as a result of the closure of the centre not differentiate between junction. the severity of accidents. As in Package 2 in practice, as a grade separated junction will be provided at the south junction, it will be perceived as the safest access point to and from Laurencekirk. As such, traffic approaching Laurencekirk from the north may choose to bypass the north at grade junction and use the new grade separated junction in preference. This may reduce the number of accidents at the north junction.

Accident Numbers South Junction Centre Junction North Junction Total of all Junctions

of of of of

Scoring Summary Number Number Number Number “ “ “ “

accidents accidents accidents accidents

number number number number

of of of of

in in in in

minimum” minimum” minimum” minimum” something something something something ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ accidents accidents accidents accidents o o o o

Packages “Do of “D Number Change accidents “Do of “D Number Change accidents “Do of “D Number Change accidents “Do of “D Number Change accidents Score This package delivers a major positive benefit overall. The increase in accidents at the south junction is due it accommodating the traffic from the closed centre junction and crossing traffic from the north junction.

The increase in the accidents at the south junction is also due to the link road connecting to the A937 at a new priority junction. The addition of this new junction to the network at the south junction is associated with an increase in accidents.

5 20.3 22.0 1.7 23.7 0.0 ‐23.7 30.4 20.5 ‐9.9 74.4 42.5 ‐‐31.9 3 Package 5 however, removes all accidents associated with the at‐grade crossing of the A90.

Whilst overall accident numbers show the least reduction, it is likely the severity will reduce, as this package removes all at‐grade crossing of the A90.

There will be an increase in the traffic flows at the south junction and on the north junction northbound due to the closure of the centre junction and the re‐routing of traffic. This package delivers a major positive benefit due to the reduction in accident numbers experienced at all the junctions.

The largest improvement is at the north junction which can be attributed to the change to a grade separated junction. 6 20.3 14.4 ‐5.9 23.7 22.1 ‐1.6 30.4 4.0 ‐26.4 74.4 40.5 ‐33.9 3

This package removes at grade crossings at the north and south junctions, however, some crossing risk remains at the centre junction. This package delivers a major positive benefit due to the reduction in accident numbers experienced at all the junctions.

The largest improvement is at the centre junction which can be attributed to closure of the central reserve and the Laurencekirk arm. The reductions at the north and south are due to the construction of grade separated junctions. 7 20.3 17.6 ‐2.7 23.7 9.7 ‐14.0 30.4 16.7 ‐13.7 74.4 44.0 ‐30.4 3 Package 7 removes all accidents associated with the at‐grade crossing of the A90.

With the substantial closure of the centre junction, there is re‐routing of vehicles to the north and south junctions. This slightly reduces the accident savings at these junctions when compared to Package 6.

Table 9‐5 ‐ TPO 2 – Driver Behaviour TPO 2 – Driver Behaviour Journey Time Reliability Assessment Scoring/ Appraisal Assumptions To achieve a significant improvement South Junction Centre Junction North Junction in the attitude towards safety at the Scoring Summary A90 Laurencekirk junctions by A90 Southbound Right A937 Northbound A937 Southbound B9120 Westbound B9120 Eastbound A937 Northbound reducing the delay and improving the Turn opportunities to cross the A90.

‐ Performance against this TPO has AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Score been measured with regard to change in journey time reliability. Analysis of Do–Minimum ‐ journey time reliability is based on Standard data from the S‐Paramics models. Deviation 743.54 170.16 116.74 447.95 3.5 3.86 2.42 5.84 109.3 5.09 173.84 24.47 ‐ (seconds) ‐ Changes to the standard deviation in Package modelled journey times have been Standard The variability in the queuing/ delay on the approach to the used in order to assess journey time Deviation 1.54 2.44 1.74 0.91 3.13 3.8 2.17 3.14 53.8 4.92 119.77 19.71 stop‐lines has been reduced at all three junctions. The largest reliability. (Seconds) benefit to journey time reliability is at the A937 northbound ‐ The packages with a higher journey approach to the south junction during the AM period. 2 Difference In time standard deviation have a 2 Standard greater spread of journey times and The introduction of the grade separated junction at the south Deviation from are considered to indicate greater ‐742 ‐167.7 ‐115 ‐447 ‐0.37 ‐0.06 ‐0.25 ‐2.7 ‐55.5 ‐0.17 ‐54.07 ‐4.76 greatly reduces delay at this location. Do‐Minimum unreliability. (Seconds) ‐ The packages with a lower journey The variability in the delay on the approach to the south time standard deviation have a lower Standard junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this spread of journey times and are Deviation location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the considered to indicate greater 1.46 2.77 1.39 1.14 3.95 6.11 1.76 8.98 0.58 0.47 N/A N/A (Seconds) A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM reliability. period. ‐ The journey times used to calculate the standard deviation are based on There is a slight decrease in journey time reliability on approach 3 2 the journey time for vehicles on each Difference in to the centre junction. This is due to the closure of the central of the journey time routes. Journey Time reserve at the north junction as it causes traffic to reroute via from Do‐ ‐742.1 ‐167.4 ‐115.4 ‐446.8 0.45 2.25 ‐0.66 3.14 ‐108.7 ‐4.62 N/A N/A the centre junction. ‐ The standard deviation has been Minimum assessed for 15 minute periods during (Seconds) At the north junction, closure of the central reserve improves the AM and PM Peaks for each northbound merging, but eliminates the southbound right turn package. from the A90. ‐ The AM Peak is for 3 hours from The variability in the delay on the approach to the south 06:00 – 09:00. Standard junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this Deviation 1.7 3.53 0.91 1.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 156.14 8.81 315.34 42.17 location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the ‐ The PM Peak is for 3 hours from (Seconds) A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM 16:00 – 17:00. period. ‐The standard deviation is presented 4 1 Difference in in seconds. The full closure of the centre junction prevents analysis of delay Journey Time at this location. ‐ The packages are assessed on the from Do‐ ‐741.8 ‐166.6 ‐115.8 ‐446.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 46.84 3.72 141.5 17.7 difference in standard deviation Minimum Reliability decreases at the northern junction due to increased between the do‐minimum and the (Seconds) traffic from the closure of the centre junction. package results. A large negative The variability in the delay on the approach to the south difference indicates a significant Standard junction is greatly reduced due to the grade separation at this improvement in journey time location. The largest benefit to journey time reliability is at the reliability as a result of the package. Deviation 2.07 3.46 1.08 0.83 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.86 0.43 N/A N/A A937 northbound approach to the south junction during the AM Conversely, a large positive difference (Seconds) period. indicates a reduction in reliability.

5 3 ‐ All data presented is for the Difference in The full closure of the centre junction prevents analysis of delay modelled year of 2033. Journey Time at this location. from Do‐ At the north junction, closure of the central reserve improves ‐741.5 ‐166.7 ‐115.7 ‐447.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐108.4 ‐4.66 N/A N/A Minimum northbound merging, but eliminates the southbound right turn (Seconds) from the A90.

Journey Time Reliability Assessment S c Scoring Summary

7 6

Package Do–Minimum Journey Journey Difference Difference Minimum Minimum (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds) (Seconds) (seconds) Deviation Deviation Deviation Standard Standard Standard from from

Do Do

Time Time ‐ ‐

in in

743.54 ‐ ‐ 741.7 741.5 1.89 2.02 AM A937

‐ ‐

Northbound 170.16 167.6 165.8 2.53 4.32 South PM

‐ ‐

Junction 116.74 A937 115.1 115.8 1.69 0.97 AM

‐ ‐ Southbound

447.95 447.2 446.9 0.75 1.07 PM

‐ ‐

0.58 2.84 AM 2.92 0.66 B9120 3.5

‐

Westbound 2.34 9.01 5.15 3.86 1.52 PM Centre

‐

Junction 1.69 B9120 2.42 N/A N/A AM 0.73

Eastbound 8.36 2.52 5.84 N/A N/A PM

‐

109.3 0.31 0.35 AM A937 109 109

‐ ‐

Northbound 0.36 0.41 5.09 4.73 4.68 PM North

‐ ‐

Junction A90 173.84 172.7 172.3 1.12 1.52 AM

Southbound

‐ ‐

Turn

24.47 23.44 23.17 1.03 PM 1.3

Right

‐ 3 3

The The due due ‐ crossing crossing reliability reliability

The period. The period. The movements. The in the the

the

grade grade variability variability centre centre variability variability to to

PM.

the the

movements movements

is is separation separation

grade grade junction junction

at at

the the in in in in

the the the the separation separation

A937 A937

is is

delay delay delay delay are are at at

showing showing

this this northbound northbound

eliminated. eliminated.

on on on on

location. location. at at

the the the the

this this a a

very very

approach approach approach approach

location. location.

approach approach

This This minor minor

is is

to to to to particularly particularly increase increase The The

the the the the to to

largest largest

the the

south south north north

in in south south

reliability potential

the the benefit benefit

junction junction junction junction

junction junction case case

to to

in in

variability for is is is is

journey journey

the the reduced reduced greatly greatly

during during the

AM AM

permitted

time time

reduced reduced period period the the of

due due

delay

AM AM

to to

as as

Table 9‐6 ‐ TPO 3 ‐ Efficiency of the Network and Economic Development TPO 3 ‐ Efficiency of the Network and Economic Development Journey Time Results

Scoring/ Appraisal Assumptions To achieve an improvement in network A90 Mainline A937 (Marykirk) ‐ A90 North A937 (Marykirk) ‐ High Street High Street to A90 North efficiency experienced by traffic travelling on the A90 Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound and accessing and crossing Scoring Summary

the A90 at the AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Laurencekirk junctions in order to support

Package in

sustainable economic

growth in the south of Aberdeenshire and the 4:11 4:01 4:01 4:15 19:31 7:19 4:19 4:20 21:05 8:57 7:55 11:09 3:16 2:54 5:38 3:21

north of Angus. MM:SS

Minimum ‐ Do

‐ Four journey time routes Score have been assessed as The journey time on the A90 has been reduced on the shown in figure 9.7. southbound and northbound in both the AM and PM Peak ‐ Journey times have been which is due the removal of the 50mph section around the derived from the S‐ south junction and its replacement with a 70mph speed limit. Paramics model. There are significant savings in journey times from the A937 ‐ Journey times are based (Marykirk) to the A90 north in the AM and PM. This is due to on Weekday AM and PM 4.78% 5.39% 3.73% 1.96% 74.04% 31.21% ‐3.86% ‐3.85% 71.70% 28.86% 19.79% 47.09% 2.55% 0.00% 13.91% 0.50% the grade separated junction removing the delay experienced in crossing the A90. peaks. Reduction

‐ All data presented is for % There is a very slight increase in journey times from the A90 the modelled year of 2033. north to A937 (Marykirk) southbound in both the AM and PM. This is because vehicles are required to travel through a ‐The AM Peak is 3 hours roundabout in the grade separated layout in the do‐something from 06:00 – 09:00. situation. In the do‐minimum, vehicles are able to turn right ‐ The PM Peak is 3 hours 2 2 from the A90 at the at grade priority junction layout which does from 16:00 – 19:00. not incur the same delays. ‐ Journey times have been The grade separated junction at the south has greatly improved represented in minutes and the journey time on the A937 (Marykirk) to High Street route in seconds. the southbound and northbound movements for both the AM SS and PM peak. This is due to the grade separated junction in ‐ A negative difference removing the delay experienced at the A90 crossing. means a saving in journey ‐12 ‐13 ‐9 ‐5 ‐867 ‐137 10 10 ‐907 ‐155 ‐94 ‐315 ‐5 0 ‐47 ‐1 times. The journey time on High Street to A90 north junction southbound and northbound has reduced in the AM peak ‐ A positive difference Difference period but has no change in journey time in the PM peak. means an increase in journey times, Grade separation of the south junction would accommodate traffic generated by planned developments in Laurencekirk and north Angus. As per package 2, the journey time savings delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are all similar for the A90 movements, A937 (Marykirk) to A90 north movements and 4.78% 5.39% 2.90% 0.78% 74.04% 31.21% ‐4.25% ‐3.85% 71.70% 28.68% 19.16% 47.09% 8.67% 0.00% 37.57% ‐14.43% A937 (Marykirk) to High Street. Also as per package 2, there is

Reduction a slight increase in journey time travelling from the A90 north

% to the A937 (Marykirk). 3 2 Due to the closure of the north junction central reserve A90

SS right turning traffic tends to reroute via the centre junction,

adding some extra journey time. ‐12 ‐13 ‐7 ‐2 ‐867 ‐137 11 10 ‐907 ‐154 ‐91 ‐315 ‐17 0 ‐127 29 Grade separation of the south junction would accommodate traffic generated by planned developments in Laurencekirk and

Difference north Angus.

Journey Time Results

A90 Mainline A937 (Marykirk) ‐ A90 North A937 (Marykirk) ‐ High Street High Street to A90 North

Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Scoring Summary

Package in

4:11 4:01 4:01 4:15 19:31 7:19 4:19 4:20 21:05 8:57 7:55 11:09 3:16 2:54 5:38 3:21 MM:SS

Minimum ‐ Do Score

As per package 2, the journey time savings delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are all similar for the A90 movements, A937 (Marykirk) to A90 north movements

% 4.38% 5.39%% 3.32% 1.57% 69.00% 32.35% ‐1.93% ‐2.69% 71.38% 28.86% 20.63% 46.34% ‐41.84% ‐0.57% ‐11.24% ‐6.47% and A937 (Marykirk) to High Street. Also as per package 2 there is a slight increase in journey time traveling from the A90 north to the A937 (Marykirk). Reduction

4 SS 2

With the full closure of the centre junction there is an increase in journey times on High in Street to A90 North in the southbound and northbound movements for both the AM and ‐11 ‐13 ‐7 ‐4 ‐808 ‐142 5 7 ‐903 ‐155 ‐98 ‐310 82 1 48 13 PM peak. This is due to users no longer being able to use the centre junction to re‐route.

Grade separation of the south junction would accommodate traffic generated by planned Difference developments in Laurencekirk and north Angus. As per package 2, the journey time savings delivered by the grade separation of the south

junction are all similar for the A937 (Marykirk) to A90 north movements and A937 (Marykirk) to High Street. 4.78% 5.39% 2.90% ‐3.92% 74.64% 32.35% ‐1.93% ‐3.46% 71.78% 17.88% 21.05% 46.04% 8.16% 0.57% No Data ‐126.87% There is however a slight increase in the A90 mainline southbound journey time during the Reduction

AM peak. This is due to all traffic to Laurencekirk not being able to use the north and centre % junctions. This results in a higher number of diverges at the south junction slowing mainline traffic. With the closure of the north central reserve there is a decrease in journey time in the peak 5 2 periods High Street to A90 north as a result of the removal of right turns.

The results show an increase in journey times in the PM southbound movement from A90 in north to High Street. This is because the central reserves at the north and centre junctions ‐12 ‐13 ‐7 10 ‐874 ‐142 5 9 ‐908 ‐96 ‐100 ‐308 ‐16 1 No Data 255 are shut and prevent the right turn into Laurencekirk. This means that all vehicles travelling to Laurencekirk from the north must travel to the south junction. This journey time movement was not recorded during the AM peak. Difference Grade separation of the south junction would accommodate traffic generated by planned developments in Laurencekirk and north Angus.

As per package 2, the journey time savings delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are all similar for the A90 movements, A937 to A90 movements and A937 to

% 4.78% 5.39% 2.90% 0.78% 74.04% 31.21% ‐3.86% ‐3.85% 71.70% 28.68% 19.79% 46.94% ‐0.51% ‐ 9.20% 34.02% ‐11.94% Laurencekirk High Street.

Reduction In the AM A90 to High Street southbound benefits are gained from the elimination of the crossing movement.

6 3 in Grade separation at the north junction would reduce existing junction delays, although these tend to be low in comparison with the south junction.

SS ‐12 ‐13 ‐7 ‐2 ‐867 ‐142 10 9 ‐907 ‐164 ‐94 ‐314 1 16 ‐115 24 Grade separation of the north and south junctions would accommodate traffic generated

Difference by planned developments in Laurencekirk and north Angus. Journey Time Results

A90 Mainline A937 (Marykirk) ‐ A90 North A937 (Marykirk) ‐ High Street High Street to A90 North

Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Scoring Summary

Package in

4:11 4:01 4:01 4:15 19:31 7:19 4:19 4:20 21:05 8:57 7:55 11:09 3:16 2:54 5:38 3:21 MM:SS

Minimum ‐ Do Score

As per package 2 the journey time savings delivered by the grade separation of the south junction are all similar for the A90 movements, A937 to A90 movements and A937 to

% 4.78% 5.39% 3.32% 0.39% 74.47% 31.12% ‐2.32% ‐3.08% 71.62% 28.31% 20.84% 46.49% ‐0.51% ‐9.20% 34.32% ‐12.94% Laurencekirk High Street.

Reduction In the AM A90 to High Street southbound benefits are gained from the elimination of the crossing movement at the north junction.

7 3 in Grade separation at the north junction would reduce existing junction delays, although

these tend to be low in comparison with the south junction.

SS ‐12 ‐13 ‐8 ‐1 ‐872 ‐81 6 8 ‐907 ‐152 ‐94 ‐311 1 16 ‐116 26

Grade separation of the north and south junctions would accommodate traffic generated Difference by planned developments in Laurencekirk and north Angus.

Table 9‐7 ‐ TPO 4 – Sustainable Transport TPO 4 – Sustainable Transport Package Score Scoring Summary Scoring/ Appraisal Assumptions To increase the opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk by providing a grade safely cross the A90. separated junction at the south. 2 1 ‐ Designs for proposed grade separated junction can be Pedestrians and cyclists are still able to navigate the centre and north junction as in the current situation, though these movements have not been produced to incorporate pedestrian/cyclist facilities. made safer at these locations by this Package. ‐ Consultation has indicated that cyclists currently prefer to Like Package 2, the south grade separated junction will allow and promote safe pedestrian/cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of use the north and centre junction to access the Laurencekirk Laurencekirk. or the A90. ‐ These scorings do not allow for the inclusion of Package 8 The closure of the north junction to movements across the A90 at this location will remove the ability to cross the central reserve for 3 1 which includes use of the existing underpass under the A90. pedestrian/cyclist. ‐ This assessment is qualitative only. Pedestrians and cyclists are still able to navigate the centre junction as in the current situation, though this crossing has not been made safer by this Package. Like Package 2, the south grade separated junction will allow and promote safe pedestrian/cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk.

4 1 The north junction will still allow Pedestrian/Cyclist to navigate the junction but this will not be made any safer through this Package.

The full closure of the centre junction will restrict the ability to cross the central reserve for pedestrian/cyclist at this location. Like Package 2, the south grade separated junction will allow and promote safe pedestrian/cyclist movements across the A90 at the south of Laurencekirk. 5 1

The full closure of the centre junction and closure of the north junction to movements across the A90 will remove the ability to cross the A90. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the north and south of Laurencekirk by providing a grade separated junction at each location.

6 2

Pedestrian/Cyclist are still able to navigate the centre junction as in the current situation, though these movements have not been made safer at these locations. This package promotes and facilitates safe pedestrian and cyclist movements across the A90 at the north and south of Laurencekirk by providing a grade separated junction at each location. 7 2 The closure of the centre junction to movements across the A90 at this location will restrict the ability to cross the central reserve for pedestrian/cyclist.

Table 9‐8 ‐ TPO 5 – Laurencekirk High Street TPO 5 – Laurencekirk Laurencekirk High Street Flows High Street

Scoring/ Appraisal AM PM Assumptions ‐ To contribute to the High Street’s role as a Scoring Summary central place for the Approach High St, High St, continued vitality of the between North South between North South End Laurencekirk Blackiemuir End of End of Blackiemuir End of community. of High St

and Station High St High St and Station High St

Rd Rd ‐ Flows have been

selected from 3 locations Package Score on the High Street based Do‐ on data from the S‐ T/W Flow 430 880 840 440 1160 1080 ‐ ‐ Minimum Paramics models. T/W Flow 380 940 860 430 1180 1080 This package has an overall neutral impact on the flows on Laurencekirk High Street. ‐ The AM Peak is for 3 Difference ‐50 60 20 ‐10 20 0 The provision of the grade separation at the south does not draw additional traffic to from the other junctions hours from 06:00 – 2 0 based on the modelled proposed 2033 committed development situation. In practice, however it may be that some 09:00. % Difference ‐12% 7% 2% ‐2% 2% 0% traffic would reroute to use the new south junction to benefit from the grade separation.

‐ The PM Peak is for 3 T/W Flow 380 940 690 420 1170 350 This package has an overall neutral impact. In this package there is a reduction in vehicles using the north junction hours from 16:00 – Difference ‐50 60 ‐150 ‐20 10 ‐730 to access Laurencekirk. This is due to the closure of the central reserve at the north junction. Vehicles previously 19:00. 3 0 using the north junction are modelled to re‐route to use the centre junction. In practice, however it may be that ‐ All data presented is for % Difference ‐12% 7% ‐18% ‐5% 1% ‐68% some traffic would reroute to use the new south junction to benefit from the grade separation, but such flows are the modelled year of relatively low. 2033. T/W Flow 720 950 940 820 1240 1230 This package impacts on traffic flows along the High Street, due to the full closure of the centre junction. Difference 290 70 100 380 80 150 Traffic previously using the centre junction has to re‐route to use the south or the north junctions, resulting in It should be noted that % vehicles travelling longer distances along the High Street. However, the actual increase in levels of traffic is 4 0 difference values are relatively modest resulting in an overall neutral impact on the High Street. against a low baseline. % Difference 67% 8% 12% 86% 7% 14%

T/W Flow 890 1000 770 1640 930 400 This package has an overall minor negative impact in traffic flows along the High Street, notably at the south end. Difference 460 120 ‐70 1200 ‐230 ‐680 This is due to the full closure of the centre junction and the closure of the centre reserve at the north junction to traffic to/from the A90. As a result, vehicles previously using the north and centre junctions to access Laurencekirk 5 ‐1 will have to re‐route and use the south junction. This can be seen to increase flows to the south of the High Street. % Difference 107% 14% ‐8% 273% ‐20% ‐63%

T/W Flow 380 940 760 440 1170 480 This package has an overall neutral impact. There are some increases in the flows on the High Street except in the Difference ‐50 60 ‐80 0 10 ‐600 PM peak when there is a significant reduction in vehicles using the north grade separated junction to access 6 0 Laurencekirk. % Difference ‐12% 7% ‐10% 0% 1% ‐56% These vehicles are instead using the centre junction instead of the north junction. In practice, more vehicles would use the north and south junctions to benefit from the grade separation. T/W Flow 660 1010 1010 700 1230 1340 This package has an overall neutral impact on the High Street due to the closure of the central reserve to vehicles to/from the A90 at the centre junction. 7 Difference 230 130 170 260 70 260 ‐1 This means any vehicle previously using the centre junction will need to re‐route to the north and south junctions % Difference 53% 15% 20% 59% 6% 24% but flows are low.

Appendix K Scheme Costs

Description of Design Elements and Package Combinations Parking Western Cameras Closure of Closure of High Street Interchange - Interchange - Link Between North Junction Average Speed Rationalisation South Junction Central Reserve A937 and B9120 Central Junction Distributor Road Grade Separated Grade Separated at North Junction Proposal Name: A B C D E F G H

PACKAGE 2a (with Parking Yes Yes Rationalisation on High Street)

PACKAGE 2b (without Parking Yes Rationalisation on High Street)

PACKAGE 3a (with Western Distributor Yes Yes Yes Rd)

PACKAGE 3b (without Western Yes Yes Distributor Rd)

PACKAGE 4a (with High Street Yes Yes Yes Yes Parking)

PACKAGE 4b (without High Street Yes Yes Yes Parking)

PACKAGE 5a (with Western Link Rd) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PACKAGE 5b (without Western Link Yes Yes Yes Yes Rd)

PACKAGE 6 Yes Yes

Yes (Left In PACKAGE 7 Yes Yes Out at B9120) Cost Estimate - Package 2a All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 2a South Junction plus High Street Parking. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 2,290,500 30 % of Construction Works cost

Note: With a GSI at the south the A90 access to Johnstone lodge needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. A937 to Johnston Lodge C Class Road £ 242,000

Associated Roadworks £ 37,460 Accesses outwith those already included within the south Stopping up 2 direct accesses £ 20,193 junction works. Medians outwith those already included within the south Closure of 1 median £ 17,267 junction works.

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 7,634,860

South Junction £ 9,925,360 Construction works + preliminaries F - High Street Parking F F

High Street Parking F

Preliminaries £ 15,000 £ - £ 15,000 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 50,000 £ - £ 50,000

F - Total £ 65,000 £ - £ 65,000

Construction Works Totals A F A&F

Construction Works Sub Total £ 9,925,400 £ 65,000 £ 9,990,400 (A-South & F-High Street Parking)

Optimism Bias £ 4,367,200 £ 28,600 £ 4,395,800 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 14,292,600 £ 93,600 £ 14,386,200 (incl. Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A A&F £12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 111,100 £ 111,100 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ 48,900 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ - £ 160,000 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 14,452,600 £ 93,600 £ 14,546,200

Preparation and Site Supervision A F A&F

Preparation and Administration £ 1,734,400 £ 11,300 £ 1,745,700 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 722,700 £ 4,700 £ 727,400 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 16,909,700 £ 109,600 £ 17,019,300 Not including VAT

Extra price Allowance for QRA RISK for High price 10 % %Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based £ 1,690,970 £ 10,960 £ 1,701,930 Option upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 18,600,670 £ 120,560 £ 18,721,230 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 2b All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 2b South Junction without High Street Parking. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 2,290,500 30 % of Construction Works cost

Note: With a GSI at the south the A90 access to Johnstone lodge needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. A937 to Johnston Lodge C Class Road £ 242,000

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 7,634,860

South Junction £ 9,925,360 Construction works + preliminaries

Preliminaries £ - £ - £ - 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ - £ - £ -

£ - £ - £ -

Construction Works Totals A A

Construction Works Sub Total £ 9,925,400 £ - £ 9,925,400 (A-South only)

Optimism Bias £ 4,367,200 £ - £ 4,367,200 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 14,292,600 £ - £ 14,292,600 (incl. risk allowance and Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A A

£12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 111,100 £ - £ 111,100 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ - £ 48,900 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ - £ 1 60,000 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 14,452,600 £ - £ 14,452,600

Preparation and Site Supervision A A

Preparation and Administration £ 1, 734,400 £ - £ 1,734,400 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 722,700 £ - £ 722,700 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 16,909,700 £ - £ 16,909,700 Not including VAT

Extra price Allowance for QRA RISK for High price 10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based £ 1,690,970 £ - £ 1,690,970 Option upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 18,600,670 £ - £ 18,600,670 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 3a All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 3a South Junction & Western Distributor Road plus closure of central reserve at north junction. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 5,561,200 30 % of Construction Works cost

Construction Works A - South Junction (4 no. merges/diverges) £ 7,597,400 Earthworks £ 3,305,600 Pavement £ 1,493,000 Drainage £ 563,100 Note: Structures cost to incorporate 44% BIAS allowance as Structures £ 808,500 per Stage 1 STAG Guidance Ancillaries £ 753,000 Statutory Undertakers £ 220,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 212,200 Note: With a GSI at the south the A90 access to Johnstone lodge needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. A937 to Johnston Lodge C Class Road £ 242,000 C - Western Distributor Road £ 10,865,021 Earthworks £ 2,261,521 Pavement £ 2,249,600 Drainage £ 1,389,500 Note: Railway Structures cost to incorporate 44% BIAS Structures (2 No. Railway) £ 1,717,000 allowance as per Stage 1 STAG Guidance Ancillaries £ 2,713,900 Statutory Undertakers £ 220,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 313,500

Associated Roadwork's £ 74,919 Accesses outwith those already included within the south Stopping up 4 direct accesses £ 40,385 junction works. Medians outwith those already included within the south Closure of 2 median £ 34,534 junction works.

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 18,537,340

South Junction and Western Distributor Road Total £ 24,098,540 Construction works + preliminaries

G - Closure Centre reserve at North Junction G G

Option G - Closure Centre reserve at North Junction

Preliminaries £ 5,200 £ 5,200 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 17,267 £ 17,267

G - Total £ 22,467 £ - £ 22,467

Construction Works Totals A&C&G A&C&G

Construction Works Sub Total Note: Package 3a includes the cost of the the whole 4km length of the Western Distributer road and (A-South & C-WDR + G-Central Reserve Closure at N £ 24,121,100 £ 24,121,100 does not include for any developer contribution for the NE Junction) quadrant

Optimism Bias £ 10,613,300 £ 10,613,300 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 34,734,400 £ 34,734,400 (incl Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A C A&C&G £12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 111,100 £ 110,000 £ 221,100 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ 48,400 £ 97,300 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ 158,400 £ 318,400 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 34,894,400 £ 158,400 £ 35,052,800

Preparation and Site Supervision A C A&C&G

Preparation and Administration £ 4,187,400 £ 19,100 £ 4,206,500 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 1,744,800 £ 8,000 £ 1,752,800 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 40,826,600 £ 185,500 £ 41,012,100 Not including VAT

Extra price Allowance for QRA RISK for High price 10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based £ 4,082,660 £ 18,550 £ 4,101,210 Option upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 44,909,260 £ 204,050 £ 45,113,310 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 3b All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 3b South Junction plus closure of central reserve at north junction. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 2,312,100 30 % of Construction Works cost

Note: With a GSI at the south the A90 access to Johnstone lodge needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. A937 to Johnston Lodge C Class Road £ 242,000

Associated Roadworks £ 109,453 Accesses outwith those already included within the south Stopping up 4 direct accesses £ 40,385 junction works. Medians outwith those already included within the south Closure of 2 median £ 69,067 junction works.

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 7,706,853

South Junction and Western Distributer Road Total £ 10,018,953 Construction works + preliminaries G - Closure Centre reserve at North Junction G

Option G - Closure Centre reserve at North Junction

Preliminaries £ 5,200 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 17,267

G - Total £ 22,467 £ - £ -

Construction Works Totals A A&G

Construction Works Sub Total £ 1 0,019,000 £ 10,041,467 A-South & G-Central Reserve Closure at N Junction)

Optimism Bias £ 4,408,400 £ 4,418,300 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 14,427,400 £ 14,459,800 (incl Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A A&G

£12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 111,100 £ 111,100 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ 48,900 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ - £ 1 60,000 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 14,587,400 £ 14,619,800

Preparation and Site Supervision A A&G

Preparation and Administration £ 1,750,500 £ - £ 1,750,500 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 729,400 £ - £ 729,400 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 17,067,300 £ - £ 17,099,700 Not including VAT

10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based Extra price Allowance for RISK for High price Option £ 1,706,730 £ - £ 1,709,970 upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 18,774,030 £ - £ 18,809,670 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 4a All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 4a South Junction & Link to B9120 and closure of central junction plus High Street Parking. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 2,658,200 30 % of Construction Works cost

Construction Works A - South Junction (4 no. merges/diverges) £ 7,355,400 Earthworks £ 3,305,600 Pavement £ 1,493,000 Drainage £ 563,100 Note: Structures cost to incorporate 44% BIAS allowance as Structures £ 808,500 per Stage 1 STAG Guidance Ancillaries £ 753,000 Statutory Undertakers £ 220,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 212,200

D - Link road from the A937 South Junction to the B9120 £ 1,430,400 Earthworks £ 414,400 Pavement £ 731,900 Drainage £ 123,200 Structures £ - Ancillaries £ 108,400 Statutory Undertakers £ 11,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 41,500

Associated Roadworks £ 74,919 Accesses outwith those already included within the south Stopping up 4 direct accesses £ 40,385 junction works. Medians outwith those already included within the south Closure of 2 median £ 34,534 junction works.

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 8,860,719

South Junction and B9120 Link road Total £ 11,518,919 Construction works + preliminaries H - Central Junction Options H F H&F

Option H -Central Junction High Street Parking closure. H&F

Preliminaries £ 11 ,300 £ 15,000 £ 26,300 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 37,460 £ 50,000 £ 87,460

H - Total £ 48,760 £ 65,000 £ 113,760

Construction Works Totals A&D F&H A&D&F&H

Construction Works Sub Total £ 11,519,000 £ 113,760 £ 11,632,760 (A-South & C-WDR + H- Closure Central Junction)

Optimism Bias £ 5,068,400 £ 50,100 £ 5,118,500 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 16,587,400 £ 163,900 £ 16,751,300 (incl. Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A&D F&H A&D&F&H

£12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 162,900 £ - £ 162,900 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 71,700 £ - £ 71,700 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 234,600 £ - £ 2 34,600 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 16,822,000 £ 163,900 £ 16,985,900

Preparation and Site Supervision A&D F&H A&D&F&H

Preparation and Administration £ 2, 018,700 £ 19,700 £ 2,038,400 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 841,100 £ 8,200 £ 849,300 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 19,681,800 £ 191,800 £ 19,873,600 Not including VAT

Extra price Allowance for QRA RISK for High price 10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based £ 1,968,180 £ 19,180 £ 1,987,360 Option upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 21,649,980 £ 210,980 £ 21,860,960 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 4b All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 4b South Junction & Link to B9120 and closure of central junction. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 2,658,200 30 % of Construction Works cost

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 8,860,719

South Junction and B9120 Link road Total £ 11,518,919 Construction works + preliminaries H - Central Junction Options H H

Option H -Central Junction closure. H

Preliminaries £ 11,300 £ 11,300 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 37,460 £ 37,460

H - Total £ 48,760 £ 48,760

Construction Works Totals A&D H A&D&H

Construction Works Sub Total (A-South & C-WDR + G-Central Reserve Junction £ 11,519,000 £ 48,760 £ 11,567,760 Closure N Junction)

Optimism Bias £ 5,068,400 £ 21,500 £ 5,089,900 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 16,587,400 £ 70,300 £ 16,657,700 (incl Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A&D A&D&H £12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 162,900 £ - £ 162,900 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 71,700 £ - £ 71,700 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 234,600 £ - £ 234,600 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 16,822,000 £ 70,300 £ 16,892,300

Preparation and Site Supervision A&D H A&D&H

Preparation and Administration £ 2,018,700 £ 8,500 £ 2,027,200 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 841,100 £ 3,600 £ 844,700 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 19,681,800 £ 8 2,400 £ 19,764,200 Not including VAT

10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Bdgets%Extra Extra price Allowance for QRA RISK for High price £ 1,968,180 £ 8,240 £ 1,976,420 over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based upon QRA Option for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 21,649,980 £ 9 0,640 £ 21,740,620 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 5a All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 5a South Junction and A937 to B9120 Link, Western Distributor Road and closure of central junction. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 5,488,600 30 % of Construction Works cost

C - Western Distributer Road £ 10,865,021 Earthworks £ 2,261,521 Pavement £ 2,249,600 Drainage £ 1,389,500 Note: Railway Structures to incorporate 44% BIAS Structures (2 No. Railway) £ 1,717,000 allowance as per Stage 1 STAG Guidance Ancillaries £ 2,713,900 Statutory Undertakers £ 220,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 313,500

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 18,295,340

South Junction and Western Distributor Road Total £ 23,783,940 Construction works + preliminaries

D - A937 to the B9120 Link road D F&H A,C, D F & H

Option F&H -Central Option D - A937 to the B9120 Link Junction closure & Northern median.

Preliminaries £ 431,500 £ 16,500 £ 448,000 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 1,438,300 £ 54,726 £ 1,493,026

Total £ 1,869,800 £ 71,226 £ 1,941,026

Construction Works Totals A,C & D A,C, D F & H

Note: Construction Works Sub Total Package 5a includes the cost of the the whole 4km length of the Western Distributer road and (A-South & C-WDR + G-Central Reserve Junction £ 25,653,800 £ 25,725,000 does not include for any developer contribution for the NE Closure N Junction) quadrant

Optimism Bias £ 11,287,700 £ 11,319,000 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 36,941,500 £ 37,044,000 (incl Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A C A,C, D F & H

£12944 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from VOA Property Land £ 106,100 £ 110,000 £ 216,100 Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 46,700 £ 48,400 £ 95,100 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 152,800 £ 158,400 £ 311,200 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 37,094,300 £ 158,400 £ 37,355,200

Preparation and Site Supervision A C A,C, D F & H

Preparation and Administration £ 4,451,400 £ 19,100 £ 4,470,500 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 1,854,800 £ 8,000 £ 1,862,800 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 43,400,500 £ 185,500 £ 43,688,500 Not including VAT

10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based Extra price Allowance for RISK for High price Option £ 4,340,050 £ 18,550 £ 4,368,850 upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 47,740,550 £ 204,050 £ 48,057,350 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 5b All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 5b South Interchange and A937 to B9120 Link & closure of central junction and northern median. Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 2,229,100 30 % of Construction Works cost

£ -

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 7,430,319

South Junction and Western Distributer Road Total £ 9, 659,419 Construction works + preliminaries

D - A937 to the B9120 Link road D F&H A,D, F & H

Option F&H -Central Option D - A937 to the B9120 Link Junction closure & Northern median.

Preliminaries £ 431,500 £ 16,500 £ 448,000 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 1,438,300 £ 54,726 £ 1,493,026

Total £ 1,869,800 £ 71,226 £ 1,941,026

Construction Works Totals A&D A,D, F & H

Construction Works Sub Total (A-South & C-WDR + G-Central Reserve Junction £ 11,529,300 £ 11,600,500 Closure N Junction)

Optimism Bias £ 5,072,900 £ 5,104,300 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 16,602,200 £ - £ 16,704,800 (incl Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A D A,D, F & H

£12944 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from VOA Property Land £ 111,100 £ 110,000 £ 221,100 Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ 48,400 £ 97,300 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ 158,400 £ 318,400 (incl. Optimism Bias) £ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 16,762,200 £ 158,400 £ 17,023,200

Preparation and Site Supervision A D A,D, F & H

Preparation and Administration £ 2,011,500 £ 31,300 £ 2,042,800 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 838,200 £ 13,000 £ 851,200 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 19,611,900 £ 202,700 £ 19,917,200 Not including VAT

10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based Extra price Allowance for RISK for High price Option £ 1,961,190 £ 20,270 £ 1,991,720 upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 21,573,090 £ 222,970 £ 21,908,920 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 6 All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 6 North & South Junctions Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 4,560,000 30 % of Construction Works cost

Note: With a GSI at the south the A90 access to Johnstone lodge needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. A937 to Johnston Lodge C Class Road £ 242,000 B - North Junction (4 no. merges/diverges) £ 7,493,100 Earthworks £ 3,278,600 Pavement £ 1,310,300 Drainage £ 732,300 Note: Structures cost to incorporate 44% BIAS allowance as Structures £ 701,800 per Stage 1 STAG Guidance Ancillaries £ 614,200 Statutory Undertakers £ 220,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 203,700 Burnside Farm Access Roads £ 319,100 £399K for Keilburn in main junction estimate

Note: With a GSI at the North the A90 access to Middleton farm needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. Middleton Access Road £ 113,100 Associated Roadworks £ 109,453 Stopping up 8 direct accesses and closing Accesses outwith those already included within the south £ 109,453 associated central reservation openings junction works. Medians outwith those already included within the south junction works.

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 15,199,953

North and South Junction Total £ 19,759,953 Construction works + preliminaries

Preliminaries 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works

£ - £ - £ -

Construction Works Totals A&B A&B

Construction Works Sub Total Note: Package includes the cost of the £ 19,760,000 £ 19,760,000 Burnside Access Road as access to Burnside is lost with the (North + South Junction Works) A92 Junction closure and Johnston Lodge Access.

Construction Works £ 19,760,000 £ 19,760,000

Optimism Bias £ 8,694,400 £ - £ 8,694,400 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ 28,454,400 £ - £ 28,454,400 (incl Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A B A&B £12943.8557435441 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from Land £ 111,100 £ 162,100 £ 273,200 VOA Property Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ 71,400 £ 120,300 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ 233,500 £ 393,500 106100 (incl. Optimism Bias)

Construction Works & Land Total £ 28,847,900 Total Construction and Land for A and B

Preparation and Site Supervision A&B A&B

Preparation and Administration £ 3,461,800 £ 3,461,800 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 1,442,400 £ 1,442,400 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 33,752,100 £ - £ 33,752,100 Not including VAT

10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based Extra price Allowance for RISK for High price Option £ 3,375,210 £ - £ 3,375,210 upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 37,127,310 £ - £ 37,127,310 Not including VAT Cost Estimate - Package 7 All Costs at Q1 2014 Package 7 North & South Junctions plus closure of the central Junction median Item description Estimate Sub Totals Totals Notes

Preliminaries 4,560,000 30 % of Construction Works cost

Note: With a GSI at the south the A90 access to Johnstone lodge needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937.

A937 to Johnston Lodge C Class Road £ 242,000 B - North Junction (4 no. merges/diverges) £ 7,493,100 Earthworks £ 3,278,600 Pavement £ 1,310,300 Drainage £ 732,300 Note: Structures cost to incorporate 44% BIAS allowance as Structures £ 701,800 per Stage 1 STAG Guidance Ancillaries £ 614,200 Statutory Undertakers £ 220,000 Landscape & Ecology £ 203,700 Burnside Farm Access Roads £ 319,100 £399K for Keilburn in main junction estimate

Note: With a GSI at the North the A90 access to Middleton farm needs closed so new 3.5m road connected to A937. Middleton Access Road £ 113,100 Associated Roadworks £ 109,453 Stopping up 8 direct accesses and closing Accesses outwith those already included within the north, £ 109,453 associated central reservation openings south and middle junction works.

Construction Works Total Excel Prelims £ 15,199,953

North and South Junction Total £ 19,759,953 Construction works + preliminaries H - Central Junction Options

Option H -Central Junction closure. H

Preliminaries £ 11,300 £ 11,300 30 % of construction works cost

Construction Works £ 37,460 £ 37,460

H - Total £ 48,760 £ 48,760

Construction Works Totals A&B&H Note: Construction Works Sub Total Package 7 includes the cost of the £ 19,808,800 Burnside Access Road as access to Burnside is removed as (A-South & B-North + D&H-Central Junction Works) it is located within the slip road weaving length.

Construction Works £ 19,808,800 (including risk allowance)

Optimism Bias £ 8,715,900 44 % of construction works cost

Construction Works Total £ - £ - £ 28,524,700 (incl. Optimism Bias)

Land and Property Costs A B A&B

£12944 per Ha (arable unequipped land) from VOA Property Land £ 111,100 £ 162,100 £ 273,200 Market Report 2011 but indexed linked to 2014.

Optimism Bias £ 48,900 £ 71,400 £ 120,300 44 % of Land cost

Land and Property Total £ 160,000 £ 233,500 £ 393,500 (incl. Optimism Bias)

£ -

Construction Works & Land Total £ 28,684,700 £ 233,500 £ 28,918,200

Preparation and Site Supervision A&B A&B

Preparation and Administration £ 3,470,200 £ 3,470,200 12 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

On Site Supervision and Testing £ 1,446,000 £ 1,446,000 5 % of Construction Works & Land Total (NESA)

Low Total Scheme Cost £ 33,834,400 £ 33,834,400 Not including VAT

10 % Extra over Risk allowance for Scheme Budgets based Extra price Allowance for RISK for determining High Price£ Option 3,383,440 £ - £ 3,383,440 upon QRA for Package 2a)

High Total Scheme Cost £ 37,217,840 £ - £ 37,217,840 Not including VAT

Appendix L Risk Register Appendix L Risk Register

Project Risk Categories: Cat

Legislative The risk that changes in legislation increase costs. This can be sub-divided into general risks such as changes in corporate tax rates and specific ones which may change the relative costs A and benefits of different procurement routes. Policy The risk of changes of policy direction not involving legislation. B

Construction The risk that the construction of the physical assets is not completed on time, to budget and to specification. The risk of inflation differing from assumed inflation rates, particularly for any C schemes where construction is not expected to start until some years in advance Planning The risk that the implementation of a project fails to adhere to the terms of planning permission, or that detailed planning cannot be obtained, or, if obtained, can only be implemented at D costs greater than in the original budget. Residual Value The risk relating to the uncertainty of the value of physical assets at the end of the contract. E

Operational The risk that operating costs vary from budget, that performance standards slips or that the service cannot be provided. F

Inflation The risk that actual inflation differs from assumed inflation rates. G

Maintenance The risk that the costs of keeping the assets in good condition vary from budget. H

Demand The risk that demand for the service does not match the levels planned, projected or assumed. As the demand for a service may be (partially) controllable by the government, the risk to the I public sector may be less than that perceived by the private sector. Design The risk that the design cannot deliver the services at the required performance or quality standards. J

Availability The risk that the quantum of the service provided is less than required under the contract. K

Volume The risk that actual usage of the service varies from the level forecast. L

Technology The risk that changes in technology result in services being provided using non optimal technology. M

Other Any other risk not covered by the above categories N

Risk Overall Risk Description Cat Likelihood (L) Impact (I) Likelihood No (LxI) 1 Scheme cost greater than predicted. C L M L High Scope of Statutory Undertakers diversionary works is greater than expected 2 C L M L Medium resulting in increased costs 3 Traffic levels on the A937 increase, impacting safety F L L L Low

4 Traffic forecasts from ASAM are an over or under estimate I M L L Low Medium High Impact

5 Level of traffic using the new junction not as high as predicted I M M M

6 Concept designs will need updated J M L L Overall Risk

7 Discovery of protected specifies not originally recorded N L M L High Risk

8 Potential objections from stautory consultees N L L L Medium Risk

9 Potential objections from public / non-statutory consultees N L L L Low Risk

10 Potential objections from BP N L M L

11 Potential objections from affected landowners N L L L

12 Unresolved objections leading to Public Local Inquiry N L H M

13 Changes to Standards N L L L

14 Lack of developer contributions to fund scheme N M H H

Appendix M EALI Report Appendix M EALI Report

Economic Development and Impact Report

Access to Laurencekirk

Prepared for

June 2015

City Park 368 Alexandra Parade Glasgow G31 3AU Tel: 0141 552 2000 www.ch2m.com

Document history

This report has been prepared in accordance with the instructions of the client, Nestrans, for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created By Verified by Approved by

1 26/05/15 Draft Chris Buck Gordon Blair Donald Bell

2 04/06/15 Final Draft Chris Buck Gordon Blair Donald Bell

ATL EALI REPORT I

Contents

Section Page Introduction ...... 1‐1 Socio‐Economic Context ...... 2‐1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2‐1 2.2 Current Population ...... 2‐1 2.3 Forecast Population ...... 2‐2 2.4 Employment and Earnings ...... 2‐2 2.5 Areas of Relative Deprivation ...... 2‐4 2.6 Summary and Conclusion ...... 2‐5 Policy Context ...... 3‐1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3‐1 3.2 Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan ...... 3‐1 3.3 Angus Economic Strategy (AES) 2013 – 2020 ...... 3‐3 3.4 Proposed Angus Local Development Plan (ALDP) 2015 ...... 3‐4 3.5 Summary ...... 3‐5 Stakeholder consultation ...... 4‐1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4‐1 4.2 What opportunities are being constrained by the current configuration of the A90 junctions? ...... 4‐1 4.3 How would transport infrastructure improvements at Laurencekirk affect opportunities? ...... 4‐2 4.4 The impact of various negative factors on local businesses ...... 4‐3 4.5 Anticipated benefits from improvements to the A90 junctions ...... 4‐4 Conclusion ...... 5‐5

Appendices Appendix A Businesses in Laurencekirk Appendix B Stakeholder Interviews

Tables Table 2.1: Population change 2001 to 2011 (Source: Scotland Census) ...... 2‐1 Table 2.2: Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2012 (Source: Scottish Government) ...... 2‐5 Table 3.1: Housing Allowances: South of Drumlithie – Laurencekirk ...... 3‐2 Table 3.2: Selected Actions from Aberdeen City and Shire SDP Proposed Action Programme ...... 3‐3 Table 3.3: Developments highlighted within the draft ALDP as potentially affecting the A90 south junction ...... 3‐5 Table 4.1: Proposed development sites constrained by A90 junctions ...... 4‐2 Table 4.2: Stakeholder views on the impact of various factors on local businesses ...... 4‐3 Table 4.3: Stakeholder views on anticipated benefits to business from junction improvements ...... 4‐4

Figures Figure 2.1: Population Composition 2011 (Source: Scotland Census) ...... 2‐2 Figure 2.2: Employment Profile 2011 (Source: Scotland Census) ...... 2‐3 Figure 2.3: Occupational Profile 2011 (Source: Scotland Census) ...... 2‐4

ATL EALI REPORT II SECTION 1 Introduction

1.1 Background STAG guidance recommends analysis of Economic Activity and Location Impacts (EALI), to provide an assessment of the impact of transport investment on the economy, identifying impacts on specific areas or particular groups. Guidance states that EALI analysis:

 Is particularly relevant to small projects; and  The level of depth required in the analysis should be proportional to the size of the option or policy being appraised. It was agreed with the Client Steering Group that the analysis would use a qualitative approach to assess EALI for the Access to Laurencekirk study. 1.2 Methodology Data from earlier consultation activity with the business community has been analysed, and supplemented by interviews with stakeholders in Local Authorities and representative organisations. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that economic impacts from improvements to the A90 junctions at Laurencekirk would arise through factors such as:

 Market and competitiveness changes, such as costs of delivery or lower costs of access to supplies;  Labour market impacts through access to a larger pool of labour, which might have efficiency benefits; and

 Land and property impacts arising through changes in access to land for business development and expansion and/or the attraction of mobile investment. Consultation activity undertaken in 2014 and in early 2015 included input from the business community in Laurencekirk and north Angus. This has been supplemented by telephone interviews with organisations representing the local and regional business community and Local Authority economic development officers. Appendix A identifies 94 businesses in Laurencekirk and the surrounding area, many of which may benefit from any improvements to the A90 junctions. Eight packages have been taken through to the STAG Part 2 Detailed Appraisal. Of the options contained within the packages, it is considered that the grade separation of the A90/A937 south junction would be the most significant generator of EALI impacts. Therefore, the core of the assessment of EALIs has focused on the impact of the southern junction. As this measure is common to all packages, the EALI findings will be applicable to all. Consideration has also be given to any additional impacts that may arise from delivery of grade separation at the north junction.

ATL EALI REPORT 1-1

SECTION 2 Socio-Economic Context

2.1 Introduction This section details economic characteristics and performance to provide an overview of the socio‐economic context of the Laurencekirk, Marykirk, Hillside and Montrose areas. The information and statistics are derived from a variety of stated sources and together these provide a broad socio‐ economic assessment of the key areas which are served by the A90 Laurencekirk junctions. Laurencekirk and Marykirk are in Aberdeenshire whilst Hillside and Montrose are within Angus; hence both of these Local Authority areas are taken into consideration. Some of the statistics cited below are only recorded at a resolution of a Local Authority area or greater, but where possible each individual area is assessed. 2.2 Current Population According to the National Records for Scotland (NRS) census data, the national population increased by almost 5% in the period from 2001 to 2011. The populations of Aberdeenshire and Angus increased over this period by a larger proportion, as was the case for each of the settlements served by the A90 Laurencekirk junctions. Laurencekirk itself experienced significant growth, of over 60%. Table 2.1 below shows the population changes that have occurred over the period from 2001 to 2011 in each location, with the exception of Marykirk for which specific 2001 data is unavailable. Table 2.1: Population change 2001 to 2011 (Source: Scotland Census)

Scotland Aberdeenshire Angus Laurencekirk Hillside Montrose Marykirk

2001 5,062,011 226,871 108,400 1,808 1,014 10,845 /

2011 5,295,403 252,973 115,978 2,925 1,146 11,955 93

% Change 5 12 7 62 13 10 n/a

Census data shows that in 2011 the population aged between 16 and 60 in these locations generally ranged from 55‐58%. The only exception is Hillside at 51.4%, which has a relatively high population of those aged 5‐15 (15.5%) and aged over 60 (27.8%). The population profile in Marykirk differs from the other sets of statistics in that the proportion of under 5s is very low (1.1%) and those aged 5‐15 is very high (21.5%). However, the population of Marykirk is under 100, so averages could be skewed by the make‐up of one or two individual families. Figure 2.1 below shows the population composition in more detail.

ATL EALI REPORT 2-1

7.7 7.2 9.3 10.3 10.6 9.4 5.4 15.5 15.9 15.1 18.1 14.9 17.2 16.5

21.1 22.5 19.2 25.8 21.7 19.7 20.4

20 22.1 17.2 20.6 18.3 20 20

14 18.5 15.2 15.1 13.9 11.7 16.7

11.8 12.7 12.3 13.3 15.5 11.6 21.5 5.5 6 5.1 6.3 5.3 5.4 1.1 SCOTLAND ABERDEENSHIRE ANGUS LAURENCEKIRK HILLSIDE MONTROSE MARYKIRK

0 to 4 years old 5 to 15 years old 16 to 29 years old 30 to 44 years old 45 to 59 years old 60 to 74 years old 75 years old and over

Figure 2.1: Population Composition 2011 (Source: Scotland Census)

2.3 Forecast Population Population forecasts provided by National Records of Scotland (NRS) for the period 2012 – 2027 indicate that the overall population in Aberdeenshire will increase by 17%. However, the population profile will shift, with the population of pensionable age1 increasing by 37%, whilst the working age population will only increase by 12%. The differential rates of growth in Angus are more marked, but the total population will change only slightly, with a forecast decrease of 1%. The population of pensionable age will increase by 24%, whilst the working age population will decrease by 8%. 2.4 Employment and Earnings The Office of National Statistics (ONS) provides earnings data at a National and Local Authority level. This shows that the average earnings of Aberdeenshire residents in 2014 was 4.5% higher than the average for Scotland, whereas earnings within Angus were almost 10% lower. The average hourly pay in Angus was £11.75 as opposed to £13.62 in Aberdeenshire. Scottish Census data show that in 2011 the economically active population in the locations reported ranged from 69‐76%. Of the areas considered in this report, only Montrose had a slightly higher 2011 unemployment rate (5%) than the national average (4.8%). Laurencekirk had the lowest unemployment level (2.2%). Figure 2.2 below shows the employment profile of Laurencekirk, Hillside, Montrose and Marykirk, compared to the Aberdeenshire and Angus areas and the Scottish average.

1 Calculated in NRS reports taking into account planned increase in state pension age

2-2 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

15 14 16 15 3 18 18 17 6 3 4 3 2 4 6 5 4 2 3 5 5 15 14 13 14 18 16 9 4 4 4 3 5 4 9 25 24 31 31 28 31 30

75 76 69 69 72 69 70

SCOTLAND ABERDEENSHIRE ANGUS LAURENCEKIRK HILLSIDE MONTROSE MARYKIRK Economically active Economically inactive Looking after home or family Employees ‐ part‐time Unemployed Student Retired

Figure 2.2: Employment Profile 2011 (Source: Scotland Census)

Hillside has the highest proportion (11%) of managers, directors and senior officials, as well as the highest percentage of professional and technical occupations (33%) within its population. Laurencekirk ranks second in these areas, with 9% of employed residents working as managers, directors or senior officials, and 29% working in professional or technical occupations. The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are highest amongst Laurencekirk residents, at 16%, and lowest amongst residents of Marykirk, at 12%. The proportion of elementary occupations and process, plant and machine operators are highest amongst Marykirk residents at 44%, almost double the proportion within the other areas assessed. However, as noted above, the population of Marykirk is very small. Figure 2.3 below shows the occupational profile across each area.

ATL EALI REPORT 2-3

9 9 12 10 12 14 21 10 10 8 9 9 10 7 6 6 9 8 10 9 9 11 10 9 23 11 14 17 16 13 16 5 9 15 5 11 11 10 11 12 14 10 13 13 12 5 13 13 7 19 17 17 16 15 16 12

8 9 8 9 11 7 7

SCOTLAND ABERDEENSHIRE ANGUS LAURENCEKIRK HILLSIDE MONTROSE MARYKIRK

Elementary occupations Process, plant and machine operatives Sales and customer service occupations Caring, leisure and other service occupations Skilled trades occupations Administrative and secretarial occupations Associate professional and technical occupations Professional occupations Managers, directors and senior officials

Figure 2.3: Occupational Profile 2011 (Source: Scotland Census)

2.5 Areas of Relative Deprivation Concentrations of multiple deprivation across Scotland are defined within the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) which is produced by the Scottish Government. Data zones are the lowest level of resolution defined and there are 6,505 in this dataset. Table 2.2 below shows SIMD rankings for data zones covering Laurencekirk, Hillside and Montrose. Marykirk is included in Mearns South and Benholm (zone S01000270). The SIMD refers to a wide range of factors, however, the most relevant to this assessment are employment and income. Table 2.2 shows these rankings and the overall SIMD rank, expressed as a range from 1 to 100, where 1 is most deprived and 100 is least deprived. Any ranking within the lowest 25% is highlighted in red. Only one zone (in Montrose South) has an overall ranking in the lowest 25%, however, there are four other zones in Montrose which are ranked in the lowest 25% for income and/or employment.

2-4 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Table 2.2: Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2012 (Source: Scottish Government)

Overall SIMD rank Employment rank Income rank Intermediate Zone Name Data Zone Nearest Settlement (1‐100) (1‐100) (1‐100)

S01000272 Laurencekirk 75 86 79

S01000275 Laurencekirk 84 84 68 Mearns and Laurencekirk S01000279 Laurencekirk 84 94 79

S01000281 Laurencekirk 60 79 74

S01000268 St Cyrus 60 79 74

S01000269 St Cyrus 47 53 39 Mearns South and S01000270 Laurencekirk 77 86 86 Benholm S01000271 Johnshaven 66 76 76

S01000273 Edzell 49 56 63

S01000679 Montrose 27 36 22

S01000680 Montrose 25 20 22

S01000681 Montrose 27 26 22

Montrose South S01000682 Montrose 43 44 51

S01000683 Montrose 63 60 52

S01000684 Montrose 27 19 19

S01000685 Montrose 69 55 56

S01000686 Montrose 41 40 30

S01000687 Montrose 29 24 24

S01000688 Montrose 68 62 62 Montrose North S01000690 Montrose 77 77 78

S01000691 Montrose 44 40 43

S01000694 Montrose 45 46 41

S01000697 Hillside 64 78 72

S01000700 Montrose 56 59 49 Hillside S01000705 Hillside 80 79 78

S01000707 Hillside 67 79 77

2.6 Summary and Conclusion The socio‐economic assessment of Laurencekirk, Hillside, Marykirk and Montrose shows that although there are some differences between these areas and the aggregate Local Authority and national values,

ATL EALI REPORT 2-5

for the most part these are not significant. The main areas of difference and the key findings of this assessment are summarised below.

Population  The population of Laurencekirk increased by over 60% from 2001 to 2011; a much greater increase than any of the other areas analysed in this report;

 The population age profile in Laurencekirk and north Angus is consistent with national and local authority profiles, with significant working age populations. Hillside has a slightly higher proportion of under 15s and over 60s than the other areas analysed;

 Aberdeenshire is forecast to experience a population increase of over 17% between 2012 and 2027, whilst the total population of Angus will remain fairly static. However, the age profile will change significantly, with an increase of 24% in the population of pensionable age.

Earnings and Employment  Average annual earnings within Angus are lower than the national average, but are above average in Aberdeenshire;

 The proportion of the population classed as economically active in the areas analysed is equal or higher than the national average; highest in Laurencekirk;

 Unemployment rates in Laurencekirk, Hillside and Marykirk are lower than the national average, whereas in Montrose unemployment is fractionally higher;

 The populations of Hillside and Laurencekirk have high proportion of managers, directors, senior officials, professionals and technical occupations;

 The proportion of skilled trades’ occupations are highest amongst Laurencekirk residents;  Marykirk’s population has the highest proportion of process, plant and machine operators.

Areas of Relative Deprivation  None of the data zones analysed in this study are within the 15% most deprived areas of Scotland. One zone in Montrose South has an overall ranking in the lowest 25%, and there are four other zones in Montrose which are ranked in the lowest 25% for income and/or employment. The population of Laurencekirk has grown very quickly in the last 15 years and growth across Aberdeenshire is forecast to continue to 2027. It has a large economically active population, low unemployment and a relatively high proportion of its population in managerial, professional and technical occupations. The population of Montrose has also grown, but the forecasts for Angus are for a slight population decline and for a significant shift to an older age profile. The proportion of the Montrose population which is economically active is in line with the national average and a lower proportion of the population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations than is the case in Laurencekirk. Laurencekirk is a relatively affluent area, with the SIMD intermediate zone of Mearns and Laurencekirk having an average income ranking in the highest quartile. Much of the Hillside intermediate zone and Mearns South and Benholm are in the upper 50% for income, but one data zone in each falls into the lower 50%. Incomes in Montrose are significantly lower, with an average SIMD income ranking of just 40% and five data zones in the bottom quartile. Overall SIMD rankings for the intermediate zones in Aberdeenshire average 66%, whereas those in Montrose average 45%.

2-6 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 3 Policy Context

3.1 Introduction This section provides an assessment of planning policy developed by the Local Authorities in Aberdeenshire and Angus which is relevant to the Access to Laurencekirk study. Relevant aspects are outlined and findings are considered as part of further project development. Although Laurencekirk is located within Aberdeenshire, population centres such as Hillside and Montrose that are served by the A937 / A90 Laurencekirk south junction are in Angus. Hence, this review has also assessed planning policy associated with the Angus region, in considering the economic impact of possible interventions. Three key documents and associated literature have been identified and represent the focus of this section. These include:

 The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan 2014 and Action Plan 2013;  The Angus Economic Strategy 2013 – 2020; and  The Angus Draft Local Development Plan 2015 and Action Plan 2015. 3.2 Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan (ACSDP), developed by the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority, supports the progression of Aberdeen City and Shire as a secure supplier of sustainable energy and a prosperous European energy capital. It recognises the importance of improving links and connections in continuing positive development of the region. In consideration of this, it sets out a clear direction for future interventions, a spatial strategy, and associated objectives, targets and proposals. The plan covers the period up to 2035 and is focused on the Aberdeen City and Shire area, but does not include the Cairngorms National Park which forms part of the region. UK and Scottish policy are considered from the outset and accounted for in the strategic direction laid out. In support of objectives to tackle climate change, work towards sustainable development and provide a strong framework for economic growth and efficient use of resources, the plan sets out a number of key aims:

 “Make sure the area has enough people, homes and jobs to support the level of services and facilities needed to maintain and improve the quality of life;

 Protect and improve our valued assets and resources, including the built and natural environment and our cultural heritage;

 Help create sustainable mixed communities, and the associated infrastructure, which meet the highest standards of urban and rural design and cater for the needs of the whole population; and

 Make the most efficient use of the transport network, reducing the need for people to travel and making sure that walking, cycling and public transport are attractive choices” (ACSDP 2014). Within the plan, Laurencekirk is specifically identified as part of the Aberdeen to Laurencekirk Strategic Growth Area (SGA), which is described as a “key corridor linking the region with central and southern Scotland as well as the rest of the UK by road and rail” (ACSDP 2014).

ATL EALI REPORT 3-1

This corridor is one of four defined SGAs in the region, where development will be focused up to 2035. Although significant development is proposed for the Northern section, development will also occur in the South and will include the expansion of Laurencekirk. It is envisaged that over this period the defined SGAs will account for 75% of growth. An overarching aim of these designations is “to make housing, employment and services highly accessible by public transport” (ACSDA 2014). In reference to this it is stated that “development in these areas will bring about a significant need for new and improved infrastructure…improvements to roads and railways as well as walking, cycling and bus networks” (ACSDP 2014). Furthermore, the plan notes that “this investment in infrastructure is essential if we are to create successful sustainable mixed communities…All four strategic growth areas should focus on creating sustainable mixed communities with the services, facilities and infrastructure necessary for the 21st century” (ACSDP 2014). The allowances for housing development in or adjacent to the Laurencekirk area are set out in Schedule 1 of the plan. This provides some insight into the scale of development that may occur in the area over the next 20 years. Table 3.1 below sets out these allowances. Table 3.1: Housing Allowances: South of Drumlithie – Laurencekirk

Schedule 1 Housing Allowances: South of Drumlithie – Laurencekirk Effective Land Constrained Land Existing LDP (allowances 2017 to 2027 to Total Supply 2011 Supply 2011 to 2016) 2026 2035

253 10 500 400 100 1000

Source: Aberdeen Housing Market Area data, reported in ACSDP 2014

The plan defines a number of key objectives relating to the continuation of progressive development. The most relevant in the context of this report states Aberdeen City and Shire’s aim “to provide opportunities which encourage economic development and create new employment in a range of areas that are both appropriate for and attractive to the needs of different industries, while at the same time improving the essential strategic infrastructure necessary to allow the economy to grow over the long term.” (ACSDP 2014). In reference to this, it is stated that “connections, within Aberdeen City and Shire as well as to the rest of Scotland, the UK and the rest of the world are critical for the future health of the local economy…Future development should not be allowed to limit the growth of the economy by making the region less attractive to business, particularly in relation to congestion and access to roads, ports, airports and rail facilities. This infrastructure needs to be protected and improved” (ACSDP 2014). Further to the housing allowances set out in Schedule 1, a number of development proposals are set out in Schedule 2 of the plan. This outlines a range of measures, including improvements to road infrastructure and specific transport measures supported through the Strategic Transport Fund (STF). The STF is a funding and delivery mechanism to facilitate the implementation of transport projects which are needed as a result of the combined effect of new development. Six key transport measures are listed as being supported under this fund, including “junction and capacity improvements on the A96, A944, A956, A90, Kingswells North and Parkhill” (ACSDP 2014). The A90 junction improvements referred to in this context are to the north of Aberdeen.

3-2 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 3 POLICY CONTEXT

In support of the ACSDP Main Report, a Proposed Action Programme (PAP) has also been produced. The purpose of this programme is to set out specific actions which need to be taken in the region over the next 20 years. It is not a funding document, but it is stated that “inclusion in this action programme will help focus the activities of partners and to emphasise the importance of funding commitments at an appropriate stage to deliver the proposals” (ACSDP PAP 2013). Table 3.2 shows three actions from the PAP that are particularly relevant to this assessment: Table 3.2: Selected Actions from Aberdeen City and Shire SDP Proposed Action Programme

Action Description Comment

54 A90 Junction Improvements (Laurencekirk); The Access to Laurencekirk study

124 A90 Improvements Works north of Aberdeen, funded by the STF

136 Transport interventions to accommodate the Funded or partially funded by developers through the STF cumulative impacts of growth.

3.3 Angus Economic Strategy (AES) 2013 – 2020 This strategy was developed by the Angus Economic Development Partnership (AEDP). It outlines key priorities, challenges, opportunities and progress measurement, and provides an economic profile that facilitates the identification of priority areas, growth sectors and monitoring of strategic success. The overarching objective is to support local people and improve their standard of living to ensure the future economic prosperity of the region. The strategy aims to support the current and future needs of the economy and to capitalise on the opportunities associated with investment in tourism, hospitality and sustainable energy sector growth. Consultation carried out in the development of the strategy identified four key economic priorities, supporting:

 Enterprise and infrastructure;  Pride in place (a focus on the region’s heritage);  Communities; and  Skills. These priorities have been developed to tackle challenges associated with entrepreneurship, earnings, an ageing population and connectivity (which is of most relevance to Access to Laurencekirk). The strategy states that “the development of technology and the energy sector in the Northeast has enabled diversification into engineering, oil, gas and pharmaceuticals . . . essential in creating employment opportunities for the local workforce now and in the future. However, vital to enable such investment, is connectivity in terms of road, rail, air and increasingly important, broadband, and mobile infrastructure” (AES 2013). This is linked to the economic priority to support enterprise and infrastructure, the focus of which is on sustainable business growth, economic recovery and tourism. These areas will be addressed in part through physical regeneration to meet the requirements of local business and the development of local infrastructure.

ATL EALI REPORT 3-3

3.4 Proposed Angus Local Development Plan (ALDP) 2015 The ALDP 2015, produced by Angus Council, outlines the Authority’s approach to the development of the region over the next 10 years. A proposed ALDP was published in February 2015 for consultation until the end of April 2015. The timeline published within the report indicates that the ALDP will be adopted in the autumn of 2016. The plan “sets out where land is being allocated to meet development needs and where new development should and should not happen” (ALDP 2015), and covers the Angus region with the exception of the area covered by the Cairngorms National Park. It acknowledges the vision, policies and land requirements set out in 2012 within the TAYplan Strategic Development Plan (SDP), as well as National policy, including the Third National Planning Framework (NPF3) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014. The vision set out in the draft ALDP broadly reflects that which has been described in the previous section. In addition to this, the draft ALDP refers to a number of specific aspects set out in TAYplan SDP. Of particular relevance is the established TAYplan SDP requirement for the majority of new development to take place within principal settlements which includes Montrose. As outlined above, Montrose and the adjacent town of Hillside are the areas most relevant in the context of the Access to Laurencekirk study. Montrose is particularly relevant as it is designated as a Larger Town Centre which will “provide the location for larger scale developments” (ALDP 2015). As such, the development objectives for these areas, set out within the ALDP is the key focus of this policy assessment. The draft ALDP includes a series of ‘settlement statements’ identifying areas allocated for growth; sites which present opportunities for reuse, redevelopment and regeneration; and sites which are protected from development. The statement for Montrose, Hillside and Ferryden (which is located adjacent to the south of Montrose) lists significant housing, mixed‐use and employment developments. It sets out the implications of the development strategy for Montrose, which includes:

 Continued redevelopment of vacant, underused and brownfield sites within the defined Development Boundary;

 Identification of sites to accommodate a mix of new housing development;  Continued provision of land for employment (including at Montrose Airfield);  Supporting the continued development of the Strategic Development Area at Montrose Port; and  Encouraging new development and investment. This clear strategy for growth over the next 10 years could have implications for the trunk road network, particularly in term of access to the A90 via the A90/A937 interchange at Laurencekirk. This is recognised in several of the planned developments within Montrose and Hillside. In specific reference to the development of Montrose Airfield, Rosemount Road, Sunnyside Hospital and land North of Forties Road, it is stated that “proposals should be supported by a Transport Assessment to establish impact on the local and strategic road network, in particular the A90/A937 junction at Laurencekirk” (ALDP 2015). Table 3.3 below provides a summary of key developments within this area in the context of Access to Laurencekirk study, although this list should not be considered exhaustive.

3-4 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 3 POLICY CONTEXT

Table 3.3: Developments highlighted within the draft ALDP as potentially affecting the A90 south junction

Site Location Details

Airfield Montrose An additional 40 Ha of land at Montrose Airfield allocated for employment uses comprising Classes 4, 5 and 6 (50 Ha in total)

Brechin Road Montrose 19 Ha of land at Brechin Road allocated for residential development of around 300 dwellings by 2026 in 2 equal phases.

Forties Road Montrose An additional 11 ha of land north of Forties Road allocated for employment uses comprising Classes 4, 5 and 6

Rosemount Road Hillside 3 Ha of land allocated for residential development of around 65 dwellings and possible extension to Rosemount Primary School.

Sunnyside Hillside Mixed use: 265 residential units, Classes 4, 7, 8, 11 and community uses. Hospital

Source: ALDP 2015

The development of Montrose Port and its strategic importance to the region is also highlighted. Some the additional land allocated at Montrose Airfield is intended to complement the role of the Port in supporting the renewable energy sector. The draft ALDP states that “Montrose Port is identified by TAYplan SDP as a Strategic Development Area for port related uses. Whilst the Port is well placed to accommodate activities associated with offshore renewables sector, land constraints in and around the Port restrict its ability to accommodate large scale development requirements. The South Montrose Strategic Review (2012) and Draft Masterplan identifies opportunities for physical regeneration, new development and improved access. The delivery of a new spine road and associated environmental improvement measures within the plan period will improve accessibility and help stimulate private investment and development in the area” (ALDP 2015). 3.5 Summary The ACSDA identifies Laurencekirk as part of the Aberdeen to Laurencekirk SGA; one of four such areas in the region where development will be focussed up to 2035. It is envisaged that the defined SGAs will account for 75% of growth over this period. Table 3.1 shows that the housing allowance for the area described as Drumlithie – Laurencekirk is 1,000 from 2011 ‐ 2025. The ACSDA states that “future development should not be allowed to limit the growth of the economy by making the region less attractive to business, particularly in relation to congestion and access to roads, ports, airports and rail facilities. This infrastructure needs to be protected and improved”. The AES cites enterprise and infrastructure as one of four key economic priorities and states the importance of connectivity in creating employment opportunities for the local workforce. The ALDP states the importance of Montrose Port and proposed development site at Montrose Airfield in delivering economic growth. Table 3.3 shows five development sites which are highlighted within the draft ALDP as potentially affecting the A90 south junction. The ALDP states that these should be supported by a Transport Assessment to establish their impact on the local and strategic road network.

ATL EALI REPORT 3-5

SECTION 4 Stakeholder consultation

4.1 Introduction Data from earlier consultation activity with the business community has been supplemented by a mix of telephone interviews and email exchanges with the following organisations:

 Aberdeenshire Council Economic Development (AbCED);  Angus Council Economic Development unit (AnCED);  The Angus Economic Development Partnership (AEDP); and  Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC). A summary of the conversations with each organisation is provided in Appendix B, enabling the source of each comment to be identified (if required). Contact was made with Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, who advised that as a voluntary organisation with links to Nestrans, it would not be appropriate for them to comment on the study. A number of attempts were made to contact the Dundee and Angus Chamber of Commerce and a representative from the Northeast Scotland branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, but without success. Laurencekirk has traditionally been an arable farming area, with good agricultural land and associated businesses to serve the sector. However, recent developments have seen businesses that serve the oil and gas industry establish in the area, as the price and availability of land is more attractive than in Aberdeen. Clusters have formed (or are in the process of formation) at the former airfields at Edzell and Fordoun, along with Montrose port. Montrose port is used for freight such as cereals, fertilisers, wood pulp, logs and steel. Freight volumes through the port have increased in recent years, enabling turnover to grow by over 70% from 2011 to 2014. Energy and manufacturing industries also have a presence in Montrose and north Angus. Laurencekirk Business Park is the base for 11 businesses, which include oil and gas support and manufacturing businesses. 4.2 What opportunities are being constrained by the current configuration of the A90 junctions? Evidence from stakeholder consultation, presented in Appendix B, indicates that constraints imposed by the A90 Laurencekirk junctions have an adverse impact on economic activity, with significant residential and industrial sites around Laurencekirk and in north Angus unable to proceed with development. AnCED has stated that the inability to grant planning permission for any development which would add demand to the Laurencekirk A90 junctions has “significant impacts not only for businesses trying to grow or expand, new business coming into the area but for any new housing development, school or leisure facility”. Table 4.1 provides a summary of significant development proposals which are constrained by the A90 junctions and indicates which of the A90 junctions is causing the constraint.

ATL EALI REPORT 4-1

Table 4.1: Proposed development sites constrained by A90 junctions

Site / Applicant Details / Application reference Location Junction

Brechin Road, Montrose Residential – up to 300 houses (04/00083/OUT and Off A935, west of South 14/00136/FULM) Montrose centre

M1 site, Laurencekirk Mixed use ‐ 885 houses and 11 hectares of Laurencekirk, west of North employment land (APP/2014/4094) north junction

Montrose airfield Mixed use – 50 hectares of employment land Coastal site, north of South (14/00480/EIAM) Montrose centre

Scotia Homes and Scotia Mixed Use – residential, commercial, retail and South of Laurencekirk High South Commercial business (APP/2010/2822 & 2823) Street

Sunnyside Hospital Mixed use – 265 residential units, Classes 4, 7, 8, 11 Hillside, south of Marykirk South and community uses.

In Montrose, for example, there has been strong demand over the last 2 or 3 years for commercial sites and properties, resulting in a lack of supply. If further growth cannot be accommodated, it is considered that businesses (in particular oil and gas service businesses) could withdraw from the area, or expand their operations elsewhere, at the expense of the local economy. A large scale development at Montrose airfield has generated interest from local companies; Aberdeen‐based oil companies and leisure operators. These include international investors who cannot grow in Aberdeen because of cost and the lack of suitable staff, port access and accommodation. One consultee reported that a growing business had relocated out of Laurencekirk and Brechin to Arbroath (though individual cases could be due to many other reasons than transport). AGCC, AEDP and AnCED have all agreed that concerns regarding journey time unreliability and/or safety can adversely impact on employee recruitment and retention. 4.3 How would transport infrastructure improvements at Laurencekirk affect opportunities? Transport infrastructure improvements would enable the development of new housing and commercial property in the area. It would also make accessing Laurencekirk itself safer and quicker, which in turn would benefit existing businesses and residents. It would make Montrose more attractive for inward investment; as cross‐county connectivity is essential for north Angus. Infrastructure improvements could enable rail freight opportunities at Montrose, capitalising on the proximity of the station to the port.

4-2 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 4 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

4.4 The impact of various negative factors on local businesses Table 4.2 below summarises the response of the stakeholders who were consulted during the preparation of this assessment. Direct quotations from stakeholder responses are shown in italic text. The source of the comments can be identified from the record of conversations with each organisation which is provided in Appendix B.

Table 4.2: Stakeholder views on the impact of various factors on local businesses

Access and mobility For retail, tourism and hospitality businesses in particular, their continued success relies on increasing footfall into Laurencekirk. In order to drive footfall, access into Laurencekirk must be made as easy as possible. It is not enough to rely on local residents. Residents from across the region should be encouraged to visit the town.

Traditional farming businesses experience delays in transporting materials due to problems in navigating slow‐moving agricultural vehicles across the A90 junctions. Comments received at the March 2014 ‘drop in session’ indicated that some haulage companies are reluctant to cross the traffic stream at the A90 junctions as it is “too dangerous”. A vehicle travelling north would need Congestion and delay to continue to Stonehaven to find a grade separated junction; an extra 23 mile round trip from to deliveries and the north junction. The extra time incurred and hence cost of transport affects both the receipt of outward goods deliveries and outward goods movements. movements Research conducted by AGCC has found that 7 in 10 businesses in the Northeast have experienced costs rising due to congestion. This could be due to goods damaged in transit and unacceptable delays in delivery. These issues cause businesses reputational damage and potential loss of business.

Journey time reliability Unforeseen delays to commuting journeys (into or out of Laurencekirk) can cause problems with late arrival, which causes inconvenience to employers and could add to costs if work is carried out late, deadlines missed or short term absences need to be covered.

Safety Accidents cause delays for business and perceptions of poor safety hinder recruitment and retention.

ATL EALI REPORT 4-3

4.5 Anticipated benefits from improvements to the A90 junctions Table 4.3 below summarises the response of the stakeholders who were consulted during the preparation of this assessment. Direct quotations from stakeholder responses are shown in italic text. The source of the comments can be identified from the record of conversations with each organisation, which is provided in Appendix B.

Table 4.3: Stakeholder views on anticipated benefits to business from junction improvements

Recruitment and Improvements to the A90 junctions would help with the recruitment and retention of staff from retention of staff? areas outside Laurencekirk into businesses in Laurencekirk. Easy access into the town would be an attractive proposition for workers who are currently put off from working in Laurencekirk due to the congestion and period of time involved in waiting in traffic. This would also encourage more businesses to locate in the town.

Access to labour pools We believe that junction improvements would result in better journey time reliability to Aberdeen, not currently elsewhere in Aberdeenshire and Dundee and Angus. Aberdeen in particular, has a significant skills available? shortage in a number of sectors such as social care and public service provision. Better journey times could potentially encourage more people living in Laurencekirk to travel to Aberdeen for work. It could also do the same for businesses in Laurencekirk. If the local infrastructure is improved, workers living elsewhere in the region may be more likely to take up employment opportunities in the town. A new junction would improve mobility of labour to the benefit of businesses.

Impacts on outputs, The immediate and obvious beneficiaries are located around Montrose but given the town's sales, margins and importance as a commercial centre within Angus and the North East, the whole Angus community employment? benefits from increased business activity and jobs. Junction [improvements would] also improve access to Aberdeen airport for Montrose businesses.

4-4 ATL EALI REPORT SECTION 5 Overall Summary and Conclusion

The available socio‐economic data indicates that Laurencekirk and its surrounding area has a growing and relatively prosperous population. Laurencekirk exhibits high levels of economic activity, low levels of unemployment and a relatively high proportion of people working in managerial, professional and technical occupations. The proportion of the Montrose population which is economically active is in line with the national average and a lower proportion of the population are in managerial, professional and technical occupations than is the case in Laurencekirk. For almost all of the SIMD indices cited in Table 2.2, the Laurencekirk area is in the upper 25% in deprivation indices whereas much of Montrose is in the lower 50%, especially for the ‘income’ indicator, with five data zones in the bottom quartile. Policy in Aberdeenshire and Angus recognises the importance of economic growth to the area and the role of infrastructure in enabling growth and making the region attractive to inward investment. Consultation with stakeholders has indicated that access to Laurencekirk via the existing A90 junctions is constraining economic activity in Laurencekirk and north Angus. Planning permission for new developments cannot be granted, businesses and residential areas cannot expand and delays in navigating the A90 junctions add costs and hinders normal business activities. The south junction acts as a constraint on economic activity in Laurencekirk and the surrounding area. Moreover, several significant development sites in Laurencekirk and north Angus cannot proceed with development as they would increase demand at the south junction. The A90 north junction is also an economic constraint, with impacts felt mainly in Laurencekirk; on the M1 site in particular. The provision of a grade separated junction will improve access to Laurencekirk, which is likely to increase footfall to the benefit of local retail, tourism and hospitality businesses and reduce businesses’ transport costs. Workers living elsewhere in the region may also be more likely to take up employment opportunities in the town. The improvement will provide an opportunity for businesses to grow and developments to come forward, improving the economic activity in the local area. Furthermore, Laurencekirk may also find itself better positioned to service industries in neighbouring towns (e.g. Montrose), making them more attractive for inward investment. It is considered that any benefits to the local economy are likely to be displaced from elsewhere in Scotland as opposed to delivering any significant net gain at a national level.

ATL EALI REPORT 5-5

Appendix A

Businesses in Laurencekirk

Appendix A Businesses in Laurencekirk Name Classification Postcode Location

1 2M Trading Ltd Building Materials Supplier AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

2 A & M Taxi's Taxis and Private Hire AB30 1AL Laurencekirk

3 A Adamson Ltd Builders and Building Contractors AB30 1AH Laurencekirk

4 Abesco Ltd Fire Protection Consultants / Services AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

5 Agricar Ltd Agricultural Machinery ‐ Manufacture / AB30 1BE Laurencekirk Wholesale

6 Alma's Indian Restaurant Restaurant AB30 1AL Laurencekirk

7 American Affair Takeaway food AB30 1BH Laurencekirk

8 Bakery Bliss Ltd Bakery AB30 1AB Laurencekirk

9 Blaze Manufacturing Solutions Ltd Manufacturing AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

10 Body & Face St Cyrus Ltd Manufactureres of Personal Care Products AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

11 Burnside Care Home Nursing home AB30 1HW Laurencekirk

12 Robert Cameron Farms and Farmers AB30 1RR Laurencekirk

13 D M Carnegie Agricultural Contractors AB30 1RN Laurencekirk

14 J & A Cooper & Sons Farms and Farmers AB30 1HL Laurencekirk

15 Crown Inn Public House AB30 1RL Laurencekirk

16 Dizzy Rascals Sports Activity Venue AB30 1DG Laurencekirk

17 Duncans of Deeside Bakery AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

18 Duncan's Taxis Taxis and Private Hire AB30 1AA Laurencekirk

19 Fairclough Accountancy Services Accountants AB30 1BH Laurencekirk Ltd

20 Fearns Farms and Farmers AB30 1HS Laurencekirk

21 Fairweather Fitness Sports Club AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

22 I W Hair Farms and Farmers AB30 1HN Laurencekirk

23 Hantons Garage Ltd Garage Services AB30 1AA Laurencekirk

24 Hugo's Cafe AB30 1BH Laurencekirk

25 Independent Petrographic Ltd Research and Consultancy AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

26 S & A Kerr Farms and Farmers AB30 1NB Laurencekirk

27 Kirk Lodge Nursing home AB30 1AE Laurencekirk

28 Laurencekirk Pet Supplies Pet Shop AB30 1AG Laurencekirk

29 Lournie Chipper Takeaway Food AB30 1BL Laurencekirk

Name Classification Postcode Location

30 Mace Convenience Stores and Grocers AB30 1BQ Laurencekirk

31 Machine Shop Maintenance Plant, Tools and Machinery ‐ Repairs AB30 1LB Laurencekirk

32 Mann Automotive Ltd Garage Services AB30 1DG Laurencekirk

33 N J McWilliam & Co Farms and Farmers AB30 1ED Laurencekirk

34 Mearns Motors Ltd Garage Services AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

35 Mearns Tractors Ltd Agricultural Machinery Maintenance / Repair AB30 1AL Laurencekirk

36 Mearns Transport Transport Services AB30 1EL Laurencekirk

37 Medlock & Medlock Farms and Farmers AB30 1EL Laurencekirk

38 Metcalfe and Metcalfe Co Ltd Brewery AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

39 Mistletoe Ltd Promotional Goods AB30 1BN Laurencekirk

40 Douglas F Mitchell Ltd Haulage AB30 1BE Laurencekirk

41 J Mitchell & Son (Laurencekirk) Ltd Heating, Plumbing and Electrical Contractors AB30 1BH Laurencekirk

42 John Mitchell Motors Garage Services AB30 1BJ Laurencekirk

43 M T Mitchell Farm Shops AB30 1JX Laurencekirk

44 Montrose Potatoes Ltd Fruit and Vegetable ‐ Supply AB30 1PT Laurencekirk

45 Murray Architects Architects AB30 1AN Laurencekirk

46 Clarence Murray Ltd Farms and Farmers; Fruit and Vegetable Supply AB30 1BD Laurencekirk

47 Pallet Logistics Ltd Logistics AB30 1JR Laurencekirk

48 Pamper Zone Beauty salon AB30 1DG Laurencekirk

49 Poppies Pre School Ltd Playgroup AB30 1BH Laurencekirk

50 G A Reid Farms and Farmers AB30 1EL Laurencekirk

51 Ringlink Scotland Agricultural Co‐operative AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

52 Robson Vets Ltd Veterinary hospital AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

53 Royal Hotel Hotel AB30 1AD Laurencekirk

54 Safedrive Taxis Taxis and Private Hire AB30 1EF Laurencekirk

55 Scotmid Co‐operative Society Convenience Stores and Grocers AB30 1BJ Laurencekirk

56 P & J Scott Butchers shop AB30 1BJ Laurencekirk

57 Spar Convenience Stores and Grocers AB30 1AA Laurencekirk

58 Speedflex Aberdeen Fitness Centre AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

59 Stenson (Laurencekirk) Ltd Electrical Contractors, Electricians and AB30 1BE Laurencekirk Engineers

60 Thistle Kids Outdoor clothing shop AB30 1TL Laurencekirk

Name Classification Postcode Location

61 Thistle Polymer Composites Gear Cutters and Makers AB30 1LD Laurencekirk

62 Thornton Farms Farms and Farmers AB30 1EB Laurencekirk

63 Tower Garage Garage Services AB30 1BE Laurencekirk

64 Tower Restaurant Takeaway Food AB30 1EY Laurencekirk

65 Western Inn Public House AB30 1BQ Laurencekirk

66 What's for Tea Tonight Cafe AB30 1UQ Laurencekirk

67 Xpressions Hairdresser AB30 1BH Laurencekirk

68 Yumyum HK Express Takeaway Food AB30 1AB Laurencekirk

Businesses in the wider Laurencekirk area Name Classification Postcode Location

1 John Alexander Farms and Farmers AB30 1HP Garvock

2 Auchenblae Pre‐school Group Playgroup AB30 1XQ Auchenblae

3 Auchenblae Stores Convenience Stores and Grocers AB30 1XP Auchenblae

4 Balmakewan Farm Shop Farm Shops AB30 1QX Luthermuir

5 Belmont Communications Ltd Radio Communications AB30 1YX Luthermuir

6 Castleton Farm Shop Farm Shop AB30 1JX Fordoun

7 Clatterin Brig Restaurant Restaurant AB30 1HB Fettercairn

8 Drumtochty Castle Wedding and Event Venue AB30 1TP Auchenblae

9 Envision Design Ltd Mechanical Engineers AB30 1UE Fettercairn

10 Fettercairn Distillery Wine, Beer and Spirit ‐ Manufacture / AB30 1YB Fettercairn Wholesale / Import

11 Fettery Shoppe Convenience Stores and Grocers AB30 1YA Fettercairn

12 Albert Fyfe Haulage AB30 1XQ Auchenblae

13 D King Farms and Farmers AB30 1HR Garvock

14 Marykirk Hotel Hotel AB30 1UT Marykirk

15 Freda Moss Farms and Farmers AB30 1US Marykirk

16 Old Post Office Tea Room & Shoppe Cafe AB30 1XP Auchenblae

17 Peterkin Homes Ltd House Builders AB30 1UD Auchenblae

18 Peterson SBS Ltd Logistics AB30 1QD Luthermuir

19 Powerwasher Services Cleaning Materials ‐ Supply AB30 1QJ Luthermuir

20 Ramsay Arms Hotel Hotel AB30 1XX Fettercairn

21 Redhall Arms Hotel Hotel AB30 1NN Fordoun

22 John H Roberts Fuel (Solid) Merchants and Distributors AB30 1TD Auchenblae

23 Rosehill Timber Timber Merchants / Agents AB30 1QD Luthermuir

24 Sauchieburn Hotel AB30 1PX Luthermuir

25 Scots Corner Public House AB30 1YX Luthermuir

26 D & K Singer Agricultural Engineers AB30 1JR Fordoun

Appendix B Stakeholder Interviews

Appendix B Stakeholder Interviews Question Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council Economic The Angus Economic Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Development unit Development Partnership

What are the key business Traditionally The energy sector now sees Development of Montrose The Laurencekirk area has experienced significant growth over the trends and opportunities in the Laurencekirk has been Montrose and the port as a part as a deepwater port; last 10 years. Population increased by 9.3% from 2001‐06 and 17.3% Laurencekirk & north Angus an arable farming area, of the ‘Aberdeen’ energy cluster. freight volumes have from 2006‐11. area? with good agricultural In Montrose and the NE of Angus increased and it is Aberdeen to Laurencekirk is identified as a strategic growth corridor land and associated we have witnessed over the last attracting oil industry in the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan. The businesses to serve the 24 months a significant upsurge SMEs as an alternative to plan permits development in the Laurencekirk area of 1,000 sector. in business enquiries from the oil, Aberdeen additional housing units and commercial development of 104 Recent developments gas, energy and manufacturing hectares between now and 2030. This means that there will have seen businesses industries supporting activities in continue be growth in the numbers of people living and working in that serve the oil and the NE. the area. gas industry establish in Montrose Port is of growing Laurencekirk Business Park is the base for 11 businesses. This the area, notably at significance and helps to ease the includes a number of businesses that support the oil and gas sector Fordoun aerodrome ‘stress’ at Aberdeen port – it is e.g. Blaze Manufacturing. The town centre is also the location for (where Hunting plc have also an important transit point for many other businesses. a 50 acre site) and at cereals and fertilisers serving a Edzell airfield. wide geographical area.

How would transport Restrictions on The current transport Make Montrose more In the view of the Chamber, transport infrastructure improvements infrastructure improvements development at the infrastructure materially hinders attractive for inward would enable the development of new housing and commercial at Laurencekirk affect these former RAF Edzell site growth in Montrose and North investment; cross‐county property in the area. As has been seen with the AWPR, many trends and opportunities? (due to the A90 south Angus so improvements or connectivity essential for investors will hold back on investment until transport improvements junction) would be change of position from north Angus; could enable are confirmed. removed Transport Scotland would rail freight opportunities at It would also make accessing Laurencekirk itself safer and quicker, improve the economic and social Montrose which in turn would benefit existing businesses and residents. prosperity of the area through the potential for physical growth.

Question Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council Economic The Angus Economic Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Development unit Development Partnership

What opportunities (if any) are Industrial development This is something we don’t track Example: Journeycall (a The current configuration of the south junction does not allow being constrained by the at the former RAF Edzell but the general feel or sentiment call centre) relocated over those who wish to avoid the A90 to do so; as a journey on the A937 current configuration of the site has been restricted, is that the whole area has and 200 staff in December between Montrose and Laurencekirk cannot avoid the A90. A90 junctions? due to the constraints of continues to benefit from the 2014 from Laurencekirk Opportunities to encourage visitors and workers to Laurencekirk the A90 south junction. burgeoning energy sector and Brechin to new from the Montrose / Arbroath area are being constrained by the (despite the current oil price) premises in Arbroath. configuration of the junction due to the dangerous nature of the albeit growth is now being Access difficulties in crossing and inconvenience it causes travelers. stymied given the lack of space to Laurencekirk are believed grow. to be a contributing factor There is also evidence that the junction is now having an impact on development in Montrose. See Significantly we have a number of to not considering expansion in Laurencekirk http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/angus‐the‐ global companies such as GSK, GE mearns/notorious‐a90‐junction‐putting‐montrose‐business‐park‐ Oil & Gas, National Oilwell Varco plans‐in‐doubt‐1.649337 (NOV) in Angus. The inability to expand is frustrating to say the least and could have a severe impact on the Angus economy should companies such as these withdraw from the area due to the inability to expand operations and we are aware that this is real threat.

What are the recent trends in As above, businesses Demand over the last 2 or 3 years N/A N/A turnover and employment in that serve the oil and for sites and properties in Laurencekirk & north Angus? gas industry are Montrose has been strong establishing in the area, resulting in a lack of supply, notably at Fordoun indeed none are available. It is aerodrome and at Edzell essential that more employment airfield. land is created both for immediate and longer term requirements.

What impact (if any) do the following have on local businesses?

Question Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council Economic The Angus Economic Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Development unit Development Partnership

 Access and mobility N/A Significant Yes For retail, tourism and hospitality businesses in particular, their continued success relies on increasing footfall into Laurencekirk. In order to drive footfall, access into Laurencekirk must be made as easy as possible. It is not enough to rely on local residents. Residents from across the region should be encouraged to visit the town.

 Congestion N/A Significant Yes Research conducted by the Chamber has found that 7 in 10 businesses in the North‐east have experienced costs rising due to  Delay to deliveries and N/A Significant Yes congestion. This could be due to goods damaged in transit and outward goods unacceptable delays in delivery. movements These issues cause businesses reputational damage and potential loss of business / contracts.

 Journey time reliability N/A Important Yes Currently journey times between Aberdeen and Laurencekirk vary significantly depending on the time of day. Journey times can be from 40 minutes on a good day to approximately 1 hour 30 minutes on a bad day. According to research the proportion of Laurencekirk residents working in different locations are as follows: 43% work in the settlement 25% work in Aberdeen 20% work elsewhere in Aberdeenshire 11% work outwith Aberdeen City and Shire (probably Dundee and Angus) For those working in Aberdeen, outwith Laurencekirk in Aberdeenshire and Dundee and Angus (56% of Laurencekirk’s working population), journey time reliability is very important. Staff that are late puts additional costs on their employer to arrange cover etc. Infrastructure improvements which improve journey time reliability would positively impact on businesses throughout the region by reducing staff absence.

 Safety. N/A Important Accidents cause delays for N/A business and perceptions of poor safety hinder recruitment and retention

Question Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council Economic The Angus Economic Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Development unit Development Partnership

What are the anticipated benefits from A90 junctions improvements, in terms of

 Recruitment/retention of N/A Significant Yes Improvements to the A90 junctions would help with the staff? recruitment and retention of staff from areas outside Laurencekirk into businesses in Laurencekirk. Easy access into the town would be an attractive proposition for workers who are currently put off from working in Laurencekirk due to the congestion and period of time involved in waiting in traffic. This would also encourage more businesses to locate in the town.

 Access to labour pools not N/A Significant ‐ a new junction would Yes We believe that junction improvements would result in better currently available? improve mobility of labour to the journey time reliability to Aberdeen, elsewhere in Aberdeenshire benefit of businesses. and Dundee and Angus. For Aberdeen in particular, which has a significant skills shortage in a number of sectors such as social care and public service provision. Better journey times could potentially encourage more people living in Laurencekirk to travel to Aberdeen for work. It could also do the same for businesses in Laurencekirk. If the local infrastructure is improved, workers living elsewhere in the region may be more likely to take up employment opportunities there.

 Impacts on outputs, sales, N/A Significant ‐ the immediate and Yes N/A margins and employment? obvious beneficiaries are located around Montrose but given its importance as a commercial centre within the northeast, the whole Angus community benefits from increased business activity and jobs.

Any further comments The north junction is The junction will also improve N/A N/A seen as equally access to Aberdeen airport for important to the south Montrose businesses and should junction, due to the be considered complimentary to proximity to the the new Aberdeen bypass. Laurencekirk Business Park