CHAPTER 5 November 2019 PAGE 5-0 OF CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND SCOPING

Cross Tay Link Road

Revision Date Status Author Technical Checker Approver Number Reviewer WORK IN P01.1 04.01.19 E COOPER R FERGUSON R McLEAN D RITCHIE PROGRESS S4 FOR P01 05.11.19 STAGE E COOPER R McLEAN R McLEAN D RITCHIE APPROVAL BIM Number: 119046-SWECO-EGN-000-RP-EN-20006

This document has been prepared on behalf of Perth and Kinross Council by Sweco for the proposed Cross Tay Link Road Project. It is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. Sweco accepts no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

Prepared for: Prepared by: Perth and Kinross Council Sweco Pullar House Suite 4.2, City Park 35 Kinnoull Street 368 Alexandra Parade Perth Glasgow PH1 5GD G31 3AU

CONTENTS

5 CONSULTATION AND SCOPING ...... 1 5.1 Introduction ...... 1 5.2 Purpose of Consultation ...... 1 5.3 Public Events ...... 1 5.4 The Scoping Process ...... 4 5.5 Scoping Opinion ...... 4 5.6 Scoping Consultation ...... 10

TABLES

Table 5.1: Public Exhibition Poster Location ...... 4 Table 5.2: Scoping Opinion Response from Planning Authority ...... 6 Table 5.3: Scoping Consultation Responses ...... 12

IMAGES

Image 5.1: Diagram of Public Exhibition Feedback 2018 ...... 2 Image 5.2: Diagram of Public Exhibition Feedback 2019 ...... 3

APPENDICES

Appendix 5.1: List of Consultees Appendix 5.2: Scoping Opinion Appendix 5.3: Consultation Diary Appendix 5.4: Q&A Document (Spring 2018) Appendix 5.5: Q&A Document (August 2019) Appendix 5.6: Public Exhibition Report Appendix 5.7: Proposal of Application Notice (PAN)

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

5 CONSULTATION AND SCOPING

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter sets out the consultation that has been undertaken to effectively scope this EIA. It also provides information on some of the relevant consultation that has been undertaken from project inception to application. NB: There has been extensive consultation carried out during the Pre- Application stage, full details are provided in the Pre-Application Consultation report that has been submitted in support of the planning application.

This chapter also provides information on how the consultations have fed into the proposed CTLR Project design, and the final scope and assessment of this EIA.

All consultation relevant to technical aspects of the EIA has been reported in the respective chapters (Chapters 6 - 17) but have also been recorded within the Consultation Diary (Appendix 5.3). This diary has been prepared throughout the EIA process to keep a complete record of all relevant consultation that has been undertaken to inform the EIA and the design of the proposed CTLR Project.

5.2 PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION

The consultation process has been undertaken to inform the EIA team’s understanding of the potential environmental sensitivities associated with the area of the proposed CTLR Project. It has also:

• Sought feedback and comments from Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees on environmental aspects of the proposed CTLR Project; • Provided Statutory Consultees, other Non-Statutory bodies, landowners/tenants and the public with information about the proposed CTLR Project and provided them with an opportunity to comment on the proposals; • Obtained information relevant to inform the environmental assessments; and • Agreed survey and assessment methodologies, where relevant.

5.3 PUBLIC EVENTS

Two rounds of public events have been undertaken, the first in May and June 2018 and the second in August 2019. The purpose of the first consultation events was to provide the public with a chance to view the proposals, ask any questions and give their views on the design. The second round of exhibitions provided an update on how the design has developed since the last consultation event following further discussions with key stakeholders (e.g. the Council’s internal teams, landowners etc.), and taking on board feedback received from the public at the first consultation events.

The public events were advertised through a number of outlets including social media, local newspaper adverts and on the project website. For the events held in August 2019, posters providing details were also erected in community facilities such as local shops and libraries.

The documents and materials associated with the public events are available on the project website (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/cross-tay-link-road/). These were uploaded as soon as possible during and after each event to enable the public and stakeholder groups to view them at their leisure.

Following each round of public events, a Q&A document was collated that summarised the main questions and the project team’s response. The Q&A documents are provided in Appendix 5.5 and Appendix 5.6.

November 2019 PAGE 1 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

5.3.1 Public Consultation – May and June 2018

Initial consultation events were held in May and June 2018 where members of the public were given the opportunity to view the design, meet the Council team responsible for the project, meet the designers, give their views and ask any questions. The consultation events were held at the following locations:

• 21 May at Perth Concert Hall • 23 May at Luncarty Memorial Hall • 28 May at Scone RDM Institute • 18 June at Coupar Angus Town Hall

The events provided members of the public with the opportunity to ask any questions they may have, to raise any concerns and to provide additional background information. The material from the public consultations is located on the project website 1 . The feedback received from the public was predominately positive with the main focus being interest on what was being proposed. The key issues raised included the traffic impacts at the Broxden and Inveralmond roundabouts, the proposed CTLR Project not being implemented quickly enough, NMU provision, air quality and noise impacts and if the road should be single or dual carriageway.

These events were attended by over 400 recorded attendees and a total of 74 feedback responses were received.

Following the initial consultation events, the design team investigated the incorporation of relevant points and comments provided by members of the public into the CTLR design (see Image 5.1).

Image 5.1: Diagram of Public Exhibition Feedback 2018

1 Perth and Kinross Council (2018) Perth Transport Futures: https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/cross-tay-link-road/ November 2019 PAGE 2 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

5.3.2 Public Exhibitions - August 2019

Public exhibitions were held again in August 2019 at the following locations:

• 21 August at Luncarty Memorial Hall; • 22 August at Scone RDM Institute; • 27 August at Coupar Angus Town Hall; and • 28 August at Perth Civic Hall.

These events provided the communities with an update of how the design has developed since the last consultation events. Information was also provided on the initial outputs of the EIA. Feedback from this round of public exhibitions was again predominately positive: impressive display materials, well planned design, clear priority given to active travel and environmental enhancements (particularly Highfield Green Bridge and SuDS Wetland Area). However, there were some concerns raised, the main ones being around the traffic modelling, that the project is long overdue, existing congestion at Broxden and particularly Inveralmond roundabouts, air quality and road safety concerns at Scone North, and traffic increases (particularly with regard to HGVs) to communities along the A94 to the north of Scone.

The second round of events was attended by over 380 recorded attendees and a total of 123 feedback responses were received.

The feedback received from the exhibitions has been considered during the final preparation of the EIAR and (where possible) have been considered for the future detailed design stage of the proposed CTLR Project. The key suggested changes to the design which has been undertaken following feedback from the second round of public exhibitions are presented in Image 5.2.

Image 5.2: Diagram of Public Exhibition Feedback 2019

5.3.3 Proposal of Application Notice (PAN)

Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006, all National developments, as designated within the revised National Planning Framework, require a formal PAN). The purpose of the PAN is to give notice that a planning application is intended to be submitted following a formal period of statutory Pre-Application Consultation and to set out what consultation is to be undertaken during that period. In accordance with these regulations, a PAN was submitted to the Planning Authority and the consultees listed in Appendix 5.1 on 10 July 2019.

A copy of the PAN submitted in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Regulations is provided in Appendix 5.7.

November 2019 PAGE 3 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

In accordance with the regulations, the public exhibitions in August 2019 were advertised through the erections of posters, the locations of which are shown in Table 5.1. As mentioned previously they were also advertised through social media and the newspaper adverts.

Table 5.1: Public Exhibition Poster Location

Community Poster Location

• Co-op, 60 Perth Road, PH2 6JL Scone • Tesco, 25-29 Perth Road, PH2 6JJ • Scone Library, Sandy Road, PH2 6LJ

Balbeggie • G.C. Stores, Main Street, Balbeggie, PH2 6EZ

• Co-op, 1-3 Commercial Street, PH13 9AD Coupar Angus • Coupar Angus Library, Town Hall, Union Street, PH13 9AE

Meigle • SPAR, The Square, PH12 8RN

Stanley • SPAR, 20 Percy Street, PH1 4LU

• SPAR, Marshall Way, PH1 3EX Luncarty • Luncarty Memorial Hall, PH1 3UY • Pullar House, Kinnoull Street, PH1 5GD • SSE, Inveralmond House, PH1 3AQ • 2 High Street, Perth, PH1 5PH • Perth Theatre, Mill Street, PH1 5HZ Perth • Perth Concert Hall, Mills Street, PH1 5HZ • A K Bell Library, 2-8 York Place, PH2 8EP • Broxden Park and Ride, PH2 0PX • Tesco, Crieff Road, Perth, PH1 2NR

5.4 THE SCOPING PROCESS

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 make provision for a Developer (in this case, the Council’s Road and Infrastructure team) to write to a relevant competent authority (the Council’s Planning Authority) and request a formal opinion, in writing, of the information to be provided in the EIAR. This is called a Scoping Opinion. A Scoping Request from the Developer, as a minimum, must include a description of the location of the development, a plan to identify the land, a description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its likely significant effects on the environment, and other information or representations that the Developer may wish to provide.

The principal aim of the EIA scoping exercise for the proposed CTLR Project was to establish the key issues to be considered as part of the EIA. This exercise has also informed the evaluation of the significance of the predicted environmental effects of the proposals and has identified key issues for the assessment.

The scoping exercise formally opened the lines of communication with consultees on EIA and planning, however there has been ongoing consultation throughout the outline design process (refer to the Pre- Application Consultation Report submitted alongside this planning application for further information).

5.5 SCOPING OPINION

November 2019 PAGE 4 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

A Scoping Request was prepared by the EIA team to identify the proposed ‘scope’ and information requirements for the EIA and content of this EIAR.

A formal request for a Scoping Opinion was made to the Council’s Planning Authority on 12 September 2018. A digital EIA Scoping Report was also completed in conjunction with the formal Scoping Report and this can be found on the Council’s Perth Transport Futures website – http://swecouk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=c8547738f5a947b086d6104091acab 20.

The Council’s Planning Officer provided their Scoping Opinion on 23 October 2018 (Appendix 5.2), and a summary of the key points is provided in Table 5.2. These points have been included and assessed in this EIAR and the table provides information on where further information on each can be found.

The requirements outlined in Table 5.2 were discussed within the relevant technical chapter authors and the key issues from the Scoping Opinion incorporated within the assessments and reporting.

November 2019 PAGE 5 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Table 5.2: Scoping Opinion Response from Planning Authority

Ref Response How has this been dealt with?

The content of the EIAR must meet the statutory requirements of Regulation 5 of the EIA Regulations. In addition, the EIAR must be based on the Scoping Opinion and include all Noted. The EIAR is in accordance with the Scoping Opinion and 1 information reasonably required for reaching a reasoned addresses the topic areas outlined in the Scoping Report. conclusion on the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment. Therefore, the EIAR should address the topic areas set out in the Scoping Report.

The Alternatives considered for the CTLR are outlined in Volume 2, Chapter 3: Project Need, Objectives and Alternatives. It has been recommended that Route Alternatives are scoped in to include the proposed route, the means of disposal of 2 Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 2: Project Description, Chapter material to landfill and engineering works in association with 10: Hydrogeology & Soils, Chapter 11: Materials, Chapter 15: the water environment. Road Drainage & the Water Environment and Chapter 16: Climate for further information on the disposal of material to landfill and engineering works in association with the water environment.

The Council’s Planning Officer and the Council’s Environmental Health team are in agreement with the The air quality asssessment is set out in Volume 2, Chapter 6: Air 3 proposed air quality methodology and that the cumulative Quality and the cumulative effects are set out in Volume 3. effect of the CTLR should be assessed.

4 Agreement that Cultural Heritage is scoped in. No further action required. The cultural heritage assessment of the proposal is set out in Volume 2, Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage.

An agreement that Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual 5 is scoped in, with the recommendations provided by SNH and Impact Assessment (LVIA). Scone & Distrcit CC to be incorporated and considered. November 2019 PAGE 6 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Ref Response How has this been dealt with?

The full ecological impact assessment is considered appropriate with consideration of impact set at all stages of the A full assessment of the ecological impacts has been undertaken, project, pre-commencement, construction and post 6 please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 9: Biodiversity for further construction with associated enhancement and mitigation. It is information. considered appropriate to reconsider the inclusion of invertebrates into the assessment.

The Planning Officer stated that they are in agreement that No further action required. Relevant aspects of Geology and Soils 7 geology and soils are scoped out on the basis that these are assessed in Volume 2, Chapter 10: Hydrogeology & Soils, topics are covered appropriately elsewhere in the EIAR. Chapter 11: Materials and Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interests.

8 Agreement with the scope of the Materials chapter. No further action required. The materials assessment is set out in Volume 2, Chapter 11: Materials.

Agreement of the scope of the Noise and Vibration chapter Noted. Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 12: Noise Assessment 9 including the impact on Luncarty, Bertha Park and Scone and Volume 3: Cumulative Effects Assessment. North developments in the cumulative impact section.

Agreement with the scope of People and Communities 10 Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 13: People and Communities. chapter.

The Planning Officer is in agreement that the agriculture and sporting interests are appropriately identified and should The assessment on forestry has been scoped into the EIAR, with include any displacement of existing facilities along with particular focus on the impacts associated with ancient woodland. identified opportunities. Reservations were raised on the 11 Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and scoping out of forestry from the EIAR in relation to the impacts Sporting Interests. The impact on ancient woodland is further with the designated ancient woodland inventory. Further assessed in Chapter 9: Biodiversity. review of forestry is welcomed in wider topic chapters where appropriate.

November 2019 PAGE 7 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Ref Response How has this been dealt with?

Agreement that Road Drainage and the Water Environment is Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the 12 scoped in. Water Environment

13 Agreement that Climate Change is scoped in. Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 16: Climate

Please refer to Volume 2, Chapter 13: People and Communities, Agreement with socio-economic, human health and major Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting interests, 14 accident and disasters scope. Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water Environment and Chapter 16: Climate and Chapter 17: Population and Human Health

Recommendation that construction and cumulative impacts No further action required. All technical chapters have considered the 15 should include temporary site compounds to avoid separate temporary site compounds within their assessments. Volume 3 assessments and consents at a later date. assesses the cumulative impacts of the proposed CTLR Project.

The EIAR was noted by the Planning Officer to include impact prediction and impact uncertainty. Any significance criteria All technical assessments are based upon official standards, should be based on official standards, legislation, policy and legislations, policy and best practice. The technical chapters outline 16 expert opinion to allow a reader to reach their own the methodologies used and state what they are based on. Any conclusions. The technical assessments should determine the limitations to the assessments are also clearly stated. impact of potential effects identified at scoping.

Any proposals to avoid and/or reduce the identified impacts should be made. The Planning Officer also requested that any Mitigation measures are identified within each technical chapter and 17 positive and negative residual effects following mitigation are summarised in Chapter 19: Schedule of Mitigation. required to be identified and accounted for within the EIAR.

Each chapter should include a ‘Residual Effects Table’. Each technical chapter presents the residual effects as a result of the 18 proposed CTLR Project. A summary table is provided in Chapter 18: Summary of Effects.

November 2019 PAGE 8 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Ref Response How has this been dealt with?

To avoid duplication, account should be taken of the available Cross referencing between technical assessments has been utilised results from relevant assessments which can be agreed with to avoid duplication of the assessments. The EIAR has been 19 the Council. The completeness and quality of the EIAR must prepared in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2017 (Scotland) be in accordance with Regulation 5(5)2. Regulation 18.

2 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

November 2019 PAGE 9 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

5.6 SCOPING CONSULTATION

A full outline of the consultation responses from the scoping consultation is shown in Appendix 5.2. All points raised by Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees in the Scoping Opinion have been considered and addressed where appropriate (Table 5.3). Examples of these include detailed requirements regarding the construction mitigation, design and analysis of compliance with legislation and policy. The Statutory Consultees are highlighted in bold in Table 5.3.

The Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees which received the Scoping Report were asked for their feedback on the digital EIA Scoping Report. On the whole, feedback was positive with some recommendations for future digital reports (i.e. the provision of a search function). An example of the positive feedback is provided below:

“This is a really good report and an excellent use of digital technology to present EIA information. To be frank I’m at a loss for words – having ploughed through some pretty heavy documents in the past, it is brilliant to be able to see and understand the proposals with this level or clarity”

November 2019 PAGE 10 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

This page is intentionally left blank

November 2019 PAGE 11 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Table 5.3: Scoping Consultation Responses

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

The impact to Perth Racecourse, including the construction Overall positive feedback received from BHS. They stressed the importance of Perth Racecourse as the UK’s most impacts and the impacts to equestrians as a result of the British Horse Society (BHS) northerly racetrack. Easy access and egress points would be required as a part of the proposed CTLR Project. An proposed CTLR Project has been assessed and reported in acknowledgement of the equestrians in the local community would be required as they frequently use this area to ride. Chapter 13: People and Communities.

Further consultation has been undertaken with FLS Discussions have been undertaken to discuss the compensatory planting requirements. The FLS noted they expect (summarised in Appendix 5.3) regarding the planting Forestry and Land Scotland relevant and suitable compensatory planting prior to deforestation in line with Scottish Government’s Woodland Removal proposals. Further details on the planting proposals and (FLS) Policy. compensatory planting are outlined in Chapter 2: Project Description.

HES confirmed that they had reviewed the project in terms of their remit for historic environment interests: world heritage Further information on the key issues and the assessment of sites, Scheduled Monuments (SM) and their settings, category A-listed buildings and their settings, inventory Gardens and designated assets is provided in Chapter 7: Cultural Designed Landscapes (GDL), inventory battlefields, and historic marine protected areas (HMPAs). Heritage.

HES noted that they are content that the key issues to be considered and assessed have reflected their advice over the development of the project and welcome the recognition to consider the direct and indirect effects on designated assets in the study area.

HES stated that they are content with the approach to the assessment as outlined in the Scoping Report.

Please refer to Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage and Chapter Historic Environment They advised that it is important to recognise the difference in the purpose between parallel studies (e.g. Landscape and 8: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the Scotland (HES) Visual Impact Assessment). This has been noted as being particularly important when considering the impacts on the parallel studies. Inventory GDL of Scone Palace. HES confirmed the Cultural Heritage chapter should consider the GDL as a cultural asset in considering the values ascribed to it as part of its Inventory entry will be beneficial in framing the assessment.

HES queried the relevance of ‘vulnerability of change’ when assigning a value to a heritage asset. They noted that The LVIA assessment has measured the vulnerability of designated environment assets have an already established value, therefore the understanding is that this value is for non- change to the heritage assets (Chapter 8). designated assets.

Mitigation measures for heritage assets have been HES stated that they welcome the range of mitigation measures outlined as potentially being employed. They noted that assessed and reported as a part of the Cultural Heritage careful consideration will be required to each historic asset. assessment (Chapter 7).

November 2019 PAGE 12 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

A SMC has been applied for separately to permit an archaeological investigation (hand dug trial trenching) in the area of the Roman Fort. Hand dug trial trenching was Concerns were raised regarding the proposal of the temporary construction access over the River Almond and over the undertaken in March 2019. Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage Scheduled Monument of Bertha Roman Fort (SM 2403). The key concern was in relation to compaction/disturbance presents the findings from this assessment and how it has caused by a haulage road and the use of heavy vehicles in the protected scheduled area and the possible impacts of influenced the design. activities on the scarp leading up to the area of the fort. The design team have undertaken a Haul Route Options They highlight that Paragraph 145 of Scottish Planning Policy (2014) states that ‘Where there is potential for a proposed Report to assess the three potential River Tay Crossing development to have an adverse effect on a Scheduled Monument or on the integrity of its setting, permission should only Bridge temporary construction options. Through this be granted where there are exceptional circumstances’. assessment process, it was identified that the preferred construction option was from the south. A Detailed Proposal It was noted that if this proposal was to go ahead a Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) would be required. Report was undertaken to assess any potential impacts to the Scheduled Monument as a result of the construction route. This information is provided in Chapter 7: Cultural Heritage and a SMC will be submitted following submission of the planning application.

No further action required. An assessment on human health National Health Service (NHS) Noted that the Public Health Department have no comments to make on the Scoping Report. is provided in Chapter 17: Population and Human Health.

Previous concerns regarding the potential impacts on the River Tay SAC were noted as being addressed. Please refer to Chapter 9: Biodiversity for the assessment of ecological impacts where these concerns have been Concerns remain with the section of the road through Highfield Plantation. The proposal to connect Highfield Plantation assessed and mitigated where possible. with Old Scone Wood is supported. However, it has been requested that this additional area of woodland needs to be compared with to the loss of connectivity in Highfield Plantation with regards to impacts to red squirrels.

It was encouraged that the following areas would be best expanded on for the EIAR: • Impact of otter holts / resting places and commuting as part of the temporary and permanent works for construction • Disturbance/damage to pine marten dens as a result of vegetation removal • Loss of, and loss of connection to red squirrels feeding resource as a result of vegetation removal • Disturbance/damage to badger setts as a result of vegetation removal • Roadkill species should be identified and the potential impact to those species • Loss of habitat through connectivity loss The Council’s Biodiversity

Officer The Council’s Biodiversity Officer noted that they support semi-natural woodland in compensatory planting. The preference Chapter 2 provides an outline of the compensatory planting would also to be to ensure that the woodland can support existing species where habitat is lost. The Biodiversity Officer locations. The compensatory planting species mix will be encouraged any compensatory planting to be located as close to the local area as possible. More specifically, planting determined during detailed design. which improved habitat connectivity and in support of the Tayside Local Biodiversity Action Plan is preferred.

Noted. The design has ensured the Highfield Green Bridge is located within Highfield Plantation to maximise biodiversity connectivity. It was not deemed appropriate to have a It was noted that the preference of the green bridge in terms of the connectivity of the habitat encouraged the green bridge separate red squirrel passage due to the safety aspect of to be located further in the woodland and not by the roundabout, as requested by the Greenspace Officer. The Biodiversity having this type of infrastructure on the bridge. Wildlife Officer also encouraged a red squirrel passage and appropriate wildlife fencing across and in the lead up to the bridge. fencing is provided along the cuttings either side of the CTLR in Highfield Plantation and to channel wildlife across the Highfield Green Bridge.

November 2019 PAGE 13 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

A wetland area is located to the north of Perth Racecourse It was encouraged that SuDS can be designed to provide a valuable resource for amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates. and Scone Camping and Caravanning Club. The The design of the SuDS should consider safeguarding migration routes between ponds and safeguard on roads (i.e. assessment of the impact of SuDS is provided in Chapter underpasses, wildlife or dropped kerbs, amphibian fencing) The overall impact of the SuDS should be considered in the 15: Road Drainage and the Water Environment. EIAR.

The Council’s Biodiversity Officer encouraged the safeguarding of otters during construction and permanent otter mitigation Chapter 9 presents the construction mitigation measures for including artificial couches and dry passageways. otters.

Please refer to Chapter 13: People and Communities for The Council’s Greenspace Officer confirmed that the EIA Scoping Report adequately takes matters of community the assessment of impacts to community facilities and NMU greenspace into account. In particular, how the path assessment considers local paths and future potential paths as well as paths. Through design development and the Walking, Core Paths and Public Rights of Way. Cycling and Horse-Riding Assessment process, a direct link

has been provided to the east of the River Tay to connect The Council’s Greenspace It is expected that good NMU facilities are provided as a part of this project. Officer both sides of the River Tay.

The Greenspace Officer stressed the desire for a path link from either side of the River Tay Crossing Bridge to the core The separation strip of the 3m shared-use pedestrian / paths along the riverside. The Officer also emphasised that a separation strip of greater than 1.5m should be provided cycleway has been widened to 2m at the request of NMU along the CTLR. consultees.

Noise The Noise and Vibration assessment (Chapter 12) The Council’s EHO stated that the DMRB Stage 3 assessment will include a baseline noise survey. It was noted that the considered the new housing developments in the monitoring location and number of noise monitoring locations have been agreed with the EHO so are therefore in agreement with the locations and modelled at strategic locations as a part of the areas. EIAR.

They advised that the proposed new housing developments at Luncarty South, Bertha Park and North Scone are included in the noise monitoring.

It was confirmed that noise sensitive receptors (other than those with noise levels above L night outside (40dBA)) outside 55dBA should be considered.

They stated that the noise assessment will include the eligibility for extra noise insulation in accordance with the Noise Insulation (Scotland) Regulations. The Council’s Environmental

Health Officer (EHO) Air Quality The air quality assessment with the proposed methodology The Council’s EHO stated that they are in agreement with the proposed methodology for both the construction and for both construction and operation is reported in Chapter 6: operational phases of the CTLR. Air Quality.

The air quality assessment was modelled using RapidAir They confirmed that all of the air quality modelling should be undertaken using RapidAir dispersion model and all model dispersion modelling. Model verification is provided in verification and error should be included in the EIAR. Appendix 6.E.

The EHO noted that all modelling should be undertaken for all receptors identified in the DMRB Stage 2 assessment with additional receptors at the proposed Bertha Park and Scone North residential developments. The cumulative effects on air quality for the proposed CTLR The cumulative effects of the CTLR alongside the proposed residential developments and any other proposed Project is assessed within Volume 3: Cumulative developments should be assessed with regards to Perth’s Air Quality Management Area. Assessment.

November 2019 PAGE 14 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

Council’s Flooding Team advised that the general flooding requirements are located in their guidance on “Flood Risk and A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been undertaken Flood Risk Assessments”. considering the relevant watercourses and drains which is provided in Appendix 15.2 to the Road Drainage and the They stated that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required for the full length of the CTLR with specific focus on the River Water Environment chapter (Chapter 15). Tay (from Redgorton Drain to Annaty Burn), Whiggle Burn/Gelly Burn, Cramock Burn, Annaty Burn, Bertha Loch and Burn and other relevant drains. It should be specifically stated why any scoped-out watercourses have not been considered further.

As it is not possible for the CTLR to avoid the existing floodplain to the north of Scone Racecourse, the impact on the floodplain should be minimised as much as possible with suitable compensatory flood storage to ensure there is no flood risk increase. The culverts have been designed to a 200 year + Climate Change event. All SuDS have been designed to a 200 year + Climate Change scenario. SuDS to the north of Scone Camping and They noted that the sizing of the culverts for the identified drains will need to be carefully considered to ensure that they Caravanning Club Site have been designed to be have the capacity to carry up to 200-year flood event + Climate Change flood flow. This would need to ensure that it aesthetically pleasing with associated biodiversity and doesn’t present a flood risk to properties downstream. community benefits. The Council’s Flooding Team Consultation has been undertaken with the Scottish SuDS should be designed to provide attenuation for 200-year + Climate Change (20%) scenario. It was also noted that Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Council’s they should be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and being more of a natural shape. Flooding Team to discuss the design of the SuDS ponds. Please refer to Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water Environment.

Please refer to Chapter 10: Hydrogeology and Soils for Winter and Summer groundwater levels will be required to be identified to ensure that SuDS do not interact. It was also the assessment on the groundwater levels. advised that permeability testing should be undertaken in summer and winter to inform the design of SuDS.

The potential impact of a breach to Bertha Loch raised reservoir would need to be considered. The potential impact of this The FRA has considered the potential impact of a breach to was considered in the Bertha Park development, however the culvert sizing for Bertha Loch Burn will need to be Bertha Loch and any potential impact to Scone and the considered whilst ensuring there is no additional flood risk downstream. culverts have been designed appropriately.

As Scone has a history of flooding, the design of the CTLR and SuDS must ensure that the town is not adversely affected. Any improvements in terms of Fluvial or Pluvial flooding are welcomed and encouraged.

PKHT stated that they have been involved in ongoing consultation with regards to the potential impact to Historic The assessment on Cultural Heritage is provided in Chapter Environment sites and have provided suggested evaluation sample sized for each area. 7. Pre-Application works have been undertaken along the proposed CTLR Project alignment at varying levels of It was noted that PKHT had a preference for a different route alignment during the DMRB Stage 2 assessment, but they archaeological evaluation (10% in areas of potential high recognised that this assessment is based on the preferred DMRB Stage 3 route alignment. archaeological sensitivity and 6% in moderate/low archaeological sensitivity). PKHT confirmed that they are happy with the inclusion of cultural heritage in the EIA and that they are listed as a key stakeholder.

Perth and Kinross Heritage Any proposed Pre-Application works are welcomed as it is recognised that the area is rich in known archaeological sites Woodland trenching will be undertaken following the felling Trust (PKHT) with the potential for further archaeological sites being recognised. and prior to the construction of the CTLR.

They also advised that the woodland areas will need to be fully addressed in future works as they are not currently provided.

It was recommended that should any archaeological remains be discovered and excavated, a programme of public outreach should be considered to ensure that the results are fully disseminated.

Noted. This has been amended for Chapter 7: Cultural PKHT noted an error in the reporting, stating that the correct figure of sample size for the Bertha Park evaluation was 10%. Heritage.

November 2019 PAGE 15 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

Hawfinch data has since been received from the British It was noted that breeding bird surveys have been carried out since previous consultations. However, it was noted that Trust for Ornithology which has been discussed in Chapter Hawfinches were not considered as a separate species of conservation concern stating that: 8: Biodiversity. “Hawfinch are a rare red listed species of conservation concern and the area around Scone is their main breeding area in Royal Society for the Protection Scotland”. of Birds Scotland (RSPB

Scotland) It was not deemed appropriate to install swift bricks / nest RSPB recommended that the installation of swift bricks/nest boxes on bridge structures should also be considered as well boxes on the River Tay Crossing Bridge, due to future as owl and other bird nest boxes. maintenance issues.

Scottish Water stated that they have no objection to the proposed CTLR planning application. However, they encourage The proposed CTLR Project has considered the capacity of that the proposed development considers: Perth Water Treatment Works and Perth City Waste Water Treatment Works in Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water – it was noted that there is current sufficient capacity in Perth Water Treatment Works, however stated that further Water Environment. investigations may be required.

Foul – it was noted that there is current sufficient capacity in Perth City Waste Water Treatment Works, however stated that further investigations may be required.

Scottish Water noted that the proposed River Tay Crossing Bridge and associated infrastructure fall within a drinking water Consideration of the surface water environment and catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction (designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA)) is located. They Drinking Water Protected Area (DWPA) is provided in noted that the DWPA downstream of the proposed site has not been noted in the scoping report. The RDWE EIA chapter Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water Environment would need to consider all stages of the proposal (site investigation, construction and operation) on the DWPA catchment. which also covers construction and operational mitigation Anyone working on site should be made aware of the DWPA during site inductions. measures.

Scottish Water They stated that any travel times in a pollution event would be short due to the proximity of the river. It was advised that

consideration of precautions specific to protecting drinking water in peatland areas and any opportunities for peat Information on the likely construction activities and their restoration. Scottish Water noted that they would like further information on the additional site-specific mitigation within the phasing is provided in Chapter 2: Project Description and DWPA catchment to protect water quality and quantity. They further requested that they are notified in advance of any Chapter 19: Schedule of Mitigation. However, the works commencing on site. Contractor will be required to provide more detail and

consult with Scottish Water prior to any works commencing.

Surface Water

Scottish Water noted that they will not accept any surface water connecting into their combined sewer system (exceptional

circumstances with brownfield sites).

Noted. General Notes They stated that the current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar to 10m head at the customers boundary internal outlet. Scottish Water also require land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or SuDS proposed to vert in Scottish Water is constructed.

The assessment on the integration of the CTLR with the It was stated that the core of ScotWays is based around public access to land and its enjoyment and that the Council are a existing NMU path network is presented in Chapter 13: strong lead in open-air recreation provision and the creation of an effective Core Path network. People and Communities. The upgrade of Core Path

LUNC/102 is not considered to be part of the proposed ScotWays stated that they welcome how the CTLR Project will integrate with the existing NMU provisions. They provided CTLR Project. However, upgrades are recommended to the recommendations to upgrade areas including the cycle link between Luncarty and Perth (Core Path LUNC/102/2). section of the path which will be altered as a result of the

ScotWays road alignment.

Following consultation, the width of the separation strip for ScotWays state that they welcome the parallel cycle track along the length of the CTLR, however encouraged an increase the pedestrian/cycleway increased from 1.5m to 2m. in separation strip width. The People and Communities assessment, Chapter 13 has Encouragement was made for a wider approach to considering active travel journeys into Perth City from the north and considered the NMU routes in the wider active travel journey west. The proposed development areas would also benefit from the wider active travel approach. context.

November 2019 PAGE 16 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Full details of the predicted changes to traffic flows with the Concerns were noted with regards to the potential increase in traffic flows along the A94 as there are associated proposed CTLR Project are provided in the Transport implications for NMUs and residents in these villages. Statement as a part of this application.

The realigned section of the A9 will include landscaping ScotWays encouraged the requirement of good landscape as a result of the potential CTLR impacts, in particular at the measures, as identified in Chapter 2: Project Description woodland area of Highfield Plantation. They further encouraged careful landscape design and planning for the realigned and Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact section of the A9. Assessment.

SEPA stated that they require a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Surface water drainage and land made available as part of An FRA, on surface water drainage and land made available the EIA to avoid delay and potential objection. has been carried out for the proposed CTLR Project which is available in Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water It was recognised that there may be opportunities to scope out some aspects in the EIAR, however justification would have Environment and within Appendix 15.1. to be outlined.

They stated that a maximum document size of 25MB is accepted at SEPA, therefore something to consider with the EIAR. Noted.

Flood Risk SEPA stated that the site should be assessed for flood risk from all sources in line with Scottish Planning Policy Noted. The FRA is in accordance with the relevant (Paragraphs 254 – 268). If there is a potential for flood risk then a FRA would be required and for it to be in accordance guidance. with “Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders”.

Surface Water Drainage SEPA confirmed that surface water runoff by sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) is a legal requirement. The type of required SuDS are controlled through planning. Information on the SuDS proposals associated with the They noted that it is important to ensure that adequate space to accommodate SuDS is incorporated into the design. Each proposed CTLR Project is included in Chapter 2: Project SuDS facility (e.g. filter drain, detention basin, permeable paving or swale) provides one level of surface water treatment. Description and within Chapter 15: Road Drainage and However, the level of SuDS required is dependent on the nature of the proposed development. the Water Environment (or appendix).

They stated that all road schemes typically require two levels of treatment, with a technical guidance provided in the SuDS for Roads manual. SEPA It was recommended that the run-off from areas subject to high pollution risk should be minimised and directed to the foul sewer. If it cannot be directed to a foul sewer, it is possible for SEPA to provide site specific advice on the best solution.

SEPA advised that the SuDS treatment train should be followed which uses a logical sequence of SuDS in series to allow run-off to pass through several different SuDS before reaching the receiving waterbody. Further guidance on these measures are included in CIRIA C697 manual titles The SuDS Manual and in the SEPA Guidance Note “Planning advise on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)”.

Recommendations were made to seek comments from the local authority roads department and the local authority flood team with regards to the acceptability of post-development runoff rates for flood control.

They encourage the design of SuDS to Sewers for Scotland Second Edition standards and the adoption of SuDS features by Scottish Water.

SEPA stated that SuDS must be used on all sites. Land Made Available SEPA stated that the land made available for construction activities is a critical element to the environmentally sensitive Details on the construction of the proposed CTLR Project delivery of schemes such as the CTLR. It was recommended that details of the construction element should be stated in and the likely construction activity phasing is presented in the EIAR to advise how construction on the site will be undertaken and whether adequate land has been provided for the Chapter 2: Project Description. delivery of the scheme.

SEPA strongly recommended a meeting is held between the Council’s, SEPA and other interested parties and the potential Noted. This will be considered as a part of the tendering contractors during the tendering process to ensure that the issues are sufficiently considered. process.

November 2019 PAGE 17 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

Pollution prevention and environmental management Pollution prevention measures are outlined in Chapter 15: SEPA noted that their key interests in relation to major developments are with pollution prevention measures during the Road Drainage and the Water Environment. periods of construction (i.e. construction of access roads, borrow pits and other site infrastructure), operation, maintenance, demolition and restoration. Noted. A schedule of mitigation is provided in Chapter 19: All aspects of site work which have the potential to have an impact on the environment as well as the potential pollution Schedule of Mitigation. risks associated with proposals and to identify the principles of preventative measures and mitigation. SEPA further stated that a Schedule of Mitigation should be produced as part of this process which should cover environmental sensitivities, pollution prevention and mitigation measures to avoid or minimise environmental effects. An outline CEMP has been undertaken to accompany the SEPA recommend that the principles of the Construction Environment Management Plan are set out in the EIAR to outline EIAR (Appendix 2.3). how the draft Schedule of Mitigation would be implemented. Engineering activities in the water environment The culvert engineering has incorporated natural beds SEPA stated that they require demonstration that every effort has been made to ensure the water environment is in its where possible. The engineering activities are outlined in natural state. Any engineering activities (i.e. culverts, bridges, water course diversions, bank modifications or dams) should Chapter 2: Project Description. be avoided unless there is no practical alternative. Where a watercourse crossing cannot be avoided, bridging solutions, bottomless or arched culverts which do not affect the bed and banks of the watercourse should be used. It was noted that the dates quoted in the Scoping Report regarding the Channel works should read between 1st June and 30th September.

SEPA requested that a site survey of existing water features and a map of the location of all the proposed engineering Information on the site survey of existing water features and activities in the water environment are to be included in the EIAR and/or the planning submission. A table detailing the associated map showing the proposed engineering activities justification for the activity and how any adverse impacts will be mitigated should also be included. This table should be is presented in Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water accompanied by photographs of each affected water body alongside the dimensions of them. They noted that a key issue Environment. for SEPA to assess is the justification for the location of any proposed activity.

SEPA encouraged that there are opportunities to incorporate improvements to the water environment (required by the Water Framework Directive) or adjacent to the site as part of the outlined mitigation measures. Disruption to wetlands including peatlands SEPA stated that the EIAR or Planning Submission should demonstrate how the layout and design of the proposal avoid impacts on any wetlands or peatland areas.

The route of roads, tracks or trenches within 100m of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems should be reconsidered. They advised that the locations of borrow pits or foundations within 250m of these ecosystems should be reconsidered. If this is not possible, further assessment with associated mitigation would be required in the EIAR. Noted.

Disturbance and re-use of excavated peat SEPA recognised that significant areas of peat or other carbon rich soils are not recorded in the study area. If the proposed infrastructure has a potential to impact on peatlands, a detailed map of peat depths would be required.

Existing groundwater abstractions

They requested that a list of groundwater abstractions both within and outwith the site boundary (with a radius of 100m Noted. No further action required as no risk identified. from roads, tracks and trenches; and 250m from borrow pits and foundations) to address any potential risk to groundwater

abstractions. If risk was identified, further information and investigations would be required to show that the impacts are

acceptable.

Noted. The assessment of the cumulative effects of the Water abstraction proposed CTLR Project and other relevant development SEPA noted that if other development projects are present or proposed within the same water catchment, they advise that proposals on the water environment has been undertaken. the applicant considers whether the cumulative impact on the water environment needs to be assessed. The findings are reported in Volume 3: Cumulative

Assessment. Borrow Pits Borrow pits should be in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) paragraph 243 and sufficient information and a Noted. No further action required. map should be provided to address this policy. Air Quality Noted. Consultation has been undertaken with the Council’s SEPA advised that the local authority is responsible for the local air quality management (under Environment Act 1995) Environmental Heath team. The air quality assessment is and are best placed to advise. reported in Chapter 6: Air Quality.

November 2019 PAGE 18 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Regulatory advice for the applicant SEPA noted that authorisation would be required under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) to carry out engineering works in or in the vicinity of inland surface water. Noted. This information is provided in Chapter 2: Project SEPA stated that they require an estimation of the total woodland to be felled and section into areas of replanting and Description and Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and areas of construction should be included in the EIAR. Any options for the use/ re-use/ disposal of waste wood should be Sporting Interests. outlined. The materials balance is provided and assessed in Chapter Any potential soil excess or deficit should be outlined in the EIAR. SEPA noted that contrary to the Scoping Report, Binn 11: Materials. landfill are still accepting soils for the capping and reinstatement of the site. Noted. Pre-CAR application discussions have been A CAR construction site licence will be required to manage surface water run-off from a construction site (including tracks) undertaken with SEPA. A CAR construction site licence which is more than 4ha; is in excess of 5km; or includes and areas of over 1ha in length or over 500m on ground with a application will be completed for the proposed CTLR Project. slope excess of 25 degrees.

SEPA encourages pre-CAR application discussions with a member of the regulatory services team.

Noted. The assessment of the cumulative effects of the Cumulative assessment and cross boundary effects proposed CTLR Project and other relevant development SNH states that the EIA should assess the significant cumulative environmental effects from the other Perth Transport proposals on the environment including the other Perth Futures phases and the connections between these phases. Transport Futures Project (in particular Phase 3 Bertha Park

North Link to A9) and cross-boundary environmental issues They further stated that the EIA should address cumulative and cross-boundary environmental issues to ensure that (such as designated sites, landscape, woodland loss etc.) negative effects can be minimised and mitigated and any opportunities for environmental connectivity are achieved. These has been undertaken. The findings are reported in Volume should focus on impacts to designated sites, landscape, woodland loss/fragmentation, protected species, soil and outdoor 3: Cumulative Assessment. access.

Proposed scope of the EIA The potential impact on woodland and AWI sites has been SNH identified potentially significant impacts on the River Tay SAC, Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) sites, landscape assessed in Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact and protected areas in the SPTF Strategic Environmental Assessment. Assessment, Chapter 9: Biodiversity and Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interests. SNH stated that they expect the impacts on woodland and AWI sites to be addressed and included under ecological impacts and not solely in the Project Description section. The assessment on soils is presented in Chapter 10: They noted that they would like a loss and fragmentation/impacts section on the connectivity of woods in the AWI to be Hydrogeology and Soils and Chapter 14: Agriculture, added for both construction and operation. SNH noted that they would like soils to be scoped in. Forestry and Sporting Interests. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) The assessment on the impact to the River Tay SAC is Designated Sites presented in Chapter 9: Biodiversity and Chapter 15: SNH welcome any assessment to consider the potential for likely significant effects on the qualifying interests of the River Road Drainage and the Water Environment. A Habitat Tay SAC and the consideration of construction mitigation measures to address any potential pollution impacts to the SAC. Regulation Assessment (HRA) screening assessment and Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been complete for the SAC. Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) sites SNH stated that the proposed development would result in loss / fragmentation / connectivity of several woods which are The assessment on the ancient semi-natural woodland has recorded in the AWI. The Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy states they are against removing considered SNH’s stance on the ancient woodland ancient semi-natural woodland or causing fragmentation or disconnection of forest networks. assessment within Chapter 9: Biodiversity and Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interests. There is a national interest in safeguarding and enhancing species and habitats identified to be of outstanding conservation importance in Scotland, ancient semi-natural woodland is identified as an irreplaceable resource and the loss of any ancient woodland is significant.

They stated in terms of tree replacement, it is not about replacing felled trees with planted trees but to provide the Noted. The compensatory planting species type will be equivalent woodland for public benefits. confirmed during detailed design. Refer to Chapter 2 for information on the compensatory planting locations.

November 2019 PAGE 19 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

SNH support a detailed botanical survey of Highfield Plantation and Bertha Wood but this level of survey should be Woodland National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys provided for each AWI affected woodland to ascertain ecological value. They encouraged that other woodlands, hedgerows have been completed for Bertha Wood, the western bank of and individual trees should be identified and assessed in the EIA. They requested that the full surveys including the River Tay, Dairy Wood and at Highfield Plantation. methodology, mapping (including proposed development footprint), results and proposals should be included in the EIAR Results of these surveys are presented in Chapter 9: and included on maps. Biodiversity. Landscape and Visual Impact SNH stated that they are happy with the precautionary methodology approach of using DMRB and GVLIA. However they Noted. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment stated that the EIAR should demonstrate how the design objectives have re-shaped the proposal to mitigate landscape (Chapter 8) provides further information on the mitigation of impacts. SNH noted that they are happy to provide feedback on these objectives. landscape impacts, including the landscaped area of the A9.

SNH encouraged the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to consider further mitigation through design changes in the areas of the A9 interchange.

They also stated that the proposed 1km study area ‘seems tightly drawn’ as there is a large area to the north of Perth which should be considered including the effects when travelling through this area, the setting of Perth and the approach to Perth. SNH advised that they are happy to provide comment on a draft viewpoint selection and to potentially include views from The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment viewpoints the Sidlaws and to the Highland Boundary Faultline could also be relevant. were agreed with SNH prior to undertaking the assessment. Noted. The assessment of the cumulative effects of the SNH raised concerns that there is a risk that the CTLR could cause a large-scale precedent for subsequent further proposed CTLR Project and other relevant development degradation of the landscape character and the quality of the rural landscape around Perth, specifically the greenbelt buffer proposals on the landscape character and the consideration between the settlements and the CTLR. The cumulative landscape impacts should consider future-evolution of the on the future evaluation of the landscape has been landscape including other infrastructure projects. The use of using SuDS design to mitigating features was recommended undertaken. The findings are reported in Volume 3: as they can provide naturalistic and visually effective landscape transitions linking the road and the surrounding rural Cumulative Assessment. landscape character. Protected Species The Biodiversity assessment (Chapter 9) has considered SNH stated that they are in agreement of the protected species which have been proposed to be scoped in. However, the impacts to otters and all species of bats. A Protected advised that the EIAR should assess the impacts on otters as a designated feature of the River Tay SAC and therefore Species Survey Report is located in Appendix 9.1. subject to a HRA. They also recommended that all species of bats should be covered by the EIAR and for the surveys and proposed mitigation to be presented in the EIAR as a Species Protection Plan.

Noted. Freshwater Pearl Mussels have been scoped in and SNH advised that freshwater pearl mussels should be scoped in as they are susceptible to pollutants and sediment run-off assessed as a part of this EIAR. The confidential and SuDS outfall locations. This information and mitigation measures should be submitted as a confidential annex. assessment is provided in Appendix 9.5. Great Crested

Newts have been scoped out of the assessment following SNH advised that great crested newts can also be scoped out at this stage. SNH’s advice.

The EIAR should outline the survey methodology, results, evaluation of impacts as a result of the proposed development, Noted. Further information on the Biodiversity assessment the significance of impacts and the recommended mitigation and compensation measures. The survey results should (including survey methodology, results and evaluation of clearly show the location, numbers and extent of any protected or noteworthy species. Details of any survey limitations impacts) is presented in Chapter 9: Biodiversity. should be included in the EIAR. Species surveys should have been completed no more than 18 months prior to submission of the application to ensure that All surveys have been completed within 18 months prior to the survey results are a contemporary reflection of species activity at and around the site. submission. Habitats Results from the ecological surveys and associated maps Any survey results should be presented clearly and transparently in the EIAR. Any maps showing the vegetation record are provided in Chapter 9: Biodiversity. should be included with the final proposed scheme location. Measures to control and dispose of non-native species should be included in the EIAR.

They would like details of the proposed native wildflower species to be provided and appropriate to the surrounding landscape and habitat.

November 2019 PAGE 20 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Noted. The People and Communities (Chapter 13) Off road walking and cycling routes assessment considers the potential impact to NMU routes SNH advised they support the spatial identification of the different types of NMU routes. However, would like clear spatial whilst considering the link to the wider NMU network. A identification of the proposed provision for each type of user on hard surfaced material. They support the provision of a comparison between the existing and proposed NMU paths segregated cycle / pedestrian path along the length of the CTLR and encourage the nature of the segregation to be is also provided in this chapter. explained further.

SNH would like the assessment on NMUs to advise how the CTLR segregated cycle path will link to other local and wider cycle routes.

Further information on Highfield Green Bridge is provided in SNH advised that they expect a comparison between the existing and proposed NMU provision and the quality, severance Chapter 2. The interaction of the green bridge with the and how the impacts will be mitigated. They would also like further information on the Highfield Green Bridge. Assessment existing and proposed NMU network is assessed in Chapter of existing and proposed River Tay recreation including how changes to access will be mitigated. 13. Outdoor Access and green networks Any potential impacts to existing recreation, open space and SNH stated that the effects of the development on existing recreation, open space and green networks should be green networks are assessed in Chapter 13: People and assessed. Any NMU routes should be biodiverse and contribute to the wider green network, maximising the habitat Communities. connectivity of existing and new biosecurity features. Noted. The assessment on soils is presented in Chapter 10: Soils Hydrogeology and Soils and Chapter 14: Agriculture, SNH recommend that soils are scoped into the EIA with an assessment of the significant impacts on soils from the Forestry and Sporting Interests. development (for example impacts on organic matter, erosion, compaction, soil sealing) and cumulative effects.

Mitigation A summary of the mitigation measures and a summary of SNH welcome the identification of mitigation measures and the residual effects. The consequences of significant residual the residual effects is located in Chapter 18 and Chapter impacts should be considered in accordance with planning policies and legislation and include mitigation, compensatory 19. actions and enhancements.

Where significant impacts cannot be avoided or reduced, compensation measures to be implemented should be identified. Public consultation has been undertaken, as outlined in LRMCC stressed that public consultation is a key feature of the environmental assessment procedures. Section 5.3 of this chapter.

They also requested that as the Council is the client they are referred to as the developer. They also requested Appropriate Noted. The client has been referred to as the Developer for Assessment is included in the EIAR. the EIAR. Appropriate Assessment has been carried out and is presented as an appendix to Chapter 9: Biodiversity. Further concerns were raised with regards to ‘engineering terms’ being used for Figure 2.3 and therefore request this text The indicative construction timescales are provided in is amended so it is accessible for all. Chapter 2: Project Description. All technical chapters consider the potential impact during the construction and LRMCC noted that they feel the construction period is underestimated due to the size of the development in comparison operation of the proposed CTLR Project. with existing ongoing developments. They have also requested that the assessments consider the impact during construction and a programme of works are to be included in the EIAR. Luncarty, Redgorton & The interaction between the proposed CTLR Project and the Moneydie Community Council UN Sustainable Development Goals is presented in Volume (LRMCC) LRMCC are of the opinion that the project does not embrace the full intentions of the UN. They noted that the cumulative 1: Non-Technical Summary, Volume 2, Chapter 1: effects of the project would have to be considered. Introduction and Chapter 3: Project Need, Objectives and Alternatives. The assessment of the cumulative effects (Volume 3) of the proposed CTLR Project and other relevant development proposals has been undertaken. LRMCC advised that the tidal influence of the River Tay reaches the River Almond with the highest recorded levels on the Following consultation with Marine Scotland and SEPA it River Tay were in 2016 where heavy rain and soil saturation led to rapid runoff. was advised that the section of the River Tay that the CTLR crosses, is out with the tidal influence of the river. They stated that the CTLR will have to have a long-life span of 120 years which should be included in the EIA. Topographical surveys have been undertaken (please refer Topographical surveys and Lidar data with analysis of high-water levels have been requested to be featured in the EIAR. to Chapter 15: Road Drainage and the Water Environment). It was stated that they consider the proposed mitigation measures (wildflower seed mixes, bug hotels and bat boxes) are Noted. Specific mitigation measures are presented in each not a substitute for the loss of natural habitats and that red lighting may cause additional disturbance. technical assessment.

November 2019 PAGE 21 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Concerns were raised that cumulative impacts were not discussed at the public consultation events. They further noted Additional visualisations have been prepared for the EIAR, concerns of the ‘limited views’ provided in the visualisations. as provided throughout Chapter 2: Project Description.

• LRMCC have requested a full traffic assessment of traffic flows in the centre of Perth is provided. They also requested that A traffic assessment of Perth has been undertaken. The the EIAR should adhere to SPP 2014. results of this are presented in the Transport Statement, submitted as a part of this application. Ecological assessments have been undertaken at Bertha LRMCC have requested that the study on the significance of the woodlands at Bertha Park is to be included in the EIAR. Wood with the results presented in Chapter 9: Biodiversity. They have stressed that they believe invertebrates should be scoped into the biodiversity assessment. They also are of the The assessment on terrestrial invertebrates is also opinion that terrestrial invertebrates should be scoped in. presented in the Biodiversity chapter.

LRMCC also recommended that soils are scoped into the assessment as there are proposed excavations at Bertha Park Noted. The assessment on soils is presented in Chapter 10: and Highfield Plantation. They also state that human health and the wider People and Communities topic should be Hydrogeology and Soils and Chapter 14: Agriculture, considered in the EIAR. LRMCC advise that they disagree with the conclusions regarding forestry and believe that it Forestry and Sporting Interests. The assessment of the requires further assessment and scoped into the EIAR. They also advise that cumulative effects should include an impact to human health and people and communities is assessment on the full occupation of development in the LDP and not just the build out rates. presented in Appendix 13.3. Forestry is assessed in the • EIAR in Chapter 8, Chapter 9 and Chapter 14. An assessment of air quality impacts has been undertaken - Air Quality please refer to Chapter 6: Air Quality. LRMCC requested that the EIAR considers the baseline for air quality and noise and that any expected change must be assessed for all sources close to the settlements and to include the full occupation of the development sites and any traffic generated from these. They further stated that the Air Quality assessment scope in ‘certain pollutants’ in accordance with the EIA Regs 2017.

• Cultural Heritage An archaeological and cultural heritage assessment has The 1km boundary applies only to designations. This does not meet the expectation of SPP 2014, nor other interests that been undertaken - please refer to Chapter 7: Cultural can be found on CANMORE mapping Fig. TA2.1 also fails to identify cumulative impacts referred to from Phase 3 and Heritage. Local Development Plan 2. LRMCC note that HES’s preference is to not have the CTLR in the Scone Garden and Designed Landscape. They feel that The cumulative impact to heritage assets has been a full list of designated assets should be provided. They would also like a cumulative assessment to be undertaken as well assessed and is reported in Volume 3: Cumulative as not only cultural heritage assets of national importance being considered. Assessment. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment A list and assessment of the Landscape and Visual Impact ‘Perth Landscape Capacity Study’ from SNH report was advised as it must be used as the background for the EIA. LRMCC Assessment viewpoints is provided in Chapter 8: also advised that the Bertha Park Knoll is a distinctive landscape feature and provides distinctive connecting woodland. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. They advised that the CTLR would be seen at Kinnoull Hill and Murrayshall Hill and that the LVIA should include these viewpoints. They stated that they are of the opinion that Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) have limitations which should be recognised. An assessment on the ecological impacts has been • Biodiversity undertaken, please refer to Chapter 9: Biodiversity for Stated that records for Red Squirrel and Brown Hare are missing from Bertha Park Wood. They have also requested that further information. Requested species records are provided the loss and fragmentation of habitat in relation to connecting or adjacent habitats should be assessed. They believe that within Appendix 9.1. the study area should be widened to cover this. They have requested species records are added to the appendix and that invertebrates should be scoped in.

An assessment on the soils and impact to Bertha Park Knoll Geology, Soils, Contamination and Hydrogeology is provided in Chapter 10: Hydrogeology and Soils. LRMCC are of the belief that this topic should be scoped in, especially the impact on soils. They also advised that the Bertha Park Knoll has a complex hydrology with considerable water retention, and they feel that the realigned A9 could lead to increased runoff.

A noise assessment has been undertaken, please refer to Noise and Vibration Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration for further information. LRMCC advise that the study area should include Luncarty, Kirkhill and Battleby as well as residential properties at Bertha The assessment of the cumulative effects of the CTLR Park. They further requested that the cumulative impacts of the developments are considered. They voiced concerns that Project and other relevant development proposals on the the realigned A9 would have a more significant impact to the noise levels for residents. noise levels has been undertaken. The findings are reported in Volume 3: Cumulative Assessment. They have also requested that the noise impacts along the River Tay should be considered for users of the routes.

November 2019 PAGE 22 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees People and Communities LRMCC noted concerns that the assessment hasn’t included parts of settlements in the maps and the consequences to the The assessment on the potential impact to local local communities. Further concerns were raised over the timescales and the undertaking of the NMU surveys. They noted communities and the construction impacts are presented in that negative impacts during construction were not highlighted. Chapter 13: People and Communities.

Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interests An agricultural and forestry assessment has been LRMCC raised concerns that the agricultural assessment should be quantified. They have requested that the forestry undertaken and is presented in Chapter 14. impacts and loss of woodland in relation to climate change should be considered in the EIA. Concerns were raised that ancient woodland cannot be replaced with new planting.

• RDWE Concerns were raised that only one of the two outflows of Bertha Loch are included in the surveys. Further concerns were The assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed raised on the impact of exhaust emissions on Bertha Loch. CTLR Project and other relevant development proposals on the frequency of floods has been undertaken. The findings Climate are reported in Volume 3: Cumulative Assessment. LRMCC stressed the importance of considering cumulative impacts and increased frequency of floods.

LRMCC noted concerns that light pollution hasn’t been included in the EIA Scoping Report and the impact of this on wildlife The lighting requirements of the proposed CTLR Project are and communities should be considered. provided in Chapter 2: Project Description. • Consideration of Alternatives Requests were made for the EIAR to include a wider assessment as a part of the EIA process. Consultation has been undertaken with FCS, HES and SNH to agree on the compensatory planting locations. Consultation Concerns were raised on the consultation undertaken at the time of the Scoping Report with regards to the impact on forestry. They would like further information on proposed compensatory planting. The proposed lighting of the CTLR is outlined in Chapter 2: LRMCC are of the opinion lighting proposals should be scoped in following consultation with the Council. Project Description. The lighting has been designed to a level deemed appropriate in relation to ecological disturbance. With note to the SEPA consultation, requests are made that the EIA consider the future standards especially with regards Beaver surveys have been undertaken and reported in to the River Tay Crossing Bridge as flooding on the River Tay is considered to be more frequent that 1:200 year event. Chapter 9. Wintering bird surveys have been scoped out due to the distance from the Firth of Tay SPA and lack of Consultation with SNH led LRMCC to advise that beaver data should be followed up with a survey. They would also like a connectivity for the Pink-Footed goose and the Greylag reason as to why wintering bird surveys have been scoped out as LRMCC are of the opinion they should be scoped in. goose. SNH confirmed they were happy with this approach.

LRMCC advise following Transport Scotland consultations that departures and relaxations should be identified in the EIA as there are existing concerns on this existing junction. Noted. Further information is provided in Chapter 2: Project Description.

LRMCC also advise that a full National Vegetation Classification surveys will be required for woodlands, wetlands, river Noted. Please refer to Chapter 9: Biodiversity. banks and aquatic habitats to ensure priority habitats are identified and assessed.

SDCC raised concerns that the process is not in compliance with the EU EIA Directive as clarity is not provided between Noted. Chapter 1: Introduction has set out the difference the ‘Planning Authority’ and ‘the Developer’. between the Planning Authority (competent authority) and the Developer. Appropriate Assessment has been carried out and is Scone & District Community They also requested that the Appropriate Assessment report is included in the final EIAR. presented in Chapter 9: Biodiversity. Council (SDCC)

SDCC noted that they feel the construction period is underestimated due to the size of the development in comparison with The proposed construction timescales are provided in existing ongoing developments. They have also requested that the assessments consider the impact during construction Chapter 2: Project Description. All technical chapters and a programme of works are to be included in the EIAR. consider the potential impact during the construction of the scheme.

November 2019 PAGE 23 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

The interaction between the proposed CTLR Project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals is presented in Volume They stated that the CTLR cannot be assessed alone and the potential cumulative impacts from other proposed 1: Non-Technical Summary and Chapter 1: Introduction developments should be considered. They also stated that the assessment on climate change must consider the Paris and Chapter 3: Project Need, Objectives and Climate Change Conference (November 2015) specifically with regard to high emission GHG sea level rise of 98cm. Alternatives. The assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed CTLR Project and other relevant development proposals has been undertaken. The findings are reported in Volume 3: Cumulative Assessment.

SDCC advised that the tidal influence of the River Tay reaches the River Almond which must be considered in conjunction Following consultation with Marine Scotland and SEPA it with high rainfall and snow. They also encouraged that the design life of the road and bridge should be included in the was advised that the section of the River Tay the CTLR EIAR. With regard to the River Tay Crossing Bridge, they advised that this structure should be assessed in accordance crosses is out with the tidal influence of the river. with sea level rise, plus high water levels and tidal effects. The flooding and erosion of the River Tay should also be considered.

It was stated that they consider the proposed mitigation measures (wildflower seed mixes, bug hotels and bat boxes) are Specific mitigation measures are outlined in each technical not a substitute for the loss of natural habitats and that red lighting may cause additional disturbance. chapter and in Chapter 18: Schedule of Mitigation. Community severance is assessed as a part of the EIAR in • SDCC are of the opinion that the CTLR Project would fragment communities adjacent to and along the route. Any that this Chapter 13: People and Communities. should be assessed in the EIAR.

An assessment on the traffic flows in the centre of Perth has been requested, alongside the cumulative impacts on traffic A traffic assessment of Perth has been undertaken. The flows. SDCC also stated that an assessment on ‘non-designated historic environment’, ‘the wider cultural landscape’ and results of this are presented in the Transport Statement communities along the route would be preferred. submitted as part of this application. Ecological assessments have been undertaken at Bertha Wood with the results presented in Chapter 9: Biodiversity. SDCC stated that they believe that invertebrates should be scoped in as Pearl Mussels are present on site. They also advised that soils are scoped in as there will be substantial excavations at Bertha Park and Highfield Plantation. They also The assessment on terrestrial invertebrates and a Pearl requested that People and Communities consider a wider assessment. They also stated that they feel a full forestry Mussel survey report is also presented in the Biodiversity assessment should be scoped in. It was also raised that the assessment on cumulative effects should consider full chapter. Noted. The assessment on soils is presented in occupation of development sites in the LDP and not just the build out rates. Chapter 10: Geology and Soils and Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interests. Forestry is being assessed in the EIAR in Chapter 8, Chapter 9 and Chapter 14.

Air Quality An assessment of air quality impacts has been undertaken, SDCC feel that Section C of the CTLR breaches air quality regulations as it is located close to the H29 Scone North including the potential impacts to the proposed housing Development. Concerns were raised that the Air Quality assessment focuses on the benefits of the existing AQMA and not development site please refer to Chapter 6: Air Quality and the impact to Scone North. They also see benefit for the existing baseline to be established to understand present levels. Volume 3: Cumulative Assessment.

Further concerns were raised that Scottish Law should not permit the CTLR through H29. Cultural Heritage SDCC agreed with the conclusions to not scope out Cultural Heritage, however it is considered essential to ensure the Noted. The assessment of impacts on cultural heritage is assessment takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved. reported in Chapter 7. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment SDCC have requested that the loss of woodland from AWI, impact on both designated landscape and general landscape, flood plain impact, the impact on the River Tay Special Area of Conservation and the impact on the greenbelt land. They Noted. The assessment on impact to the landscape and the further encouraged that the assessment takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved. woodland loss impact is reported in Chapter 8: Landscape • and Visual Impact Assessment.

November 2019 PAGE 24 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Biodiversity • SDCC stated that they generally agree with the conclusions but overall are of the opinion invertebrates should not be Noted. Please refer to Chapter 9: Biodiversity. scoped out.

Geology, Soils, Contamination and Hydrogeology Site investigations were undertaken in Summer 2018 which They encouraged that the site investigation works are used to confirm any decisions made in the project. They also have fed into the design development and the assessment advised that they feel soils and geology should be scoped into the assessment. on Hydrogeology and Soils (Chapter 10).

An assessment of noise impacts has been undertaken, including the potential impacts to the proposed housing • Noise and Vibration development site please refer to Chapter 12: Noise and Concerns were raised on the impact of traffic noise on H29 and that the developments would need to be insulated Vibration and Volume 3: Cumulative Assessment. accordingly. They would also like for the road to be moved to the north. Chapter 3: Project Need, Objectives and Alternatives provides a history of the CTLR route alignment

People and Communities SDCC are in agreement of the proposed scope of the assessment. Noted. No further action required.

Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interests SDCC advise that they disagree with the conclusions regarding forestry and believe that it requires further assessment. The impact to forestry is assessed in Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Chapter 9: They also advise that the key land issues should not be limited to ‘agriculture and forestry’ as they are of the opinion that Biodiversity and Chapter 14: Agriculture, Forestry and recreational usage must be included. Sporting Interests. The impact of the proposed CTLR Project on NMU routes is assessed in Chapter 13: People Concerns were raised that this assessment does not consider the impact of CTLR on NMUs. and Communities. • Road Drainage and the Water Environment An assessment on the water environment impacts has been SDCC reemphasised that they believe geology should be scoped in. They also agree with the cumulative approach to undertaken. Please refer to Chapter 15: Road Drainage assessing the impact on RDWE. They stress that importance must be placed on ensuring that the CTLR does not cause and the Water Environment and Volume 3: Cumulative impacts upstream or downstream of the site. They noted that they are happy that the full topic is scoped in. Assessment.

Climate An assessment of climate change impacts has been SDCC are of the opinion that the project may be liable to climate change during the construction phase in relation to undertaken. Please refer to Chapter 16: Climate and working next to the River Tay. They also feel that increasing frequency of damaging floods cannot be ruled out. Volume 3: Cumulative Assessment.

Socioeconomic, Human Health and Major Accidents & Disasters The assessment on human health, including the SDCC noted that they feel that any potential economic benefits need to be clarified in full in the EIAR. They are also of the methodologies used and the outcomes of the assessment is opinion that the HIA should consider all impacts on the NMUs and people going about their everyday lives and that presented in Chapter 17: Population and Human Health. consultation should be undertaken with NMUs and members of the public. The Place Standard Tool was not used for the consultation of the HIA Questionnaire (Appendix 17.1). They also stressed that the use of the ‘Place Standard Tool’ should not replace community consultation through fears that digital tools could be seen to discriminate against those that aren’t comfortable with using computers.

Noted. Safe crossing points have been designed through the • They raised concerns that measures for any future major accidents and disasters can be impossible to determine. SDCC Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Assessment process and further raised that they want safe crossing points for all users along the CTLR. the outcomes are highlighted in Chapter 13: People and Communities.

Further comments were provided from SDCC: An assessment of air quality impacts has been undertaken. SDCC Additional Comments Air Quality Please refer to Chapter 6: Air Quality.

SDCC would like the assessment to look at the reverse impact on the movement of traffic on the key roads in relation to traffic from Perth.

November 2019 PAGE 25 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Greenbelt SDCC believe the proposed development raises questions of the value of Greenbelt land in the LDP, with specific The Planning Support Statement submitted alongside this reference to Policy NE5. EIAR identifies where the proposed CTLR Project meets policies within the LDP2.

The SDCC also feel that the following criteria have been ignored: - Housing in the Countryside Policy RD3 does not apply in the Greenbelt - The Council are looking to prepare Supplementary Guidance for the management of Greenbelt land.

Local Community Responses *NB: names and identities have not been included to ensure anonymity

Local Community Response Chapter 3 discusses the alternative northern alignment “The proposed route should be reconsidered and possibly taken further to the north. The current route cuts across our much loved Scone woodlands. I’m considered by the Council in June 2019. A Council decision certain that the proposal takes the least damaging route through the woods to protect trees and animals in it. However, this woodland is an important part of was taken to proceed with the current alignment for the Scone life. People from all over the area use this wood for recreation. Walkers, dog owners, horse riders, cyclist, kids playing etc. use these woods every day. proposed CTLR Project. Surely protecting people’s places to recharge and unwind from busy and stressful way of living should be one of the Council priorities. Mental health is one of the most talk about topics these days. It is on steady rise and should not be overlooked in such an important project as this CTLR proposal. CTLR as Any potential impacts to Scone woodlands have been proposed currently will not only increase the stress levels, but will cut off the fantastic, easily reached woods from Scone people. assessed in terms of biodiversity (Chapter 9), People and Communities (Chapter 13) and Agriculture, Forestry and Proposal should look further than just next couple of decades ahead. Green spaces should be protected for our kids’ generation. Council has agreed to Sporting Interests (Chapter 14). provide several hundreds of new houses in near future in the area. Council should also agree to protect areas with such an importance as woods and natural greenspaces for all the new people brought to the area as well as the current ones.

Scone woods can become a fantastic facility from people of Perth also, if the Perth pedestrian bridge over river Tay would go ahead in the future. People’s lives are changing, way of living are changing also. We surely need another way to link the current roads better, but there are other than economic and traffic strategies that should be considered in the proposal.”

Local Community Response Chapter 3 discusses the alternative northern alignment “Please accept our CTLR scoping consultation comments: - considered as a part of the proposed CTLR Project (see 1. Safety of route for non-motorised users: note above). • The route to be moved northwards as in upper limit in LDP • Currently it is planned to cut through a much used wood – danger to children, dog walkers, ramblers, cyclists. • It is part of the H29 Development (but not paid for by developer) i.e. runs into 2 phases of H29 • It will take the traffic from Bridgend which has already killed twice, why not take the road away from people? Why is this busy road going through The section of the CTLR between Highfield roundabout and residential areas? the A94 roundabout is proposed to have the speed reduced • A higher level would spare paths, and H29. to 30mph once the H29 housing development is in place. • A 50mph road will be a significant danger. Putting the road to the north reduces this. Breaking distance at 50mph is 53m! Anyone hit by a car at that speed will not survive: unsafe for anyone in H29 living on the road, at the school, or playing in the woods/core paths.

2. Noise Pollution: A noise assessment has been undertaken for the proposed CTLR Project, please refer to Chapter 12: Noise and • Noise from traffic, especially lorries, will be significant for top half of Scone, in H29 and for walkers. Vibration. • At 19mph a lorry produces the noise of 15 cars, 50mph (planned speed) noise is 90dB at 70 meters distance: the equivalent of a home blender running right beside you. • WHO found that people get annoyed at 50dB. Figures suggest such a level will be heard throughout Scone up to 300m from the top of the village - unbearably loud in H29 • 60mph (likely on 50mph road) sounds twice as loud as at 30mph.

3. Air Pollution: An Air quality assessment has been undertaken for the proposed CTLR Project, please refer to Chapter 6: Air • This is the traffic causing pollution in Scone and Bridgend – why is this road going through the H29 Development right alongside the proposed new Quality. School (paid for by taxpayer)? • This road route should be changed to run along northern end H29 rather than right through houses

November 2019 PAGE 26 OF CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION AND SCOPING EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Organisation Scoping Response How has this been dealt with? Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

4. Cycle pedestrian route beside road:

• There should be an extension of the 1.5m grass verge between the cycle/pedestrian path and road. The separation strip along the CTLR has increased to 2m in • Trees to be planted along the route between the road and the pedestrians width and where it has been possible in the road design, it • Consider barriers - an added safety measure and/or a half waist level hedge. has moved further from the carriageway (i.e. at the SuDS • The route should be moved away from the road where possible. Wetland Area). • See http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/ endorsed by cycling clubs in UK. Note that Sustrans recommends a 3m overtaking space between a lorry and a cyclist yet they are only planning a 1.5m gap. Sustrans recommends a “MINIMUM of 1.5m between a cycle path and a carriageway at speeds of 40mph” (this is 50mph). Sustrans also recommends “Traffic free routes are key features of cycle networks, providing short cuts away from the road”. Making Space for Cycling states “Cycle tracks along major roads must always be fully segregated with a distance of between 4 and 8 metres from the main carriageway. This provides sufficient overlooking from cars to provide visual safety whilst also being far enough away to reduce the noise of the traffic. Ideally trees should be planted in this space.”

5. Core paths for non-motorised users: There will be two NMU crossings in the vicinity of Highfield Plantation: Highfield Green Bridge and a toucan controlled • A crossing at the top of the Highfield core path - only one planned, centrally, not sufficient crossing to the west of the Highfield roundabout. • People would have to walk a distance to this crossing - unfair on elderly, disabled. • More traffic lights.

The Council passed the route of this road using diagrams that did not show the H29 Development in place. Here is a chance for the Council to really protect the current and future population of our village and move the route north. We sincerely hope you will take these points seriously into consideration during your scoping consultation”

November 2019 PAGE 27 OF CHAPTER 5

Chapter 5 - Consultation and Scoping

Appendix 5.1 – List of Consultees

Cross Tay Link Road

Revision Date Version Author Technical Reviewer Checker Approver Number P01.1 06.03.19 DRAFT E COOPER R McLEAN R McLEAN D RITCHIE

BIM Reference: 119046-SWECO-EGN-000-RP-EN-20022

This document has been prepared on behalf of Perth and Kinross Council by Sweco for Cross Tay Link Road. It is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. Sweco accepts no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from Perth and Kinross Council.

Prepared for: Prepared by: Perth and Kinross Council Sweco Pullar House Suite 4.2, City Park 35 Kinnoull Street 368 Alexandra Parade Perth Glasgow PH1 5GD G31 3AU

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.1 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD List of Consultees EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Table 1.1: List of Consultees

CTLR Consultees Statutory/ Non-Statutory Archaeology Scotland Architecture and Design Scotland Aspect Surveys Association of British Riding Schools Balgarvie Farm Bat Conservation Trust BEAR Scotland Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland British Geological Survey British Horse Society Buglife Scotland Butterfly Conservation ByCycle Centre for Inclusive Living Perth and Kinross (CILPK) Centreal Scotland Green Network Cycle Touring Club (Scotland) (CTC) Cycling Scotland Forestry Commission Scotland Gannochy Saddle Club Historic Environment Scotland (HES) James Hutton Institute John Muir Trust Kinfauns Stables RDA Kinross Cycling Club Living Streets Scotland Marine Scotland Met Office Ministry of Defence Mobility and Access Committee Scotland (MACS) National Farming Union Scotland (NFU Scotland) National Grid National Health Service (NHS) National Trust for Scotland Network Rail P&K Cycle Campain Paths for All Perth Airport Perth and District Anglers Association Perth and District Hillwalking Club

2019 PAGE 1 OF APPENDIX 5.1

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.1 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD List of Consultees EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

CTLR Consultees Perth and District Ramblers Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) Perth and Kinross Outdoor Access Forum Perth Canoe Club Perth Racecourse Perth United Cycling Club Police Ramblers Association RSPB Scotland Scotiish Squirrels Scotland Outdoor Access Network (SOAN) Scotland’s Bird Club Scottish Aero Club Scottish Badgers Scottish Canoe Association Scottish Castles Association Scottish Civic Trust Scottish Disibility Equality Forum Scottish Endurance Riding Club Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Scottish Government Agricultural Office Scottish National Heritage (SNH) Scottish Orienteering Association Scottish Water Scottish Wildlife Trust Scotways SSE Stagecoach Sustrans Systra TACTRAN Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board (TDSFB) Tay Titans Tayside ARG Tayside Bat Group Tayside Raptor Study Group The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSS) Transport Scotland Vision PK Visit Scotland

2019 PAGE 2 OF APPENDIX 5.1

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.1 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD List of Consultees EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

CTLR Consultees Woodland Trust Scotland Landowners / Key Stakeholders AJ Stephen I & H Brown Newmains Residents Ritchies Scone Estates Directly Affected Community Councils Luncarty, Redgorton and Moneydie Community Council North Muirton Community Council Scone and District Community Council Bridgend, Gannochy and Kinnoull Community Council Coupar Angus Community Council Meigle and Ardler Community Council North Inch and Muirton Community Council *Statutory Consultees are highlighted in bold

2019 PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 5.1

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.1 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD List of Consultees EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

This page is intentionally left blank

2019 PAGE 4 OF APPENDIX 5.1

Chapter 5 - Consultation and Scoping October 2019 PAGE 0 OF CHAPTER 6 Appendix 5.2 – Scoping Opinion

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

Regulation 17 SCOPING OPINION

Part I – Particulars of Scoping Request/Planning Application

Applicant's Name & Address Agent/Applicant's Name & Address

Perth and Kinross Council SWECO, Pullar House, 2nd Floor Quay 2 35 Kinnoull Street, 139 Fountainbridge Perth Edinburgh

Date Request/Application received Application Ref. (if applicable) 12 September 2018 18/01661/SCOP

Site Location Description of Proposal A9 over the river tay to the A93 and Major infrastructure project – Cross A94. Tay Link Road (phase 2)

Part 2 – Particulars of Scoping Request

Introduction and Context

Under the provisions of Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (“the EIA Regulations”), Perth and Kinross Council Infrastructure Team has sought a scoping opinion from Perth and Kinross Council Planning Authority for the construction of a major roads infrastructure project, referred to locally as the Cross Tay Link Road, linking across from the A9 over the river Tay and beyond to the A93 and A94.

This request was accompanied by a Scoping Report prepared by ‘SWECO’ 2nd Floor, Quay 2, 139 Fountainbridge, Edinburgh which outlines the proposed contents and methodologies for the EIA Report.

The EIA Regulations require the planning authority to consult the following organisations before adopting a scoping opinion:

(a) “the consultation bodies” – set out in Part 1 of the Regulations as:

a. Any adjoining planning authority, where the development is likely to affect land in their area; b. Scottish Natural Heritage; c. Scottish Water d. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and e. Historic Environment Scotland.

(b) the Health and Safety Executive where they would be required to be consulted under paragraph 3 or 4 of schedule 5 to the Development Management Procedure Regulations in relation to an application for planning permission for the proposed development;

(c) the Office for Nuclear Regulation where it would be required to be consulted under paragraph 3A of schedule 5 to the Development Management Procedure Regulations in relation to an application for planning permission for the proposed development; and

(d) any other public body which the planning authority considers is likely to have an interest in the proposed development by reason of that body’s specific environmental responsibilities or local and regional competencies.

The above noted bodies were consulted on 12 September 2018. The received consultation responses are provided in Appendix 1 and have been considered and incorporated in to this scoping opinion as appropriate. Contact details for the respective organisations are provided in Appendix 2, (largely consistent with what you advised in your background consultee table). Responses have not been received from all consultees, as highlighted in Appendix 2. In addition, we have received some private comment submissions, which have been included for information purposes.

The Scoping Opinion

Perth and Kinross Council, has considered this request and all supporting information (provided by the applicant and organisations consulted). In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the Council hereby gives notice that the following subject matters are required to be incorporated and assessed within an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report to accompany any planning application submitted in respect of the development proposal described in Part 1 above: Content of the EIA Report:

The content of the EIA Report must meet the statutory requirements of Regulation 5 of the EIA Regulations. For the avoidance of doubt this includes:

(a) a description of the development comprising information on the site, design, size and other relevant features of the development;

(b) a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment;

(c) a description of the features of the development and any measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment;

(d) a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment;

(e) a non-technical summary of the information referred to in sub- paragraphs (a) to (d); and

(f) any other information specified in schedule 4 relevant to the specific characteristics of the development and to the environmental features likely to be affected.

In addition to the above noted requirements, Regulation 5(3) advises that where a scoping opinion (or direction) is issued, the EIA Report must be based on that opinion and include all of the information that is reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment. To that end, it is determined and agreed that the EIA Report should broadly address the topic areas as set out in the scoping report submitted.

Project description

It is recommended that Route Alternatives are also scoped in at least as part of the project description and background, including;  Proposed route,  Means of disposal of material to landfill,  Engineering works in association with the water environment.

Air quality

Agree with approach to scope in with PKC EH team agreeing with proposed methodology. Cumulative effect of CTLR and strategic developments coming forward on the back of the CTLR should all be assessed.

Cultural Heritage Agree for cultural heritage to be scoped in.

Landscape and Visual impact Assessment

Agree LVIA needs to be scoped in, with the proposed approach to a stage 3 LVIA and the recommendations of SNH appropriately incorporated. Scope as set out in the Scone CC should also be considered in this regard.

Biodiversity

General approach with the proposed full Ecological Impact Assessment is considered as most appropriate for scope, with consideration of impact set out at all stages of the project, pre-commencement, construction and post construction with associated enhancement and mitigation. As per comments of the Luncarty and Redgorton CC and Scone CC, it is considered appropriate to reconsider the inclusion of invertebrates, particularly in relation to the fresh water pearl mussel.

Geology and soils

Comfortable for geology and soils (including contamination) to be scoped out from the EIAR on the basis these topics will be appropriately and comprehensively covered elsewhere within the relevant topic headings of the EIAR.

Materials

Agreed position on what is to be scoped in and out of this chapter heading.

Noise and Vibration

Agreed to be scoped in.

Consideration of impact on Luncarty, Bertha and Scone North developments (as a minimum baseline), alongside the cumulative impact assessment.

People and communities

Agreed to be scoped in.

Agriculture, forestry and Sporting interests

Agriculture and sporting interests have been appropriately identified, and should include any displacement of existing facilities, such as fishing huts etc. along with identified opportunities.

At this stage, there are reservations in looking to scope out forestry and general tree impact section completely from EIAR; particularly in relation to impacts associated with the designated ancient woodland inventory (notwithstanding proposed compensatory planting). Further review in relation to this particular element is welcomed with appropriate consideration and coverage in wider topic chapters (such as LVIA) may be considered appropriate.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Agreed to be scoped in as per what is set out.

Climate Change

Agreed to be scoped in.

Socio Economic, Human Health, and Major Incidents and Disasters

Proposed scope agreed.

Cumulative

In association; construction and cumulative impacts should also ideally look to include scope for temporary site compounds to avoid the requirement for separate assessments and associated consents to be required at a later date.

Overview

Information within the EIA Report (EIAR) relating to impacts and their prediction should include;

 Impact prediction: o Methods o Assumptions and underlying rationale; o Fact, interpretation of facts, opinions, judgments based on facts; o Confidence limits associated with the prediction; and o The characteristics and dimensions of the impacts – i.e. nature, magnitude, extent, timing, duration, reversibility, likelihood and significance.

 Impact uncertainty: o Worst case o Impact range; and o Risk assessment

Establishing the significance of impacts can inevitably be contentious as it often involves value judgments and expert interpretation. It is therefore prudent that any significance criteria are established on a transparent methodology based on official standards, legislation, policy and expert opinion, which would allow the reader to reach their own conclusions.

The technical assessments to inform the EIAR should be designed to determine the impact of potential effects identified during the scoping stage. These predict environmental impacts deriving from the proposed development, and assess their significance, taking account the sensitivity of the surrounding environment, any potential receptors and cumulative effects arising from similar developments in the immediate area. Proposals to avoid or reduce these impacts should be made.

It is also important that potential positive and negative residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified and accounted for within the EIAR in order to assess their significance and acceptability. Consequently, each chapter should include a ‘Residual Effects Table’.

To avoid duplication of assessment, when preparing the EIAR, account should be taken of the available results of other relevant assessments, the scope and relevance of which can be agreed with the Council. It is highlighted that Regulation 5(5) stipulates that to ensure the completeness and quality of the ER it must (a) be prepared by competent experts and (b) be accompanied by a statement from the developer outlining the relevant expertise or qualifications of such experts. This should be clearly stated in Section 1 (‘Introduction and Background’) and topic-specific chapters of the EIAR.

Where an application for planning permission for EIA development is submitted either without an EIAR, or is deficient in meeting the requirements of this scoping opinion, this may delay the validation of the application or result in an EIAR/Supplementary Information being requested from the applicant.

Limitations

The provision of this scoping opinion adopted by Perth and Kinross Council is given on the basis of information known at this time. This opinion is without prejudice to, and shall not preclude the authority from, requiring the submission of supplementary information or evidence under Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 in connection with any EIA Report submitted. Similarly, further information may also be requested to support any relevant planning application subsequently submitted under Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

This scoping opinion does not constitute pre-application planning advice and any views or opinions expressed are made without prejudice to the Council’s determination of any subsequent planning application. Therefore, this opinion should not be taken as implying that the planning authority considers this to be an acceptable development in this location.

Pp Interim Development Quality Manager Planning & Regeneration Housing & the Environment Service Perth and Kinross Council Dated: 17 Oct 2018 APPENDIX 1: Consultation Responses

Enclosed:-

 PKC Environmental Health Officer (dated: 28 Sept );  PKC Biodiversity (dated: 28 Sept);  PKC Community Greenspace Officer (dated: 13 Sept );  PKC Structures and Flooding Team (dated: 3 Oct);  Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) (dated: 1 Oct );  Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (dated: 26 Sept);  Royal Society for the Protetion of Birds (RSPB) (dated: 2 Oct);  Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (dated: 26 Sept);  Scottish Water (dated: 1 Oct);  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (dated: 28 Sept);  Forestry Commission Scotland (dated: 17 Oct);  NHS Public Health (dated: 15 Sept);  Scotways (dated: 8 Oct);  Luncarty, Redgorton and Moneydie Community Council (dated: 28 Sept);  Scone and District Community Council (dated: 29 Sept) M e m o r a n d u m

To Development Quality Manager From Regulatory Service Manager

Your ref 18/01661/SCOP Our ref LA/LRE

Date 28 September 2018 Tel No 01738 476958

Housing & Environment Pullar House, 35 Kinnoull Street, Perth PH1 5GD

Consultation on an Application for Planning Permission RE: Scoping Request for Cross Tay Link Road from A9 over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

I refer to your letter in connection with the above scoping report dated 12 September 2018 and have the following comments to make.

This proposal is for a new road linking the A9 over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 north of Scone and as such the scoping report includes provision for the assessment of air quality and noise impacts for which I have provided comments below.

Noise (assessment date 28/9/2018)

DMRB Stages 1 and 2 for this project have already been completed and this scoping report is for Stage 3.

Stage 3 will include a baseline noise survey and the location and number of noise monitoring locations has been agreed in consultation with Environmental Health and I am satisfied that they cover all the areas where I would consider noise monitoring would be required. Receptors which were used in DMRB Stage 2 did not include new housing developments at Bertha Park or Highfield/North Scone. I would advise that Stage 3 will include proposed new housing developments at Luncarthy, Bertha Park and Highfield/North Scone.

I understand that significant effects will be identified for both residential and non-residential receptors and mitigation measures will be considered.

I would advise that the target set in Stage 2 was Lnight, outside 55 dBA which ties in with the interim night time noise set by WHO. The long term target is Lnight, outside 40dBA and PAN1/2011 states a target of 45dBA to tie in with the WHO guidelines on community noise value to prevent sleep disturbance of 30dBA internally. Therefore it is my contention that noise sensitive receptors other than those with noise levels above L night, outside 55dBA should be considered.

I understand that the assessment will also include eligibility for extra noise insulation under the Noise Insulation (Scotland) Regulations.

Air Quality (assessment date 5/10/2018) The chapter Technical Annex 1 – Air Quality within the scooping report was undertaken by Ricardo Energy and Environmental. I am in agreement with the proposed methodology for both the construction and operational phases of the CTLR.

All air quality modelling should be undertaken using the Rapid Air dispersion model and all model verification and error should be included in the EIA report.

Air quality modelling should be undertaken for all receptors identified in the DMRB Stage 2 assessment, with additional indicative receptor locations at the proposed Bertha Park and Scone Highfield residential developments.

The cumulative effect of the CTLR and the aforementioned developments along with any other proposed developments should be assessed, especially with regards to Perth’s air quality management area. Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application

Planning Comments Application ref. 18/01661/SCOP provided by Robert Wills

Service/Section Contact Phone 75370 Strategy and Policy Details Email [email protected]

Description of Proposal Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone Address of site Comments on the proposal The suggested scope of the Report provided by the applicant is satisfactory although surveys upon which its conclusions have been reached have not been provided. Consultation with SEPA and SNH have addressed concerns with regards the actual Tay Crossing itself particularly with regards to impacts on the River Tay SAC.

Concerns remain primarily with regards to the one section of the link road which cuts through Highfield Plantation, designated as ancient woodland (category 2b Long Established Woodland of Plantation Origin). There is compensatory planting proposed to connect Highfield Plantation to Old Scone Wood which is supported. However this increased connectivity needs to be seen in the context of the impact of the loss of connectivity with remaining Highfield Wood and the adjoining plantation to the north particularly with regards to impacts on red squirrels. Further considerations may have already been scoped out based on surveys and are noted here as precautionary.

The table of main potential effects on table TA4.4 would be best augmented as follows: Temporary and permanent works for bridge construction:  (Subject to results of surveys) Impact on otter holts/resting places and commuting Vegetation removal (including trees)  (subject to results of surveys) Disturbance/damage to pine marten dens  Loss of, and loss of connection to, red squirrel feeding resource (in addition to disturbance/damage to dreys).  Disturbance / damage to badger setts (note that badgers surveys are stated to be TBC so cannot be scoped out at this stage) Traffic Flow  The statement of “Increase in roadkill” should identify the species likely to be affected and the impacts on those species i.e. (subject to survey) badgers, pine martens, deer, red squirrels.  Loss of habitat through connectivity loss (red squirrels, pine martens, badgers (see Enhancement below) Compensatory Planting In Appendix 3.1 it is noted that Forestry Commission Scotland has identified that semi natural woodland is preferred in compensatory planting. This is supported with the caveat that the mix should also aim to support existing species in and around the site such as red squirrels where habitat has been lost. The suggestion that compensatory planting need not be within the CTLR project area is supported only where this is not possible and should still be within the local area. Planting which improves habitat connectivity and supports the Tayside Local Biodiversity Action Plan is preferred.

Enhancement Paragraph 2.2.6 records potential environmental enhancements. Additional suggestions to mitigate the impacts scoped in above and for positive biodiversity impacts.

Green Bridge An opportunity for a green bridge was raised with council greenspace officer (appendix 3.1) and supported near the Highfield Roundabout. Due to the potential impact of the loss of connectivity of habitat a (further) green (i.e. wildlife) bridge is preferred away from other roads. Due to the cutaway section of the road here this would be a valuable connection for wildlife and help reduce roadkill here. Design should include consideration of red squirrel passage. Design should also include (subject to survey) species appropriate fencing to direct wildlife to the bridge(s).

In other areas, underpasses with associated fencing can provide safe passage for badgers, hedgehogs and amphibians. This will help mitigate the road kill impacts of the road. Design and placement should take into account surveys and migration routes created by SUDS creation.

SUDS Indicative SUDS layout has been provided. Subject to the final operational requirements, design of SUDS can provide a valuable resource for amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates including dragonflies, and through design including planting of native pond wildflowers. The impact of these SUDS (positive or negative) should be considered. Where wet SUDS are used design should incorporate safeguarding or migration routes between ponds, and safeguards on nearby roads including underpasses, wildlife or dropped kerbs, and/or amphibian fencing as appropriate.

Otter Mitigation / Enhancement In addition to mitigation measures during construction to safeguard otters, permanent features are recommended to be included in the bridge design where this impacts on otter habitat. This could include artificial couches and dry passageways. Recommended planning N/A condition(s)

Recommended N/A informative(s) for applicant

Date comments returned 28 September 2018 Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application

Planning 18/01661/SCOP Comments Jane Pritchard Application ref. provided by Service/Section Community Contact [email protected] Greenspace Details Tel 01738 475332 Description of Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Proposal Consultation Address of site Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone Comments on the I am satisfied that the EIA scoping report adequately takes matters of proposal concern to Community Greenspace into account.

In particular that the path assessment takes local paths and future potential paths as well as established core paths and rights of way. The summary comments from consultees reflect the main points raised and the expectation is that good facilities for all NMU groups will be provided as an integral part of this project. There is a clear desire for path links from both ends of the bridge to the riverside paths and additional separation between a segregated NMU provision and the vehicular route of more than 1.5m.

Recommended planning condition(s) Date comments returned 13.9.18 Comments to the Development Quality Manager on a Planning Application

Planning 18/01661/SCOP Comments Russell Stewart Application ref. provided by Service/Section HE - Flooding Contact [email protected] Details 477277 Description of Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay etc…… Proposal Address of site Comments on the proposal I have reviewed Technical Annex 10 – Road Drainage and the Water Environment and comment as follows:

1. PKC Flooding Team has had discussions with SWECO regarding the project. The Flooding Team have guidance available called ‘Flood Risk & Flood Risk Assessments’ that contains our general requirements. 2. A FRA will be required that considers flooding along the entire route of the CTLR. This should specifically look at the River Tay (from Redgorton Drain to Annaty Burn), Whiggle Burn/Gelly Burn, Cramock Burn, Annaty Burn, Bertha Loch and Burn, and other relevant drains. Section 10.5.1 suggests some of these burns are outwith the scope. The FRA should state why these watercourses have not been considered for future reference. 3. In principle the CTLR should not encroach onto the existing floodplain. However, this will not be possible along the route north of Scone racecourse. The impact on the floodplain should be minimised as much as possible and suitable compensatory storage provided to ensure there is no increase in flood risk. 4. The report identifies a number of drains along the route. The sizing of these culverts will have to be carefully considered. In terms of current legislation and to future proof the road I would request it has the capacity to carry up to the 200 +CC flood flow. However, this may present a flood risk to properties downstream so this will need to be investigated before a decision is made. 5. The sizing of any SUDS shall provide attenuation up to 200+CC (20%). 6. The winter and summer groundwater level will need to be identified to ensure any SUDS do not interact. 7. Permeability testing shall be undertaken during both summer and winter to inform the design of any permeable SUDS systems. 8. SUDS ponds shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and not a large circular/rectangular hole. i.e. it should have varying ground/water levels and be of a more natural shape. 9. Bertha Loch is a raised reservoir. The impact of a breach will need to be considered. I believe this was taken into account during the development of Bertha Park. This will also need to be considered in the sizing of the Bertha Loch Burn under the road network. As per point 4 flood risk downstream will need to be considered in the design of the culvert. 10. Scone has a history of flooding. Details of some of the flood events are available in previous committee reports. The design of the CTLR and SUDS should ensure there is no detriment to the town. It would be welcomed if any works can help provide improvements in terms of Fluvial or Pluvial flooding in the area. Recommended planning condition(s)

Recommended informative(s) for Flood Risk & Flood Risk Assessments applicant

Date comments 3 October 2018 returned To: Callum Petrie, Planning Officer

From: Sophie Nicol, Historic Environment Officer

Tel: 01738 477027

Email: [email protected]

Date: 1st October 2018

18/01661/SCOP: Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Consultation on Reference:

RE: Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

Thank you for consulting PKHT on the above scoping exercise. I can confirm that PKHT have already been consulted by SWECO with regards to historic environment data from the Perth and Kinross Historic Environment Record as well as having advised on pre-application archaeological evaluation works to help inform the proposed scheme. This has included assessing the impact of known Historic Environment sites and providing suggested evaluation sample sizes for each area with reference to results from a draft geophysical report received 19th September 2018.

In an earlier consultation (Stage 2) PKHT confirmed that all proposed routes for Phase 2: Cross Tay Link Road had an impact of the historic environment due to the rich history of the area. However, from initial review that routes G and K would have the least impact. However the scheme has now a preferred alignment in line with the Scone Masterplan which is located north of Scone.

With regards to the EIA process and this scoping exercise I can confirm that PKHT welcomes the inclusion of cultural heritage of the proposed EIA and being listed as a stakeholder as part of this process.

We have read the Technical Annex 2: Cultural Heritage and confirm we are broadly satisfied with its content. As this chapter confirms the area is rich in known archaeological sites and therefore there is a high likelihood of further remains being identified during the works, we therefore welcome the proposed pre-application works which as noted above will inform the EIA process. It should be noted that wooded areas have not been included in this pre-application discussions and will need addressed fully in future works.

PKHT would also suggest that should archaeology be discovered and excavated via this scheme that a programme of public outreach should be considered to disseminate the results fully to the local audience.

Finally, we note an error in table TA2:1 that the Bertha Park evaluation sample size was 10%, not 6% as confirmed in the final meeting minutes for January 2018.

We look forward to receiving more information in due course.

By email to: Longmore House [email protected] Salisbury Place Edinburgh Perth and Kinross Council EH9 1SH Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Enquiry Line: 0131-668-8716 Perth [email protected] PH1 5GD Our ref: AMN/3/3/35 Our case ID: 300025745

26 September 2018

Dear Ms McManamon

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 Cross Tay Link Road Scoping Report

Thank you for your consultation which we received on 12 September 2018 about the above scoping report. We have reviewed the details in terms of our historic environment interests. This covers world heritage sites, scheduled monuments and their settings, category A-listed buildings and their settings, inventory gardens and designed landscapes, inventory battlefields and historic marine protected areas (HMPAs).

Your council’s archaeological and cultural heritage advisors will also be able to offer advice on the scope of the cultural heritage assessment. This may include heritage assets not covered by our interests, such as unscheduled archaeology, and category B- and C-listed buildings.

Proposed Development

We understand that the proposed development comprises a new road linking the A9 to the A93 and A94 north of scone. The project will include a new bridge over the River Tay and railway as well as a new grade separated junction on the A9. As you will be aware, Historic Environment Scotland (and our predecessor body Historic Scotland) have been in discussion with all parties over the last number of years regarding this project and its implications for the historic environment.

Guidance

We welcome the reference to Historic Environment Scotland’s setting guidance. Also relevant here is the Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Note on Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

We welcome the commitment to take cognisance of the Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook. As you are aware Historic Environment Scotland and Scottish

Historic Environment Scotland – Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH

Scottish Charity No. SC045925

VAT No. GB 221 8680 15

Natural Heritage recently published this handbook which offers practical guidance and information to authorities, consultation bodies and others involved in the EIA process. The aim of this handbook is to make the EIA a more effective process, allow for better- informed decisions and, ultimately, improve environmental protection. It illustrates the treatment of cultural and natural heritage issues with principles that are often widely applicable to other environmental topics.

Key Issues and Scope of Project

We are content that the key issues to be considered and assessed as part of the environmental report reflect our advice over the development of the scheme and we welcome the recognition of the need to consider the direct and indirect effects on the designated assets in the study area. We have offered further comment on the temporary elements of the scheme further on in this response.

Assessment of Effects

Overall we are content with the approach to the assessment outlined in the scoping report. However, we would offer the following comments on elements of the approach.

In considering parallel studies that are being carried out as part of the assessment process (such as Landscape and Visual Assessment) it will be important to recognise the difference between the purposes of these assessments. This will be particularly key when considering impacts on the Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape of Scone Palace. The cultural heritage chapter should consider this designation as a cultural asset and in considering this the values ascribed to it as part of its Inventory entry will be beneficial in framing the assessment.

In terms of the comments in this section relating to the value of heritage assets we have assumed that this refers to undesignated cultural assets as the value of designated historic environment assets has been established by the designation process. We would also question why “vulnerability to change” is a relevant consideration when assigning value.

Mitigation

We welcome the recognition within this section that a range of mitigation measures may be employed and that such measures will require to be carefully considered in relation to the historic environment asset affected. Over the past year we have engaged with the consultants for the project and offered our initial views on appropriate responses for the designed landscape and scheduled monuments as well as approaches to compensatory planting.

Historic Environment Scotland – Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH

Scottish Charity No. SC045925

VAT No. GB 221 8680 15

Temporary Construction Access

As the scoping report notes, one of the options under consideration for construction access relating to the west pier of the Tay river crossing would require a temporary bridge over the River Almond with temporary road access over the scheduled monument of Bertha, Roman Fort (SM 2403). We have already raised significant concerns about the principle of this proposal with the consultants because of the potential for irreversible damage to the monument through compaction caused by a haulage road and the use of heavy vehicles within the legally protected scheduled area. As you will be aware, Paragraph 145 of Scottish Planning Policy (2014) states that ‘Where there is potential for a proposed development to have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or on the integrity of its setting, permission should only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances’.

Such a proposal would also require Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) in addition to planning permission. Without wishing to prejudice the outcome of any SMC application, it is difficult to see at this stage whether such a proposal would be acceptable in terms of the Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (2016). We have therefore highlighted to the consultants the need for specific details on (i) the options appraisal undertaken as part of the site selection process outlining why the proposal to cross the monument is necessary, (ii) the design of the proposed haulage road and (iii) an assessment of likely impacts of the monument from the proposal.

Further information

Guidance about national policy can be found in our ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ series available online at www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and- support/planning-and-guidance/legislation-and-guidance/managing-change-in-the- historic-environment-guidance-notes. Technical advice is available on our Technical Conservation website at https://www.engineshed.scot/.

We hope this is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions about this response. The officer managing this case is Andrew Stevenson and they can be contacted by phone on 0131 668 8960 or by email on [email protected].

Yours faithfully

Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland – Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH

Scottish Charity No. SC045925

VAT No. GB 221 8680 15

From:Claire BSmith Sent:2 Oct 2018 10:44:21 +0100 To:Development Management - Generic Email Account;Callum Petrie Subject:RE: Cross Tay Link Road (Phase 2) Email 1 of 3

Dear Callum

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Consultation on Reference: 18/01661/SCOP

RE: Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

Thank you for consulting RSPB Scotland on the above Scoping request and allowing additional time to respond.

I note that our response is summarised in Appendix 3.1 and that breeding bird surveys have been carried out. However, I cannot see any reference to whether specific surveys have been carried out nor whether SWECO contacted people who have done extensive work on hawfinches in the area as highlighted in my email of 25 April 2018. Hawfinch are not included in Table TA4.3 which summarises the ‘key points relevant to biodiversity’. Hawfinch are a rare red listed species of conservation concern and the area around Scone is their main breeding area in Scotland. As there is likely to be some woodland removal in this area, assessment of impacts is key.

I also note that there are several swift records in Figure TA4.1. Installation of swift bricks/nest boxes on the bridge structures should be considered as well as owl and other bird nest boxes to compensate for loss of woodland.

Kind regards, Claire

Claire Smith Senior Conservation Officer

RSPB Scotland Ground Floor Robertson House, 1 Whitefriars Crescent, PH2 0PA Tel 01738 630 783 Mobile 07709 480 194

Please note my usual work days are Mon-Thurs rspb.org.uk

RSPB Scotland is part of the RSPB, the UK’s largest nature conservation charity, inspiring everyone to give nature a home. Together with our partners, we protect threatened birds and wildlife so our towns, coast and countryside will teem with life once again. We play a leading role in BirdLife International, a worldwide partnership of nature conservation organisations.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity: England and Wales no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654

From: Tracy McManamon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 September 2018 16:37 To: Development Management - Generic Email Account Cc: Callum Petrie Subject: Cross Tay Link Road (Phase 2) Email 1 of 3

Dear Sir/Madam

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Consultation on Reference: 18/01661/SCOP

RE: Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

In accordance with Regulation 17(4) of the above noted EIA Regulations, I wish to consult you on the above noted scoping request submitted to Perth and Kinross Council. I attach for your consideration the information provided by the developer.

The planning authority are required to provide a scoping opinion to the developer within 35 days from receipt of the request. I would therefore be obliged if you would let me have your comments on the scoping request within 14 days from the date of this email, failing which I shall assume that you have no comments to make.

Regards

Tracy McManamon

Senior Support Assistant

Planning and Development 35 Kinnoull Street

Perth

PH1 5GD

Telephone 01738 475334

Securing the future... - Improving services - Enhancing quality of life - Making best use of public resources.

The information in this email is solely for the intended recipients.

If you are not an intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, or distribute its contents or use them in any way: please advise the sender immediately and delete this email.

Perth & Kinross Council, Culture Perth and Kinross and TACTRAN do not warrant that this email or any attachments are virus-free and does not accept any liability for any loss or damage resulting from any virus infection. Perth & Kinross Council may monitor or examine any emails received by its email system.

The information contained in this email may not be the views of Perth & Kinross Council, Culture Perth and Kinross or TACTRAN. It is possible for email to be falsified and the sender cannot be held responsible for the integrity of the information contained in it.

Requests to Perth & Kinross Council under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act should be directed to the Freedom of Information Team - email: [email protected]

General enquiries to Perth & Kinross Council should be made to [email protected] or 01738 475000.

General enquiries and requests under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act to Culture Perth and Kinross should be made to [email protected] or 01738 444949 General enquiries to TACTRAN should be made to [email protected] or 01738 475775.

Securing the future... - Improving services - Enhancing quality of life - Making best use of public resources.

This email and any attachments may contain material that is confidential, subject to copyright and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity in England and Wales no. 207076 and in Scotland no. SC037654.

Planning and Development Perth and Kinross Council Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD

26 September 2018

Our ref: CNS/DC/PK Your ref: 18/01661/SCOP

Dear Sir

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Consultation on Reference: 18/01661/SCOP

Cross Tay Link Road from A9 over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

Thank-you for your email of 12 September 2018 requesting scoping comments on the above proposed development.

Cumulative assessment and cross boundary effects (scoping report pg. 61)

This EIA scoping request is for the Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR), which is Phase 2 of 4 phases of the Shaping Perth’s Transport Future Project (SPTF), (Vol 1, 1.1 pg 6). The EIA should assess the significant cumulative environmental effects from the other phases and the connections between these.

The CTLR also provides the main connection to the West/North West Perth Strategic Development Framework (SDF). This is a very significant proposal in Tayside comprising Bertha Park, Almond Valley and Perth West development areas. The EIA should address cumulative and cross-boundary environmental issues to ensure negative effects can be minimised and mitigated, and opportunities for environmental connectivity achieved.

Cumulative and cross–boundary effects should particularly focus on impacts to designated sites, landscape, woodland loss/fragmentation, protected species, soils and outdoor access.

Proposed scope of the EIA (V1 section 6, pg 34)

SNH provided comments on the SPTF Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA - 00463) which included CTLR options. Potentially significant impacts on key natural heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth, PH1 3EW. Tel: 01738 444177, Fax: 01738458611 www.nature.scot

Dualchas Nàdair na h-Alba. Battleby, Ràth a' Ghoirtein, Peairt, PH1 3EW , Fòn: 01738 444177 Facs: 01738 458611 www.nature.scot

interests were identified for the River Tay SAC, Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) sites, landscape and protected species. We note the intent for forestry to be scoped out (V2b, 9.1,pg 127) and the intent to include information on tree loss/compensatory planting in the project description of the EIA. However, we expect impacts on woodland and AWI sites to be addressed as detailed below and included under ecological impacts.

Table TA4.4 (Vol 2a pg 87) Key ecological effects: add loss and fragmentation/impacts on connectivity of woods which are listed in the AWI (both construction and operation).

We recommend soils are scoped in and refer to our detailed comments below.

Designated Sites

The River Tay is part of the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey, river lamprey, brook lamprey, otter and clear-water lakes or lochs with aquatic vegetation and poor to moderate nutrient levels. All bar the latter are likely to be present at this location. Details of all protected sites and their interests are available on our website: https://www.nature.scot/information-library-data-and-research/snhi-data-services

The scoping report correctly identifies that the interests of the River Tay SAC could be impacted by pollution and siltation during construction and drainage impacts once the road is operational. We welcome the assessment to consider the potential for likely significant effects on the qualifying interests of the River Tay SAC, and the consideration of construction mitigation to address pollution impacts to the SAC. We note the measures outlined in Section 2b, 10.5.2 and are satisfied that these are appropriate.

We note the commitment in the scoping report to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. Advice to assist with this process can be found on our website: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/safeguarding-protected-areas-and- species/protected-areas/international-designations/natura-sites

Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) sites

The proposed development will result in loss/fragmentation/connectivity of several woods which are recorded in the AWI as ‘Ancient (of semi-natural origin)’ or Long Established Plantation Origin’ (LEPO). The Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy states that there is a strong presumption against removing ancient semi-natural woodland or where it would lead to fragmentation or disconnection of important forest networks.

Vol 3 Appendix 4.1, Table 10.12.1: assessment of AWI woodland as regional/local: There is a national interest in safeguarding and enhancing species and habitats identified to be of outstanding conservation importance in Scotland. Ancient semi-natural woodland is an irreplaceable resource and the loss of any ancient woodland is significant.

In terms of mitigation, Scottish Government’s Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal states creation of ‘at least the equivalent woodland-related net public benefits’. The Policy notes, “As a default, compensatory planting (or compensatory natural regeneration) implies an equivalent woodland area, on appropriate site types and with at least the equivalent woodland-related net public benefits”. It is not about replacing felled trees with planted trees, it is about replacing felled woodland with replacement woodland and its equivalent public benefits.

The detailed botanical survey of Highfield plantation and Bertha Wood is supported (V1 pg. 33), however, this should be provided for each affected AWI woodland to ascertain current ecological value. The detailed woodland survey should be carried out at the appropriate time of year and by a suitably qualified consultant and include:  An NVC survey with site community floristic descriptions, including ancient woodland indicators, target notes and locally important site features.  An assessment of the role and importance of the wood’s connectivity to the wider woodland network, loss of woodland functionality and habitat fragmentation.  Identification of sensitive and important areas which would benefit from restoration to native woodland, and informed by the findings of the habitats and species surveys.  Mitigation and enhancement proposals for loss, severing or impairment of connectivity between important woodland habitats and identification of residual effects.  Details of new appropriate native woodland planting to protect/connect priority woodland areas. Figure 1.3 provides locations of potential temporary landtake for compensatory planting and the Environmental Statement (ES) should provide details of the rationale for selecting these areas. We expect the ES to provide ‘compensatory planting ‘in accordance with the Control of Woodland Removal Policy.  Long term management and restoration proposals.  Cumulative and cross boundary impacts.

Other woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees, especially veteran trees, may also have significant biodiversity value in the site, and make a significant contribution to landscape character and quality. The existing resource should be identified and assess in the EIA.

The full surveys, including methodology and detailed locational mapping, presentation of results and proposals should be included in the EIA. It would be helpful if the proposed development footprints were marked on the maps.

Landscape and Visual Impact

 Methodology We welcome the precautionary approach of the combined use of these two methodologies, DMRB & GLVIA.

The report highlights the importance of using the ES as an iterative assessment during the evolution of the proposals and we recall from previous engagement that SEA identified significant landscape impacts for all routing options. However, it is not clear how the proposed LVIA - which is still to be carried out - aligns with the design process and also with the DMRB Stage 1-3 analysis and design appraisal process. It seems that DMRB Stage 1-3 has already identified a preferred alignment whilst LVIA is about to be undertaken, including the identification of design objectives at a stage where much of the design has already evolved. The final ES should demonstrate how landscape and visual considerations have been taken into account during the initial design and alignment process rather than applying GLVIA to an already completed design. It should also demonstrate how the design objectives have re-shaped the proposal to mitigate landscape impacts. We are happy to provide feedback on these objectives.

 Mitigation of the A9 interchange by design It appears that the A9 interchange design would give rise to the most significant landscape character impacts at any point along the new CTLR-route, judged by its scale and extensive removal of existing ancient woodland. We would welcome the LVIA to explore further mitigation by changes to the design in this area.

 Study Area Fig TA 3.1 - 1km seems very tightly drawn both in terms of landscape and visual - there will likely be a number of important views out with this area that cannot be ruled out without a ZTV excluding visibility - also the effect on the wider landscape character of the larger area to the north of Perth should be considered, such as effects when traveling through this area, the setting of Perth and the approach to Perth.

 Visual Impacts SNH is happy to comment on a draft viewpoint selection. SNH recommends mapping of relevant views based on the visual landscape analysis which has led to the selection. More distant views from the Sildaws and to the Highland Boundary Faultline may be relevant.

 Cumulative Impacts In our view there is a risk that the CTLR would form a large-scale precedent for sub- sequent further degradation of the landscape character and quality of the rural landscape surrounding Perth to the north. In particular the remaining greenbelt buffer between the settlement and the CTLR would be vulnerable to the cumulative intrusion of further urbanisation compared to a landscape ‘unspoilt’ by major-infrastructure.

Cumulative landscape impacts should consider future-evolution of the landscape, including other infrastructure projects that will likely come forward and planned urban expansions such as Scone and Bertha Park.

 SUDS We recommend the use of SuDS design as mitigating features. Well-designed SuDS can provide naturalistic and visually effective landscape transitions linking the engineered road and the surrounding rural landscape character. SuDS design should aim to integrate with the wider rural character by providing attractive wetlands, planted linear swales and ponds and avoid unnecessary visual clutter such as fencing or otherwise emphasising the residual spaces created by the road-design.

Protected Species

A number of protected species may be present and impacted by the proposed development, we, therefore, support the scoping in of breeding bird, bats, red squirrel, fish, water vole, otter and badger. SNH has published on-line guidance in respect to specific protected species and development, and this can be found at: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/planning-and-development/natural-heritage- advice-planners-and-developers/planning-and-development-protected-animals

The ES should assess the impacts on otter, which are European Protected Species (EPS) and a designated feature of the River Tay SAC, and so will be subject to a HRA by the Competent Authority. All species of bats are also EPS and should be covered by the ES. We recommend that the surveys and mitigation are presented in the ES as a Species Protection Plan.

We advise that freshwater pearl mussels should be scoped in. We understand that work is not proposed for the river channel, however, mussels are susceptible to pollutants and sediment run-off. They could also be affected by the siting of outfalls from the SuDS. We advise that survey information and mitigation measures should be submitted in a confidential annex.

We note the species that have been scoped out, and advise that great crested newts can also be scoped out at this stage.

The EIA should report the survey methodology and results, evaluate impacts predicted to arise as a result of the proposed development, assess the significance of these impacts and recommend mitigation and/or compensation measures as is necessary and appropriate. The presentation of the survey results in the EIA should be clear, showing the location, numbers and extent of any protected or noteworthy species recorded. It should also assess the direct and indirect effects of the proposal on protected species and the duration, magnitude and possible reversibility of any impacts identified. Details of any limitations to survey efforts should also be included within the ES.

Species surveys should have been completed no more than 18 months prior to submission of the application to ensure that the survey results are a contemporary reflection of species activity at and around the site.

Habitats

We note that an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey of the site was undertaken in 2017 and that the majority of the development site is comprised of arable and semi-improved grassland. The woodland areas are discussed above.

The presentation of survey results is important and should be presented clearly and transparently in the ES. It would also be helpful if the maps that present vegetation recorded on-site are marked with the finalised layout of the proposal. This information should be used to inform any necessary mitigation.

Non-native species have been recorded within the development site, therefore, measures to control and dispose of the species should be included in the ES.

In regards to the Environmental enhancement (Vol 1, 2.2.6), details of the proposed native wildflower species mixes should be provided and be appropriate to the surrounding landscape and habitat.

Off road walking and cycling routes

Baseline provision: We support spatial identification of the existing a) footpath and b) cycleway provision c) other modes such as bridleway provision, both within the site and connecting to the wider network (such as regional routes).

Proposed: clear spatial identification of proposed provision for each mode, and which will be hard surfaced rather than grass. We support the provision of a segregated cycle and pedestrian path along the full length of the CTLR (Vol 2b, 2.2 page 15), and recommend explanation of the nature of this segregation.

We recommend identification of how each mode will link with the corresponding network in the Strategic Development Framework (SDF) area, (e.g. Sustrans route 77, Scone and Perth cycle masterplan. For example, how the CTLR segregated cycle path will link to other segregated cycle links into Perth city, the SDF area and Scone.

Mitigation: We support the statement that design, mitigation and enhancement measures will be incorporated into the assessment process with the aim to avoid/minimise potential significant residual effects (8.4.2, pg 123).

The scoping report identifies permanent Non–Motorised Users (NMU) journey length increase between Denmarkfield and Luncarty, and reduction in amenity of 81 NMU paths (Vol 2b, 8.4.2 pg 122). We expect comparison of existing and proposed provision and quality, assessment of gaps/severance and how these impacts will be mitigated. Provide details, location and links provided by the proposed green bridge at Highfield plantation.

Assessment of existing recreation and proposed use of the River Tay should also be included, addressing proposed changes to access and how these will be mitigated.

Outdoor Access and green networks

The effects of the development on existing recreation, open space and green networks should be assessed.

Pedestrian and cycle routes designed for active travel should be biodiverse and contribute to a wider green network, maximising the habitat connectivity of existing and new biodiversity features.

Soils

We recommend that this is scoped into the EIA. Vol 2a, 5.4.2 page 92: We expect the EIA to include assessment of the significant impacts on soils from the development (for example impacts on organic matter, erosion, compaction, soil sealing) and cumulative effects.

We refer to further information on our website for soils and development: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/planning-and-development/natural-heritage- advice-planners-and-developers/planning-and-development-soils

The carbon rich soil, deep peat and priority peatland habitats’ map 2016 is available at https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/planning-and-development/natural-heritage- advice-planners-and-developers/planning-and-development-soils/carbon-and-peatland-2016 and EIA Handbook including Appendix V Appendix 5: Assessment of Impacts on Soils is available at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-05/Publication%202018%20- %20Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment%20Handbook%20V5.pdf

Mitigation (V1, 5.1)

We welcome the identification of mitigation measures, and thereafter residual effects. The EIA should also consider the consequences of significant residual impacts in the light of planning policies and legislation; and include mitigation, compensatory actions and enhancements.

Where significant impacts cannot be avoided or reduced, compensation measures to be implemented should be identified.

Our advice is given without prejudice to a full and detailed consideration of the impacts of the proposal when it is submitted for formal consultation.

Yours sincerely

Via email

Nicki McIntyre Operations Officer Tayside and Grampian 1st October 2018

Perth & Kinross Council Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth Development Operations PH1 5GD The Bridge Buchanan Gate Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6FB

Development Operations Freephone Number - 0800 3890379 Dear Local Planner E-Mail - [email protected] www.scottishwater.co.uk PH1 N Of Scone A9 To A93 Cross Tay Link Rd PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER: 18/01661/SCOP OUR REFERENCE: 766652 PROPOSAL: Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

Please quote our reference in all future correspondence

Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced and would advise the following:

Water

 There is currently sufficient capacity in the Perth Water Treatment Works. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us.

Foul  There is currently sufficient capacity in the Perth City Waste Water Treatment Works. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us.

The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works for their proposed development. Once a formal connection application is submitted to Scottish Water after full planning permission has been granted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly.

Drinking Water Protected Areas

A review of our records indicates that the bridge crossing and associated infrastructure in the area fall within a drinking water catchment where a Scottish Water abstraction is located. Scottish Water abstractions are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) under Article 7 of the Water Framework Directive. The River Tay supplies Perth Gowans Terrace Water Treatment Works (WTW) and it is essential that water quality and water quantity in the area are protected. In the event of an incident occurring that could affect Scottish Water we should be notified without delay using the Customer Helpline number 0800 0778 778. Scottish Water have produced a list of precautions for a range of activities. This details protection measures to be taken within a DWPA, the wider drinking water catchment and if there are assets in the area. Please note that site specific risks and mitigation measures will require to be assessed and implemented. These documents and other supporting information can be found on the activities within our catchments page of our website at www.scottishwater.co.uk/slm.

Scottish Water were consulted previously and sent a response letter to SWECO dated 24th January 2018. The scoping report, however does not make reference to the DWPA downstream. It is noted in the scoping report within section 6.11 road drainage and the water environment, that there is potential for significant effects on watercourses and associated aquatic ecology and groundwater receptors, associated with the CTLR Project. As a result, the Road Drainage and the Water Environment (RDWE) topic is ‘scoped in’ for the EIA. The EIA impact assessment and mitigation measures will require to consider all stage of the proposal from site investigation, construction and operation such as SUDS drainage discharges on the DWPA catchment. The fact that this area is located within a DWPA catchment should be noted in future documentation. Also anyone working on site should be made aware of this during site inductions.

The bridge crossing and associated infrastructure in the area are close to the river intake so travel times of any pollution event will be short.

Some of the soils in the area appear to be peats and peaty gleys. Peat that is in unfavourable condition or disturbed can exacerbate the release of organic material into the water environment. Water containing a high organic content can affect WTW processes and water supply. We would welcome consideration of the precautions specific to protecting drinking water in peatland areas and any opportunities for peat restoration.

We would request further information on what additional site specific mitigation will be put in place within the DWPA catchment to protect water quality and quantity.

We would also like to take the opportunity, to request that in advance of any works commencing on site, Scottish Water is notified at [email protected]. This will enable us to be aware of activities in the DWPA catchment and to determine if a site meeting would be appropriate and beneficial.

Surface Water

For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not normally accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system.

There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges.

In order to avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to our combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should contact Scottish Water at the earliest opportunity with strong evidence to support the intended drainage plan prior to making a connection request. We will assess this evidence in a robust manner and provide a decision that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. General notes:

 Scottish Water asset plans can be obtained from our appointed asset plan providers:

Site Investigation Services (UK) Ltd Tel: 0333 123 1223 Email: [email protected] www.sisplan.co.uk

 Scottish Water’s current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer’s boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements to be installed, subject to compliance with Water Byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water’s procedure for checking the water pressure in the area then they should write to the Customer Connections department at the above address.

 If the connection to the public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude.

 Scottish Water may only vest new water or waste water infrastructure which is to be laid through land out with public ownership where a Deed of Servitude has been obtained in our favour by the developer.

 The developer should also be aware that Scottish Water requires land title to the area of land where a pumping station and/or SUDS proposed to vest in Scottish Water is constructed.

 Please find all of our application forms on our website at the following link https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/business/connections/connecting-your- property/new-development-process-and-applications-forms

Next Steps:

 Single Property/Less than 10 dwellings

For developments of less than 10 domestic dwellings (or non-domestic equivalent) we will require a formal technical application to be submitted directly to Scottish Water or via the chosen Licensed Provider if non domestic, once full planning permission has been granted. Please note in some instances we will require a Pre- Development Enquiry Form to be submitted (for example rural location which are deemed to have a significant impact on our infrastructure) however we will make you aware of this if required.

 10 or more domestic dwellings: For developments of 10 or more domestic dwellings (or non-domestic equivalent) we require a Pre-Development Enquiry (PDE) Form to be submitted directly to Scottish Water prior to any formal Technical Application being submitted. This will allow us to fully appraise the proposals.

Where it is confirmed through the PDE process that mitigation works are necessary to support a development, the cost of these works is to be met by the developer, which Scottish Water can contribute towards through Reasonable Cost Contribution regulations.

 Non Domestic/Commercial Property: Since the introduction of the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 in April 2008 the water industry in Scotland has opened up to market competition for non-domestic customers. All Non-domestic Household customers now require a Licensed Provider to act on their behalf for new water and waste water connections. Further details can be obtained at www.scotlandontap.gov.uk

 Trade Effluent Discharge from Non Dom Property: Certain discharges from non-domestic premises may constitute a trade effluent in terms of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968. Trade effluent arises from activities including; manufacturing, production and engineering; vehicle, plant and equipment washing, waste and leachate management. It covers both large and small premises, including activities such as car washing and launderettes. Activities not covered include hotels, caravan sites or restaurants. If you are in any doubt as to whether or not the discharge from your premises is likely to be considered to be trade effluent, please contact us on 0800 778 0778 or email [email protected] using the subject "Is this Trade Effluent?". Discharges that are deemed to be trade effluent need to apply separately for permission to discharge to the sewerage system. The forms and application guidance notes can be found using the following link https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/business/our- services/compliance/trade-effluent/trade-effluent-documents/trade-effluent-notice- form-h Trade effluent must never be discharged into surface water drainage systems as these are solely for draining rainfall run off. For food services establishments, Scottish Water recommends a suitably sized grease trap is fitted within the food preparation areas so the development complies with Standard 3.7 a) of the Building Standards Technical Handbook and for best management and housekeeping practices to be followed which prevent food waste, fat oil and grease from being disposed into sinks and drains. The Waste (Scotland) Regulations which require all non-rural food businesses, producing more than 50kg of food waste per week, to segregate that waste for separate collection. The regulations also ban the use of food waste disposal units that dispose of food waste to the public sewer. Further information can be found at www.resourceefficientscotland.com

If the applicant requires any further assistance or information, please contact our Development Operations Central Support Team on 0800 389 0379 or at [email protected].

Yours sincerely Calum MacNab Development Operations Analyst [email protected] Our ref: PCS/160927 Your ref:

Callum Petrie If telephoning ask for: Perth and Kinross Council Alex Candlish

By email only to: [email protected] 28 September 2018

Dear Mr Petrie

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 EIA Scoping: Cross Tay Link Road - CTLR

Thank you for your consultation email which SEPA received on 13 September 2018. We would welcome engagement with the applicant at an early stage to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter.

We consider that the following key issues must be addressed in the Environmental Impact Assessment process. To avoid delay and potential objection the following information must be submitted in support of the application in relation to but not restricted to the below.

 Flood risk;  Surface water drainage; and  Land made available.

It should be noted that the consultant has engaged in early pre-application discussions with SEPA regarding flood risk and a number of various regulatory aspects and is aware of our detailed requirements on these matters for the proposal.

While all of the issues below should be addressed in the Environmental Statement (ES), there may be opportunities for several of these to be scoped out of detailed consideration. The justification for this approach in relation to specific issues should be set out within the ES. We would welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft ES. Please note that we can process files only of a maximum size of 25MB and therefore, when the ES is submitted, it should be divided into appropriately sized and named sections.

1. Flood risk

1.1 The site should be assessed for flood risk from all sources in line with Scottish Planning Policy (Paragraphs 254-268). The Flood Maps for Scotland are available to view online and further information and advice can be sought from your local authority technical or engineering services department and from our website.

1.2 If a flood risk is identified then a Flood Risk Assessment should be carried out following the 2

guidance set out in the document Technical flood risk guidance for stakeholders.

2. Surface water drainage

2.1 The treatment of surface water runoff by sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) is a legal requirement for most forms of development, however the location, design and type of SUDS are largely controlled through planning. SUDS help to protect water quality, reduce potential for flood risk and release capacity in the public sewerage network where the alternative is use of combined systems. Discharges to combined sewers should be avoided to free up capacity for waste water discharges.

2.2 It is important to ensure that adequate space to accommodate SUDS is incorporated within the site layout. Consideration should be given to this matter early in the planning process when proposals are at their mo st fluid and modifications to layout can be easily made with less expense to the developer. Each individual type of SUDS facility, such as a filter drain, detention basin, permeable paving or swale, provides one level of surface water treatment. The level of SUDS required is dependant on the nature of the proposed development, for example residential or non residential, the size of development, and the environmental risk posed by the development which is principally determined by the available dilution of the receiving waterbody. Best practice requires the following levels of treatment:

 All roads schemes typically require two levels of treatment, except for residential developments of 50 houses or less and retail/commercial/business parks with car parks of 50 spaces or less. For technical guidance on SUDS techniques and treatment for roads please refer to the SUDS for Roads manual.

2.3 For all developments, run-off from areas subject to particularly high pollution risk (e.g. yard areas, service bays, fuelling areas, pressure washing areas, oil or chemical storage, handling and delivery areas) should be minimised and directed to the foul sewer. Where run-off from high risk areas cannot be directed to the foul sewer we can, on request, provide further site specific advice on what would be the best environmental solution.

2.4 The SUDS treatment train should be followed which uses a logical sequence of SUDS facilities in series allowing run-off to pass through several different SUDS before reaching the receiving waterbody. Further guidance on the design of SUDS systems and appropriate levels of treatment can be found in the CIRIA C697 manual entitled The SUDS Manual. Advice can also be found in the SEPA Guidance Note Planning advice on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). Please refer to the Regulations section of our website for details of regulatory requirements for surface water and SUDS. Comments should be sought from the local authority roads department and the local authority flood prevention unit on the acceptability of post-development runoff rates for flood control.

2.5 Comments from Scottish Water should be sought where the SUDS proposals would be adopted by them. We encourage the design of SUDS to Sewers for Scotland Second Edition standards and the adoption of SUDS features by Scottish Water as we are of the view that this leads to best standards and maintenance.

2.6 SUDS must be used on all sites, including those with elevated levels of contaminants. SUDS which use infiltration will not be suitable where infiltration is through land containing contaminants which are likely to be mobilised into surface water or groundwater. This can be overcome by restricting infiltration to areas which are not affected by contamination, or 3

constructing SUDS with an impermeable base layer to separate the surface water drainage system from the contaminated area. SUDS which do not use infiltration are still effective at treating and attenuating surface water. Please refer to the advice note on SUDS and brownfield sites for further information.

3. Land made available

3.1 Land made available for construction activities is a critical element to the environmentally sensitive delivery of schemes such as the one in question. Until a contractor is appointed for the construction element of the scheme it will not be known if this land is sufficient to serve the construction activities adequately. Details should be provided within the EIA Report regarding how the construction of the site will be brought forward and an assessment of whether adequate land has been made available for the environmentally sensitive delivery of the scheme. We strongly recommend that a meeting is held between PKC, SEPA, other interested agencies/authorities and the potential contractors during the tendering process to ensure that these issues are sufficiently considered.

4. Pollution prevention and environmental management

4.1 One of our key interests in relation to major developments is pollution prevention measures during the periods of construction, operation, maintenance, demolition and restoration. The construction phase includes construction of access roads, borrow pits and any other site infrastructure.

4.2 We advise that the applicant should, through the EIA process or planning submission, systematically identify all aspects of site work that might impact upon the environment, potential pollution risks associated with the proposals and identify the principles of preventative measures and mitigation. This will establish a robust environmental management process for the development. A draft Schedule of Mitigation should be produced as part of this process. This should cover all the environmental sensitivities, pollution prevention and mitigation measures identified to avoid or minimise environmental effects. Please refer to the Pollution prevention guidelines.

4.3 A Construction Environmental Management Document is a key management tool to implement the Schedule of Mitigation. We recommend that the principles of this document are set out in the ES outlining how the draft Schedule of Mitigation will be implemented. This document should form the basis of more detailed site specific Construction Environmental Management Plans which, along with detailed method statements, may be required by planning condition or, in certain cases, through environmental regulation. This approach provides a useful link between the principles of development which need to be outlined at the early stages of the project and the method statements which are usually produced following award of contract (just before development commences).

4.4 Best practice advice developed by The Highland Council (in conjunction with industry and other key agencies) on the Construction Environmental Management Process is available in the guidance note Construction Environmental Management Process for Large Scale Projects 4

5. Engineering activities in the water environment

5.1 In order to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive of preventing any deterioration and improving the water environment, developments should be designed to avoid engineering activities in the water environment wherever possible. The water environment includes burns, rivers, lochs, wetlands, groundwater and reservoirs. We require it to be demonstrated that every effort has been made to leave the water environment in its natural state. Engineering activities such as culverts, bridges, watercourse diversions, bank modifications or dams should be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative. Paragraph 255 of SPP deters unnecessary culverting. Where a watercourse crossing cannot be avoided, bridging solutions or bottomless or arched culverts which do not affect the bed and banks of the watercourse should be used. Further guidance on the design and implementation of crossings can be found in our Construction of River Crossings Good Practice Guide. Other best practice guidance is also available within the water engineering section of our website. It should be noted that dates quoted within the Scoping Report regarding in Channel works should read between 1st June and 30th September.

5.2 If the engineering works proposed are likely to result in increased flood risk to people or property then a flood risk assessment should be submitted in support of the planning application and we should be consulted as detailed below.

5.3 A site survey of existing water features and a map of the location of all proposed engineering activities in the water environment should be included in the ES or planning submission. A systematic table detailing the justification for the activity and how any adverse impact will be mitigated should also be included. The table should be accompanied by a photograph of each affected water body along with its dimensions. Justification for the location of any proposed activity is a key issue for us to assess at the planning stage.

5.4 Where developments cover a large area, there will usually be opportunities to incorporate improvements in the water environment required by the Water Framework Directive within and/or immediately adjacent to the site either as part of mitigation measures for proposed works or as compensation for environmental impact. We encourage applicants to seek such opportunities to avoid or offset environmental impacts. Improvements which might be considered could include the removal of redundant weirs, the creation of buffer strips and provision of fencing along watercourses. Fencing off watercourses and creating buffer strips both helps reduce the risk of diffuse water pollution and affords protection to the riparian habitat.

6. Disruption to wetlands including peatlands

6.1 If there are wetlands or peatland systems present, the ES or planning submission should demonstrate how the layout and design of the proposal, including any associated borrow pits, hard standing and roads, avoid impact on such areas

6.2 A Phase 1 habitat survey should be carried out for the whole site and the guidance A Functional Wetland Typology for Scotland, should be used to help identify all wetland areas. National Vegetation Classification should be completed for any wetlands identified. Results of these findings should be submitted, including a map with all the proposed infrastructure overlain on the vegetation maps to clearly show which areas will be impacted 5

and avoided.

6.3 Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, which are types of wetland, are specifically protected under the Water Framework Directive. The results of the National Vegetation Classification survey and Appendix 2 (which is also applicable to other types of developments) of our Planning guidance on windfarm developments should be used to identify if wetlands are groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems.

6.4 The route of roads, tracks or trenches within 100 m of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (identified in Appendix 2) should be reconsidered. Similarly, the locations of borrow pits or foundations within 250 m of such ecosystems should be reconsidered. If infrastructure cannot be relocated outwith the buffer zones of these ecosystems then the likely impact on them will require further assessment. This assessment should be carried out if these ecosystems occur within or outwith the site boundary so that the full impacts on the proposals are assessed. The results of this assessment and necessary mitigation measures should be included in the ES.

6.5 For areas where avoidance is impossible, details of how impacts upon wetlands including peatlands are minimised and mitigated should be provided within the ES or planning submission. In particular impacts that should be considered include those from drainage, pollution and waste management. This should include preventative/mitigation measures to avoid significant drying or oxidation of peat through, for example, the construction of access tracks, dewatering, excavations, drainage channels, cable trenches, or the storage and re- use of excavated peat. Detailed information on waste management is required as detailed below. Any mitigation proposals should also be detailed within the Construction Environmental Management Document as detailed below.

7. Disturbance and re-use of excavated peat

7.1 We note from the Scoping Report that significant areas of peat or other carbon rich soils were not recorded within the study area. If the proposed infrastructure will impact upon peatlands, a detailed map of peat depths (this must be to full depth) should be submitted. The peat depth survey should include details of the basic peatland characteristics.

8. Existing groundwater abstractions

8.1 Roads, foundations and other construction works associated with large scale developments can disrupt groundwater flow and impact on groundwater abstractions. To address this risk a list of groundwater abstractions both within and outwith the site boundary, within a radius of i)100 m from roads, tracks and trenches and ii) 250 m from borrow pits and foundations) should be provided.

8.2 If groundwater abstractions are identified within the 100 m radius of roads, tracks and trenches or 250 m radius from borrow pits and foundations, then either the applicant should ensure that the route or location of engineering operations avoid this buffer area or further information and investigations will be required to show that impacts on abstractions are acceptable. Further details can be found in Appendix 2 (which is also applicable to other types of developments) of our Planning guidance on windfarm developments. 6

9. Water abstraction

9.1 Where water abstraction is proposed we request that the ES, or planning submission, details if a public or private source will be used. If a private source is to be used the information below should be included. Whilst we regulate water abstractions under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended), we require the following information to determine if the abstraction is feasible in this location;

 Source e.g. ground water or surface water;  Location e.g. grid ref and description of site;  Volume e.g. quantity of water to be extracted;  Timing of abstraction e.g. will there be a continuous abstraction;  Nature of abstraction e.g. sump or impoundment;  Proposed operating regime e.g. details of abstraction limits and hands off flow;  Survey of existing water environment including any existing water features;  Impacts of the proposed abstraction upon the surrounding water environment.

9.2 If other development projects are present or proposed within the same water catchment then we advise that the applicant considers whether the cumulative impact upon the water environment needs to be assessed. The ES or planning submission should also contain a justification for the approach taken.

10. Borrow pits

10.1 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) states (Paragraph 243) that “Borrow pits should only be permitted if there are significant environmental or economic benefits compared to obtaining material from local quarries, they are time-limited; tied to a particular project and appropriate reclamation measures are in place.” The ES or planning submission should provide sufficient information to address this policy statement.

10.2 Additionally, a map of all proposed borrow pits must be submitted along with a site specific plan of each borrow pit detailing the:

a) Location, size, depths and dimensions of each borrow pit;

b) Existing water table and volumes of all dewatering;

c) Proposed drainage and settlement traps, turf and overburden removal and storage areas;

d) Restoration profile, nature and volume of infill materials, and, if wetland features form part of the restoration, management proposals.

10.3 The impact of such facilities (including dust, blasting and impact on water) must be assessed in accordance with Planning Advice Note PAN 50 Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings (Paragraph 53). In relation to groundwater, information (Paragraph 52 of PAN 50) only needs to be provided where there is an existing abstraction or GWDTE within 250 m of the borrow pit. 7

11. Air quality

11.1 The local authority is the responsible authority for local air quality management under the Environment Act 1995, and therefore we recommend that Environmental Health within the local authority be consulted.

11.2 They can advise on the need for this development proposal to be assessed alongside other developments that could contribute to an increase in road traffic. They can also advise on potential impacts such as exacerbation of local air pollution, noise and nuisance issues and cumulative impacts of all development in the local area. Further guidance regarding these issues is provided in Scottish Planning Specific Advice (2004) available on the Scottish Government's Planning website entitled Air Quality and Land Use Planning .

Regulatory advice for the applicant

12. Regulatory requirements

12.1 Authorisation is required under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) to carry out engineering works in or in the vicinity of inland surface waters (other than groundwater) or wetlands. Inland water means all standing or flowing water on the surface of the land (e.g. rivers, lochs, canals, reservoirs).

12.2 Management of surplus peat or soils may require an exemption under The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Proposed crushing or screening will require a permit under The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Consider if other environmental licences may be required for any installations or processes.

12.3 We recommend that an estimation of the amount of woodland to be felled and section off into areas of replanting and areas of construction should be included within the EIA Report In addition to potential options for the use/re-use/disposal of waste wood.

12.4 We also recommend that an estimate of excess soil or if there is a deficit on the project should be outlined within the EIA Report. It should be noted that Binn landfill appears to be ruled out for taking soils within the Scoping Report. They are still accepting soils for the capping of the site and reinstatement of site.

12.5 A Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) construction site licence will be required for management of surface water run-off from a construction site, including access tracks, which:

 is more than 4 hectares,  is in excess of 5km, or  includes an area of more than 1 hectare or length of more than 500m on ground with a slope in excess of 25˚ See SEPA’s Sector Specific Guidance: Construction Sites (WAT-SG-75) for details. Site design may be affected by pollution prevention requirements and hence we strongly encourage the applicant to engage in pre-CAR application discussions with a member of the regulatory services team in your local SEPA office. 12.6 Below these thresholds you will need to comply with CAR General Binding Rule 10 which requires, amongst other things, that all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the 8

discharge does not result in pollution of the water environment. The detail of how this is achieved may be required through a planning condition.

12.7 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on the Regulations section of our website. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the regulatory services team in your local SEPA office at:

SEPA Perth, Strathearn House, Broxden Business Park, Lamberkine Drive, Perth, Perthshire, PH1 1RX, Tel – 01738 627989

If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 0131 273 7333 or e-mail at [email protected].

Yours sincerely.

Alex Candlish Senior Planning Officer Planning Service

Disclaimer This advice is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, as such a decision may take into account factors not considered at this time. We prefer all the technical information required for any SEPA consents to be submitted at the same time as the planning or similar application. However, we consider it to be at the applicant's commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further planning application or similar application and/or neighbour notification or advertising. We have relied on the accuracy and completeness of the information supplied to us in providing the above advice and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation, or omissions, in such information. If we have not referred to a particular issue in our response, it should not be assumed that there is no impact associated with that issue. For planning applications, if you did not specifically request advice on flood risk, then advice will not have been provided on this issue. Further information on our consultation arrangements generally can be found on our website planning pages. Callum Petrie

From: Callum Petrie Sent: 17 October 2018 15:27 To: 'McFarlane, Neil' Subject: RE: 18/01661/SCOP

Thank you Neil,

I appreciate your holding response at this time.

Kind regards

Callum

From: McFarlane, Neil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 October 2018 15:25 To: Callum Petrie Subject: RE: 18/01661/SCOP

Good Afternoon Callum,

I’ve been in discussions with SWECO with regards to their requirement for compensatory planting, which has not been finalised. So I could give you a response saying we would expect relevant & suitable compensatory planting prior to deforestation in line with the Scottish Government’s Woodland Removal Policy, but they know that & are working towards it.

Kind regards

Neil

From: Callum Petrie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 October 2018 14:51 To: McFarlane, Neil Subject: 18/01661/SCOP

Good afternoon Neil,

I write in relation to the aforementioned scoping consultation request. I am in the process of finalising my response back to agents SWECO on this matter and do not appear to have a response from you on this to date. Can you advise if you still intend to comment on the scoping request and if so, what are your intended timescales to allow me to advise the agents accordingly?

Kind regards

Callum

Callum Petrie

1 Planning Officer

Development Management - Planning & Development -The Environment service - Perth and Kinross Council

Telephone: 01738 475353 Fax: 01738 475310 E-mail [email protected] Web www.pkc.gov.uk

(Please note my regular work pattern is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday AM and Friday AM)

2 From:HYLAND, Jackie (NHS TAYSIDE) Sent:15 Sep 2018 07:59:55 +0100 To:Tracy McManamon Subject:RE: Cross Tay Link Road (Phase 2) Email 3 of 3

Dear Tracy

Thanks for sending the papers for the Cross Tay Link Road (Phase 2) emails 1-3.

I have reviewed the documents and I have no comments to make on the scoping request.

Regards

Jackie

Dr Jackie Hyland

Consultant in Public Health Medicine,

Health Protection Team

Directorate of Public Health

NHS Tayside

King's Cross

Clepington Road

Dundee

DD3 8EA

Tel: 01382 596975 email: [email protected]

GMC 3266447

Vision - to take action and provide leadership, expert guidance and support to prevent and manage risks to the health of the public from infectious diseases and environmental hazards.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This message may contain confidential and privileged information.

If you are not the intended recipient you should not disclose, copy or distribute this information or take any action based on this information nor reliance on its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and you maybe acting illegally.

Please inform the sender that this message has been sent to you in error before deleting it. Thank you.

From: Tracy McManamon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 September 2018 17:05 To: Development Management - Generic Email Account Subject: FW: Cross Tay Link Road (Phase 2) Email 3 of 3

Dear Sir/Madam

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Consultation on Reference: 18/01661/SCOP

RE: Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone

Although you are not considered a statutory consultee in respect of the above the applicant/agent wished you to be consulted on the noted scoping request submitted to Perth and Kinross Council. I attach for your consideration the information provided by the agent.

The planning authority are required to provide a scoping opinion to the developer within 35 days from receipt of the request. I would therefore be obliged if you would let me have your comments on the scoping request within 14 days from the date of this email, failing which I shall assume that you have no comments to make.

Regards

Tracy McManamon

Senior Support Assistant

Planning and Development

35 Kinnoull Street

Perth

PH1 5GD

Telephone 01738 475334

Securing the future... - Improving services - Enhancing quality of life - Making best use of public resources.

The information in this email is solely for the intended recipients.

If you are not an intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, or distribute its contents or use them in any way: please advise the sender immediately and delete this email.

Perth & Kinross Council, Culture Perth and Kinross and TACTRAN do not warrant that this email or any attachments are virus-free and does not accept any liability for any loss or damage resulting from any virus infection. Perth & Kinross Council may monitor or examine any emails received by its email system.

The information contained in this email may not be the views of Perth & Kinross Council, Culture Perth and Kinross or TACTRAN. It is possible for email to be falsified and the sender cannot be held responsible for the integrity of the information contained in it.

Requests to Perth & Kinross Council under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act should be directed to the Freedom of Information Team - email: [email protected]

General enquiries to Perth & Kinross Council should be made to [email protected] or 01738 475000.

General enquiries and requests under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act to Culture Perth and Kinross should be made to [email protected] or 01738 444949

General enquiries to TACTRAN should be made to [email protected] or 01738 475775.

Securing the future... - Improving services - Enhancing quality of life - Making best use of public resources.

*********************************************************************** *********************************************

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

Safeguarding public access in Scotland since 1845

[email protected]

Tracy McManamon Senior Support Assistant Planning and Development 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD

08/10/2018

Dear Ms McManamon,

The Town And Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 1997

Regulation 17(4) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request Consultation on Reference: 18/01661/SCOP

RE: Cross Tay Link Road from A9 Over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 North of Scone.

Many thanks for including ScotWays in seeking views on the EIA scoping statement for Stage 2 of the Tay Crossing project. Our apologies to run late on your deadline, but ScotWays is a small voluntary body operating across Scotland with limited staff resources. This is a large project, of some importance to the Council, now at an advanced stage of preparation and we are coming late to it. Much of the content of EIAs lies outwith our purposes and skills: hence we can make only a limited number of general points as follows, some commenting on issues beyond the strict scope of Stage 2.

The core of our business lies with public access to land and its enjoyment. Over many decades Perth and Kinross Council has done excellent work on this theme, in taking a strong lead on provision for open-air recreation linked to the rural tourism economy, and in the creation of an effective Core Path network linking into settlements. There are further overlap/connections with existing Sustrans provisions, and there is the cycle track provision linked to the oncoming A9 dualling. This network is well portrayed in Technical Annex 8.I and we welcome the commitment to address how the new road will integrate with the existing provisions. Some upgrades from past effort may need some attention: say the cycle track from Luncarty into Perth and the need to carry it directly to town links rather than divert under the road towards the industrial estate. Provision for non-motorised use at the Luncarty junction with the A9 will need review, this being a useful entry to the wide rural road network to the west.

The Tay-crossing is a big project, mainly aimed at resolving problems with motorised traffic as it affects the urban area. We welcome that there will be a parallel cycle track for the new road: however, good alignment may lead to the road carrying some fast traffic and a good separation of the cycle track from the carriageway is needed. This EIA can only address the issues for non- motorised movement that are specific to this present section of the whole project, and we would welcome a strong commitment to take a wider approach to active travel opportunities for journeys into the city from the north and west. The opportunity is here, given the bids for much more housing development linked to the new road, most of it at reasonable distance from the built-up area to foster more utility cycling. These additions to the settlement pattern around the city will also benefit from outward connections for recreational use of adjacent countryside.

We are aware of the prospect that the new road may attract more traffic from or heading to the northeast, this via the A94/A90 junction in Angus, and this would have implications for non- motorised users on the A94 and in the villages along this road. This traffic-flow issue may need some attention.

Lastly we endorse the need for good landscape care arising from the impacts of the new road, as set out in section 3, especially that the well wooded character of the area can be sustained and enhanced. It is difficult at this stage to envisage the appearance of the complex major junction of the new road and the A9, and this may need care in final design and planting.

Yours sincerely,

John Mackay ScotWays

The Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society 24 Annandale Street, Edinburgh EH7 4AN (Registered Office) Tel: 0131 558 1222 e-mail: [email protected] web: www.scotways.com ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ScotWays is a registered trade mark of the Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society, a company limited by guarantee. Company Registration Number: SC024243 Scottish Charity Number: SC015460 VAT number: 221 6132 56 Cross Tay Link Road Scoping Report Comments

Introduction The two major pieces of legislation mandatory in this process are The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 referred to hereafter as the ‘EIA Scotland Regs. 2017’. [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2017/102/contents/made] And the overarching DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0052&from=EN]. This is referred to hereafter as the ‘EU EIA Directive’. A statement by the EU on 24th April, 2018 stated: “Consultation with the public is a key feature of environmental assessment procedures.” Supporting guidance issued by the EU states: “The Directive sets minimum requirements for consultation, requiring that environmental authorities as well as local and regional authorities are given an opportunity to comment on the EIA Report’s scope. In some Member States, EIA legislation extends consultation on Scoping to all interested parties, including the general public; while this is not required by law in others, it remains a good practice.” [Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects Guidance on Scoping (Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU) pub. EU, 2017]. The major planning policy for Scotland is Scottish Planning Policy, published by the Scottish Government in 2014.[https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/] This document is referred to hereafter as ‘SPP 2014’. The Scottish National Planning Framework 3 is a relative document to SPP 2014, published by the Scottish Government in the same year[https://beta.gov.scot/publications/national- planning-framework-3/] and referred to hereafter as ‘NPF 3’. Comments following relate to the documents in the Scoping Report prepared by SWECO for Perth & Kinross Council (PKC) with reference to sections by their number. Scoping Report Introduction 1.1 For the definition of the EIA legislation, there is one project divided into four phases as set out in the first paragraph here. 1.2 The applicant referred to is PKC, but in terms of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017, is more appropriately referred to as the ‘developer’ [2. (a) (i)]. 1.3 The Appropriate Assessment Report should be included within the final EIA Report. Project Description 2.1 In order to complete the EIA, the timing of Phase 3 through Bertha Park needs to be more precise and its cumulative impacts included. The reference to Phase 4 is contradicted by PKC’s website “The current focus is on trying to provide some 'Quick Win' solutions that can be implemented without the necessity of the proposed new bridge. View the City Enhancements Report [8Mb].” Fig 2.3 Most of this is explained in engineering terms and is impossible to comment on; therefore, this content is unacceptable in its present terms and should be re-issued for comment in language accessible to all.

1 2.2.3 The construction period is underestimated. Phase 1 is coming to completion 21 months after the start. Phase 2 is more than twice the length, with many logistical constraints to be overcome and more infrastructure to be installed. The disruption to and duration on the road network, including the use of construction traffic on minor roads, the closure of core paths, impacts on local communities and the areas identified on Fig. 1.3 required for construction must be included in the EIA. This should include an assessment and programme of works set out in a spreadsheet in the usual format. 2.2.4 This section does not embrace the full intentions of the UN. The following quotation is from the UN’s website “17 Goals to Transform Our World The Sustainable Development Goals are a call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognize that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and addresses a range of social needs including education, health, social protection, and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and environmental protection.” This is a recognition of a fairer society on a global scale and not about a local project. In order to match the claim of a “large-scale sustainable development” this needs to assess and weigh up all of the pros and cons within the EIA. The CTLR cannot be assessed alone, as its aim is to facilitate large-scale developments and the effects of these developments must be included as cumulative impacts arising from the CTLR. An assessment to include climate change must take account of the Paris Climate Change Conference - November 2015 [https://unfccc.int/documents/9064]. “Article 5 1. Signatories are to “take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases” and to be set out as follows in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; to “Promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems.” The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated a further rise in sea level from 26cm under low greenhouse gas emissions to 98cm under high emissions. The tidal influence of the River Tay reaches the mouth of the River Almond. The flooding experienced in 1993 did not coincide with the highest tide and flooding could have been much worse in the Perth area. The highest recorded levels on the River Tay in 1993 were exceeded in some parts of the catchment in 2014 and 2016. The cause of flooding in 1993 was the rapid thaw of snow and influx of meltwater into the Tay catchment. 2016 levels were due to heavy rainfall and saturation of soils leading to rapid run-off. If built, the CTLR will need to have a long life-span. The design life of the two bridge structures is expected to be 120 years; the actual design life should be included in the EIA and the crossings assessed for maintenance and future replacement. Design and assessment must take account of sea-level rise combined with high water levels and tidal effects. These will determine the types of structure required to endure over a long period with consequential impacts on the surrounding environment.

2 At Luncarty, in 1993 and 2016, the water level of the River Tay rose somewhere in the region of 5m above ordnance datum on the lower section of the lade before meeting the Tay (NO 102 295) flooding parts of adjacent fields. The immediate banks of the Tay at the proposed crossing point for the CTLR are below the 10m contour; and from the railway embankment to the water channel on the west bank is extremely narrow. The banks of the Tay are subject to erosion. The EIA should provide topographical surveys and Lidar data with an analysis of the risks from high water levels and what structures would be required as preventative measures against erosion and flooding. 2.2.6 These proposed mitigations are no substitute for the loss of natural habitats and fail to meet the recognition of proper mitigation.  Wildflowers. There is considerable ecological richness in the woodlands at Bertha Park and Muirfield Wood, which are in the Ancient Woodland Inventory that cannot be replaced by wildflower seed mixes.  Bug hotels. The above is also applicable here. This proposal recognises the importance of invertebrates and therefore invertebrate interest should be scoped in to the EIA reports.  Red lighting. There is no definition of ‘applicable’ and its use may be very minor. There is no use of red lighting anywhere in Perth and Kinross where disturbance might be an issue.  Bat boxes. The same applies as above in relation to loss of habitat, which is also essential for feeding. Bats are recorded from both woods.  Deer deterrents. There are so many potential crossing points that would make this impractical, as so many deterrents would be required. Their effectiveness is unknown. EIA Consultation 3.2 Members of staff from PKC and SWECO advised the meeting at Luncarty’s Memorial Hall that only Phase 2 could be discussed, thus excluding discussion on issues that would affect it, such as the proposed park and ride and employment land in PKC’s Local Development Plan 2 (LDP 2). Therefore, cumulative impact issues which are part of the EIA process were excluded. A number of issues arising from the Luncarty consultation were raised in a letter to PKC’s CTLR project team on 22nd June. A response is awaited from PKC. The visualisations provided were of limited views. The cover of the ‘Technical Annexes’ section was provided only as an insert on Board 1; the more realistic scale provides a better impression of the impact. This visualisation does not include the second roundabout of the grade separated junction, nor the connection of the CTLR from Phase 3. This would be the largest transport hub on the outskirts of Perth on top of which the LDP 2 proposals have to be considered. The use of the word ‘significant’ in this section has not been quantified. The EU EIA Directive states: “EIA reports are to be made more understandable for the public, especially as regards assessments of the current state of the environment and alternatives to the proposal in question.” Planning Policy 4.1.2 SPP 2014 and NPF 3 are wider reaching than expressed. Regarding comments expressed on the previous section; neither “a successful sustainable place” “a low carbon place” “a natural resilient place” “nor a connected place” will be met. The CTLR project and outcomes from both Local Development Plans will fragment 3 communities adjacent to and along its route. If these claims set out in this section are to be justified they need to be quantified and addressed in the EIA Report. Fig. 4.1 There are mapping errors for land use in relation to Bertha Park. Phase 1 and 3 should be included to show the full extent. This map should have been produced on at least two sheets as the underlying details are illegible. Proposed Scope of the EIA 6.2 The claim that the CTLR will reduce traffic flows in the centre of Perth has yet to be proven and this needs a full assessment through the EIA Report that will include the cumulative effect of traffic from the developments included in both development plans that will want to come into Perth. 6.3 The EIA assessment should adhere to the Policy Principles of SPP 2014. In particular, the planning authority will need to be able to judge whether the following has been considered. “137. The planning system should: promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment (including individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape) and its contribution to sense of place, cultural identity, social well-being, economic growth, civic participation and lifelong learning”. The assessment should include “non-designated historic environment” and “the wider cultural landscape”. This applies to all communities affected by the route. The significance of the wider importance to the woodlands at Bertha Park has been recognised in a study and within several publications. The PKC CTLR project team has been provided with a copy of this study and references to relevant publications. These should be included in the EIA assessment. 6.5 Invertebrates should be scoped in and not out. No reason is given for this. There are two issues here. Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is an invertebrate and has been included for a specific survey. The affected section of the wood at Bertha Park and most of the Highfield Plantation at Muirward Wood are shown on James Stobie’s map of the Counties of Perthshire and Clackmannan published in 1783. They have been under continuous woodland cover since. The woodland at Bertha Park is mostly Oak (Quercus species and hybrid). Oak is one of the richest providers of habitat for invertebrates: “host tree abundance is the best single predictor of total species richness [Kennedy & Southwood, 1984, Journal of Animal Ecology 53 (2): 455-478]. Terrestrial invertebrates should be scoped in. 6.6 ‘Geology, soils and contamination’ should be scoped in. There is overwhelming policy and guidance on the protection of soil [http://soils.environment.gov.scot/resources/soil- protection/]. The inclusion of soil is mandatory within Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017. Soil is more than mineral; it contains invertebrates, microbes and mycorrhizal fungi that provide the ecological functioning of soil. “It is estimated that as many as 90% of all plants depend on mycorrhizae to survive” (Kew). There will be huge excavations of soil at Bertha Park and Highfield Wood, which are significant impacts. These will also affect the cultural landscapes of these communities. 6.9 Consideration in relation to people and communities has not ranged much wider than ‘Non-Motorised User’, but the EIA needs to go far wider to meet the requirements of Section 4 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017. This includes human health and the EIA must include the significant effects on all kinds of health issues.

4 6.10 A full Forestry assessment should be scoped in, because forestry is more than a means of tree production and is widely recognised for a range of other benefits. The assessments need to be scoped in to meet the expectations of SPP 2014. “194. The planning system should: protect and enhance ancient semi-natural woodland as an important and irreplaceable resource, together with other native or long-established woods, hedgerows and individual trees with high nature conservation or landscape value.” The mitigation assumed at this stage is not proven and needs to be subject to a full EIA. Further relevant comments are made on the Appendix 3.1 section of the Scoping Report; they are on page 10 following and are also relevant here. 6.16 Cumulative effects should include an assessment of full occupation of development sites in PKC’s two Local Development Plans and not just build ‘out rates, otherwise not all of the significant effects will be recognised. Technical Annexes Introduction 1.1 - 1.5.2 PKC’s Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is outside the Luncarty, Redgorton and Moneydie Community Council (LRMCC) area. There is no known recording of air quality adjacent to the A9. The A9 runs close to Luncarty, Redgorton and Denmarkfield from the River Shochie to Denmarkfield. The closest proximity to settlements is at the fly- over between the B8063 and the B9099, and at Redgorton and Denmarkfield. There is a path on the east side of the A9 from the flyover to Denmarkfield. This section of path is adjacent to the highway and the section from Denmarkfield to the River Almond is at varying distances from the highway. The volume of traffic travelling through the community’s area is far greater than any within Perth with many more heavy goods vehicles. The first section of path mentioned subjects users to exhaust emissions, dust and noise that makes its use unpleasant during the day. The proposed grade separated junction of the CTLR will be closer to LRMCC’s settlements and will open a connection to traffic from the Bertha Park development, A85 and traffic from the A93 and A94. Added to this would be traffic from the Luncarty South development, the Stanley development and the proposed park and ride and employment land set out in PKC’s Local Development Plan 2, identified as adjacent to the grade separated junction. There is also potential for additional traffic from the proposed Perth West development proposed in Local Development Plan 2. The EIA must establish a baseline for air quality within the affected area covered by LRMCC to establish an understanding of present levels; the same also applies to noise. The expected change in air quality and noise must be assessed from all of the sources mentioned and to include full occupation of these sites and traffic generated, and expected increases in vehicle ownership, as recorded by the Scottish Government, that will increase the volume of traffic on these roads. There is no reason given for not including certain pollutants. They are included in the National Air Quality Strategy and should be scoped in to meet the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017 on air. 1.6 The conclusion must also recognise the LRMCC area as a key area. The consultants’ comments on reduction of traffic flow reduction has still to be proved, as traffic modelling in relation to the CTLR is far from persuasive. No similar solution in Scotland has been able to resolve congestion with reduction in air quality.

5 Cultural Heritage Most of the issues in relation to this section are also covered by comments relating to 6.3. Fig. TA2.1 The 1km boundary applies only to designations. This does not meet the expectation of SPP 2014 referred to in the comments on 6.3, nor other interests that can be found on CANMORE mapping [https://canmore.org.uk/site/search/result?SITECOUNTRY=0&view=map]. Fig. TA2.1 also fails to identify cumulative impacts referred to from Phase 3 and Local Development Plan 2. Table TA2.1 Historic Environment Scotland’s preference not to have the CTLR within the Scone Garden & Designed Landscape is noted. Comments from Historic Environment Scotland are in relation to ground investigation only. The minimum list of designated sites provided by Historic Environment Scotland should have been provided here. 2.3 Page 58: are Community Council’s to be consulted as stakeholders? If so, why not? In relation to further consultations identified within the Scoping Report, which ones will Community Council’s be able to comment on? At the bottom of the page an undertaking is given “This appraisal will take account of all stakeholder concerns in selecting the temporary access route.” 2.5.7 Other potential contributor developments cannot be limited. The CTLR and certain developments in PKC’s Local Development Plans are inextricably linked. These sites must be included in the EIA assessment, otherwise the full significant impact of the CTLR will not be realised and the results of the EIA will be compromised. 2.6 The reference only to “cultural heritage assets of national importance” is contrary to the expectations of SPP 2014. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment “The landscapes around Perth have extremely limited capacity to accommodate further urban expansion if the setting and character of this fine city are to be sustained” was one of the main findings of an independent report. The report was produced by David Tyldesley and Associates for Scottish Natural Heritage: Perth Landscape Capacity Study, Report No. F99LH24A, published in 2001 [https://www.nature.scot/snh-commissioned-report- f99lh24a-perth-landscape-capacity-study]. This is the background against which the CTLR must be judged and the EIA provided. 3.2 “Bertha Park knoll” referred to is presumably the wooded end of Bertha Park adjacent to the A9, centred at its highest point at grid reference NO 092 272. Not only is this a distinctive landscape feature, all of the connecting woodland is distinctive. These features also provide magnificent views over the River Tay, which have been treasured by the local community for at least two centuries.

View from Redgorton Ridge looking south-east

6 Other viewpoints not included identify the limited scope of this landscape assessment. Two examples follow.

View from Kinnoull Hill looking north-west, 2017

View from Murrayshall Hill at the Lynedoch Obelisk looking north-west, 2017 The CTLR would be seen for most of its length from these two popular viewpoints. The LVIA study area should be extended to include these two viewpoints. The proposed GLVIA/LVIA is a roads procedure approach and needs to be accompanied by landscape assessments which usually accompany planning applications for major developments. 3.5.3 ZTV (Zones of Theoretical Visibility) maps are useful, but have limitations. One consultancy offering this facility provides a caveat. “Thus, the benefits and limitations of ZTV should be understood by all parties - it is simply a useful tool, amongst others, like photomontage and LVIA, to illustrate and explain the effects of a development” [https://www.2bconsultancy.co.uk/ztv.htm]. Reference to “9.2.2” could not be found in the documents.

7 3.6 In relation to the foregoing and SNH’s comments, the landscape assessment must include other recognised approaches and cannot be assessed by LVIA alone. Biodiversity 4.2.1 The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas Scotland receives datasets from a large number of organisations. This data can be limited by the date of the datasets and the precision of the locations provided, some with very general grid references. Figure TA4.1 Records for Red Squirrel and Brown Hare are missing from the woods at Bertha Park. Records are included in the study that has been sent to PKC’s Biodiversity Officer and PKC’s CTLR project team. Crucially, records for Otter and Bat species have not been included. With reference to the consultants’ comments in Appendix 3.1 concerning Beaver, this species’ distribution must also be mapped here. The EIA needs also to assess the loss and fragmentation of habitat in relation to connecting or adjacent habitat used by species such as Red Squirrel and Bat species. The Outer Study is not sufficiently wide to take account of these and needs to be widened in relation to Section A and Section D. Phase 3 will also have a cumulative impact in cutting through anther part of Bertha Park Wood leading to fragmentation and woodland loss that will almost certainly leave any remaining woodland in the vicinity of the two phases unviable for Red Squirrel and Bat species. Table TA4.1 The EIA needs to maintain recognition of accepted terminology. Long- established woodland of plantation origin is “interpreted as plantation from maps of 1750 or 1860.” “Many of these sites have developed semi-natural characteristics, especially the oldest ones, which may be as rich as Ancient Woodland” (SNH/Hall, 2011). The woods at Bertha Park have 58% of the species listed in the Scottish Ancient Woodland Inventory. 4.2.4 The records made by SWECO should have been included in an appendix. The assumption that invertebrates will not be significantly affected is extremely doubtful and should be scoped in as previously stated. 4.6 As before, invertebrates should be scoped in. Birds make considerable use of the River Tay at the project area, for migration, feeding and its banks provide nesting habitat. Geology, Soils, Contamination and Hydrology 5.6 The conclusions reached in these two paragraphs are inadmissible, because the results of the ground investigation have not been supplied with the Scoping Report. Geology, soils and contamination should be scoped in. Inclusion of soils is mandatory under the ‘EIA Scotland Regs. 2017’. Geomorphology is a study within geology and geomorphological structures should be assessed. The area identified as ‘Bertha Park knoll’ comprises marine deposits laid down in a post-glacial sea (Geology of the Perth and Dundee district: memoir for 1:50,000 geological sheets 48W, 48E, 49. HMSO). This natural feature has a complex hydrology with considerable water retention. Re-aligning the A9 through it, with consequential lowering of levels, will lead to increased run-off. While there may be no contamination within existing soils, impacts must be assessed on the contamination of soils and water from the construction and operational phases from vehicles emissions washed into the soils, the River Tay and its tributaries. Technical Annex 7 Noise and Vibration Fig TA7.1 Section A & B The methodology of this section is far from clear. The areas to be included in the assessment are far less than those in PKC’s Stage 2 Report and there is no

8 reason given for this. The study area must include Luncarty, Kirkhill to Battleby and any residential properties at Bertha Park that have not been included. The full operational levels of developments in both of PKC’s Local Development Plans will generate a huge amount of traffic on the CTLR and A9. Immediate cumulative impacts will arise from the Luncarty South development and the park and ride and employment land proposed in Local Development Plan 2. Noise from the A9 has increased to the point that it has become a permanent feature of Luncarty and often well into the evening. Realignment of the A9 will raise the physical level for noise dispersal. Some of this is absorbed currently within the cutting below Denmarkfield through which the A9 currently passes. Phase 1 has not been mapped and Phase 3 will introduce noise where it cuts through the woods at Bertha Park. The CTLR and associated developments are likely to be the noisiest location on the outskirts of Perth. Escaping noise from the A9 has become quite difficult within walking distance and parts of the River Tay path and the woods at Bertha Park offer the few exceptions. The CTLR crossing over the River Tay is relatively quiet. These quiet locations need to be assessed as a baseline along with locations of the grade separated junction and the settlements mentioned above and the estimated level of noise increase should be provided for each for a number of scenarios that would include a full operational use of the CTLR and associated developments arising from both Local Development Plans. There is no reason given for the ‘No survey required’ area on the map, which is one where a baseline and further study is required. People and Communities 8.1 This whole section misses the point about the significance of what is required by Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017 and the implications of SPP 2014. The proposals are reliant on Design Manual for Roads and Bridges assessments which are insufficient on their own to satisfy EIA requirements. This process is more than an assessment of travellers and assets. Fig TA8. 1 A & B The exclusion of settlements or parts of settlements from these maps is astonishing. The area required is set out in comments on the previous section. The imposition of the largest transport hub around Perth into what is a relatively quiet and certainly attractive rural area will have enormous consequences for local communities. 8.2.5 The camera survey was conducted over too brief a period to provide meaningful data. Moreover, it was undertaken without permission of those photographed and was an intrusion of privacy and imposition on human rights. Benefits are summarised in following sections without mentioning any negative impacts. During the construction period there will be considerable and major disruption caused by lane closures, road closures, closures of core paths and installation of bridges. The effects will be considerably greater than those arising from Phase 1. Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Interest 9.4.1 The loss of agricultural land must be quantified and assessed in the EIA. UK government statistics for 2016 show the UK supplied only 49% of the food it consumed. The loss of food production over the lifespan of the CTLR must be assessed against future demands for food from a larger population. “The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100” [World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision (UN).

9 9.4.2 As commented on, forestry is more than timber production and the Forestry Commission has placed great emphasis on their use by the public for leisure and health. These need to be recognised in the EIA and the impact on the loss of woodland in relation to climate change. Woodland lost from the Ancient Woodland Inventory is irreplaceable it cannot be restored. The woods at Bertha Park are over 200 years old and are a considerable carbon store. Loss of mature woodland cannot be replaced by new planting. The conclusion reached cannot be supported, new planting will not mitigate losses nor ecological impacts. The proposals in relation to forestry fall within Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017 and must be scoped in. Road Drainage and the Water Environment 10.2 Bertha Loch has two outflows, but only one is indicated on Fig. TA 10.2. Bertha Loch should be included in the surveys. It is a tributary of the SAC, has a surface area of 7 hectares. It is a mesotrophic loch with considerable floral and invertebrate diversity and is in better condition than some lochs on Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Exhaust emissions are known to have harmful effects on open water bodies and the loch is within the dispersal range of emissions. Climate 11.6 Cumulative impacts from related developments as previously outlined must be included in the EIA. The project may be liable to climate change during the construction phase in relation to working next to the River Tay. The increasing frequency of damaging floods cannot be ruled out. Assessments not identified This is not part of the Scoping Report, but needs must mention the omission of at least one requirement under Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017 that must be scoped in. Light pollution is a significant public concern and light emissions must be covered under Section 1 (d) in Schedule 4. Account must be taken of the introduction of new lighting on the CTLR and the impact it will have on communities and wildlife. Excess light in the night sky is known to disrupt circadian patterns of sleep. As before, cumulative impacts from connected developments must be considered. PKC must accept in terms of Section 3 of Schedule 4 that it must be in a position to quantify to a reasonable degree the difference between the baseline and impacts arising from the developments recognised in both Local Developments Plans. References to proposed lighting are contained in Appendix 2.1 Consideration of Alternatives. Appendix 2.1 Consideration of Alternatives This section is only a partial response to the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017 and EIA EU Directive. For the purposes of this project, Perth & Kinross Council is the developer. The project aims to relieve parts of Perth from traffic congestion and exhaust emissions. In order to achieve this, the project is aiming to redistribute traffic to the outskirts of Perth with consequent redistribution of emissions. The proposals therefore do not provide a solution to problems, they are merely moved elsewhere. These proposals will result in several significant impacts, in addition to which cumulative impacts from developments arising from both Local Development Plans must be considered. The consideration of alternatives must start before embarking on a project as to which solutions overall provide the least impact on the environment and its human populations. This wider assessment must be included as part of the EIA process. 10 Appendix 3.1 Bear Scotland Presumably the date is 2017. The lane closure period identified would still have a significant disruption. Impacts must be assessed and proposals issued for comment, especially to the communities affected. Knock-on effects of closures on other roads must be quantified, such as the B8063 from Lochty to the A9. Forestry Commission Scotland ‘retaining’ is taken to be ‘sustaining’. In addition to tree loss, habitat fragmentation must also be considered. The Phase 2 proposals will fragment the south-eastern extent of the Bertha Park woods, resulting in the loss or irreversible damage of 9.4ha of woodland, a 10% loss from the woods at Bertha Park in the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Phase 1 resulted in the loss of 1.17ha from the Ancient Woodland Inventory from the Bertha Woods to win underling mineral and for the formation of the CTLR. An additional 0.13ha of woodland was lost for the crossing point of the CTLR over the River Almond. This woodland is not in the Inventory; however, its ground flora and recognition on Roy’s map suggests that it was Ancient Woodland that was lost. The CTLR cut through two sections of woodland, resulting in the complete fragmentation of the southern range of the woods. Phase 3 would result in further loss from the Ancient Woodland Inventory and fragmentation; in total 1.30ha. The response from the Consultation Authority appears to be incomplete as there is no reference to The Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006, its overarching guidance. Its vision includes the following; five out of its seven key themes: • Using forestry, and adapting forestry practices, to help reduce the impact of climate change and help Scotland adapt to its changing climate. • Improving the quality of life and well-being of people by supporting community development across Scotland. • Making access to, and enjoyment of, woodlands easier for everyone - to help improve physical and mental health in Scotland. • Protecting the environmental quality of our natural resources (water, soil and air), contributing to and improving our scenery, and helping to make the most of our unique historic environment. • Helping to restore, maintain and enhance Scotland’s biodiversity, and increasing awareness and enjoyment of it. The statement on compensatory planting is not acceptable to the communities affected. Compensatory planting for woodland loss for a development at Tullybelton (16/01307/FLM) resulted in a 23km translocation to another site, completely out of the local context and loss of a community asset. The woodland at Bertha Park has been provided with a Woodland Management Plan under condition 13 of the planning consent for application 15/01109/FLM that includes woodland that would be affected by Phase 2 and 3. The reason for the condition is: “To ensure that the woodland areas are satisfactorily managed and maintained in the long term in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.” Historic Environment Scotland stated compensatory planting was not sympathetic to openness and visibility of the Garden & Designed Landscape.

11 Network Rail no responses to these consultees. Provisions required should be set out in the EIA Report as these may affect the local community. There are no responses to two of the following consultees. A question arises as to how attractive a path beside the CTLR might be in relation to usage. The visualisation at the start of this section, Appendices, illustrates a convergence of busy roads. The experience of access authorities is that the public find walking beside roads unattractive and prefer a circular return to returning by the same route. PKC proposals for lighting are a justification for including light scoped in to the EIA as set out above. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency the road infrastructure allowances referred to are current practice, but if sea levels continue to rise the standard will rise. The EIA must examine what future standards might apply during the life-expectancy of infrastructure, especially the bridge proposed for the River Tay. Flooding on the River Tay is now more frequent than the 1:200-year rainfall event. Scottish Natural Heritage The comments on beavers need to be followed through by a desk study in identifying the location of recorded breeding sites and sightings. Reports and data are available from SNH and the Tayside Beaver Study Group. This should be followed up with a survey of beavers upstream and downstream of the proposals. No reason has been given for scoping out wintering bird surveys. Wetland Bird Survey counts have demonstrated this part of the River Tay is a migratory route, feeding and wintering area. Surveys should be scoped in. As previously stated, Fresh Water Mussel is an invertebrate and surveys for this species are identified. Transport Scotland Departures and relaxations in design should be identified within the EIA and to allow Community Councils to comment on them. The north-bound slip-road off the A9 to Redgorton and Luncarty is less than adequate; three accidents occurred recently in the same week. Road users, pedestrians and others must not be put at risk. Survey Methodology Phase 1 is only suitable for part of the route. Full National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys will be required for woodlands, wetlands, river banks and aquatic habitats to ensure priority habitats are identified and assessed and to satisfy requirements for the River Tay SAC. The field guide for woodland NVCs is useful, but it is a field guide. The publishers state “This Guide is one of a new series of interpretative publications intended to support users of the National Vegetation Classification.” British Plant Communities Volume 1 Woodlands and scrub (Rodwell, 1991) must also be used.

12 20 Spoutwells Road

Scone PH2 6RW

Tel 01738551162

[email protected]

24/09/18

Cross Tay Link Road

Request for Comment on EIA Scoping Opinion

General Comments

The two major pieces of legislation mandatory in this process are The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 and the overarching Directive 2014/52/EU from the European Parliament in April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

A statement by the EU on 24th April, 2018 stated: “Consultation with the public is a key feature of environmental assessment procedures.” Supporting guidance issued by the EU states: “The Directive sets minimum requirements for consultation, requiring that environmental authorities as well as local and regional authorities are given an opportunity to comment on the EIA Report’s scope. In some Member States, EIA legislation extends consultation on scoping to all interested parties, including the general public; while this is not required by law in others, it remains a good practice.

The major planning policy for Scotland is Scottish Planning Policy, published by the Scottish Government in 2014 along with the Scottish National Planning Framework 3.

Our following comments relate to the documents in the Scoping Report prepared by SWECO for Perth & Kinross Council (PKC) with reference to sections by their number.

Scoping Report Introduction 1.1 For the definition of the EIA legislation, there is one project divided into four phases as set out in the first paragraph here.

1.2 The applicant referred to is PKC, but in terms of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017, is more appropriately referred to as the ‘developer’ [2. (a) (i)]. The 'developer' is PKC, although it is pretending the developer is SWECO, however SWECO is a consultant acting on behalf of PKC, therefore PKC is the developer. The EU EIA Directive is strict about having a clear separation between the planning authority and the local authority when both are the same. As such it appears that the process is not in compliance with the EU EIA Directive.

1.3 The Appropriate Assessment Report should be included within the final EIA Report.

Project Description 2.1 In order to complete the EIA, the timing of Phase 3 through Bertha Park needs to be more precise and its cumulative impacts included. The reference to Phase 4 is contradicted by PKC’s website, in the City Enhancements Report, stating “The current focus is on trying to provide some 'Quick Win' solutions that can be implemented without the necessity of the proposed new bridge.” Fig 2.3 Most of this is explained in engineering terms and is impossible to comment on; therefore, this content is unacceptable in its present terms and should be re-issued for comment in language accessible to all.

2.2.3 The construction period is underestimated. Phase 1 is coming to completion 21 months after the start. Phase 2 is more than twice the length, with many logistical constraints to be overcome and more infrastructure to be installed. The disruption to and duration on the road network, including the use of construction traffic on minor roads, the closure of core paths, impacts on local communities and the areas identified on Fig. 1.3 required for construction have to be included in the EIA. This should include an assessment and programme of works set out in a spreadsheet in the usual format.

2.2.4 This section does not embrace the full intentions of the UN in their statement regarding “17 Goals to Transform Our World”. It is the intention to ensure that large-scale sustainable development is fully assessed and consideration given to all of the pros and cons within the EIA. The CTLR cannot be assessed alone, as its aim is to facilitate large-scale developments and the effects of these developments must be included as cumulative impacts arising from the CTLR.

An assessment to include climate change must take account of the Paris Climate Change Conference - November 2015 in light of the projected rise in sea level from 26cm under low greenhouse gas emissions to 98cm under high emissions. The tidal influence of the River Tay reaches the mouth of the River Almond and this, together with high rainfall and snow in the catchment area, requires full consideration to be taken.

If built, the CTLR will need to have a long life-span and the actual design life should be included in the EIA and the bridge crossings assessed for their likely life-span and future replacement. They require to be assessed in terms of sea-level rise combined with high water levels and tidal effects. The banks of the Tay are subject to erosion and the EIA should provide topographical surveys and Lidar data with an analysis of the risks from high water levels and what structures would be required as preventative measures against erosion and flooding.

2.2.6 These proposed mitigations are no substitute for the loss of natural habitats and fail to meet the recognition of proper mitigation. Wildflowers. There is considerable ecological richness in the woodlands at Bertha Park and Muirward Wood, which are in the Ancient Woodland Inventory that cannot be replaced by wildflower seed mixes. Bug hotels. The above is also applicable here. This proposal recognises the importance of invertebrates and therefore invertebrate interest should be scoped in to the EIA reports. Red lighting. There is no definition of ‘applicable’ and its use may be very minor. There is no use of red lighting anywhere in Perth and Kinross where disturbance might be an issue. Bat boxes. The same applies as above in relation to loss of habitat, which are also essential for feeding. Bats are recorded from both woods. Deer deterrents. There are so many potential crossing points that would make this impractical, as so many deterrents would be required. Their effectiveness is unknown.

EIA Consultation.

3.2 Members of staff from PKC and SWECO have advised at meetings that only Phase 2 could be discussed, thus excluding discussion on issues that would affect it, such as other developments indicated in PKC’s Local Development Plan. Therefore, cumulative impact issues which are part of the EIA process were excluded. A number of issues arising have been raised in correspondence with PKC’s CTLR project team, without any resolution being reached. In addition to the LDP 2 proposals have to be considered, a major concern is the lack of detailed information regarding the A9 Link, which will be the largest transport hub on the outskirts of Perth. The EU EIA Directive states: “EIA reports are to be made more understandable for the public, especially as regards assessments of the current state of the environment and alternatives to the proposal in question.”

Planning Policy

4.1.2 SPP 2014 and NPF 3 are wider reaching than expressed since neither “a successful sustainable place” “a low carbon place” “a natural resilient place” “nor a connected place” will be met. The CTLR project and outcomes from both Local Development Plans will fragment communities adjacent to and along its route. If these claims set out in this section are to be met they need to be quantified and addressed in the EIA Report. Fig. 4.1 There are mapping errors for land use in relation to Bertha Park. Phase 1 and 3 should be included to show the full extent and this map should have been produced on at least two sheets as the underlying details are illegible.

Proposed Scope of the EIA

6.2 The claim that the CTLR will reduce traffic flows in the centre of Perth has yet to be proven and this needs a full assessment through the EIA Report that will include the cumulative effect of traffic from the developments included in both development plans that will want to come into Perth. 6.3 The EIA assessment should adhere to the Policy Principles of SPP 2014. In particular, the planning authority will need to be able to ensure that the planning system promotes the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment (including individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape) and its contribution to sense of place, cultural identity, social well-being, economic growth, civic participation and lifelong learning”. The assessment should include “non-designated historic environment” and “the wider cultural landscape” and applies to all communities affected by the route. The significance of the wider importance to the woodlands at Bertha Park has been recognised in a study and this study, with further references, should be included in the EIA assessment. 6.5 Invertebrates should be scoped in and not out as no reason is given for this exclusion, especially as Freshwater Pearl Mussels are present on site. The affected section of the wood at Bertha Park and most of the Highfield Plantation at Muirward Wood are shown on James Stobie’s map of the Counties of Perthshire and Clackmannan published in 1783 and there has been continuous cover ever since on these sites.

6.6 ‘Geology, soils and contamination’ should be scoped in as there is overwhelming policy and guidance on the protection of soil indeed the inclusion of soil is mandatory within Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017. Soil is more than mineral as it contains invertebrates, microbes and mycorrhizal fungi that provide the ecological functioning of soil. There will be substantial excavations of soil at Bertha Park and Highfield Wood, which are significant and these will also affect the cultural landscapes of these communities. 6.9 Consideration in relation to people and communities has not ranged much wider than ‘Non-Motorised User’, but the EIA needs to go far wider to meet the requirements of Section 4 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017. Section 4 includes human health and the EIA must include the significant effects on all kinds of health issues. 6.10 A full Forestry assessment should be scoped in, because forestry is more than a means of tree production and is widely recognised for a range of other benefits. The assessments need to be scoped in to meet the expectations of SPP 2014. The planning system should: protect and enhance ancient semi-natural woodland as an important and irreplaceable resource, together with other native or long-established woods, hedgerows and individual trees with high nature conservation or landscape value. The mitigation assumed as this stage is not proven and needs to be subject to a full EIA. 6.16 Cumulative effects should include an assessment of full occupation of development sites in PKC’s two Local Development Plans and not just build ‘out rate’s, otherwise not all of the significant effects will be recognised.

Technical Annexes

Air Quality

The Scottish Government’s air quality policy guidance (LAQM.PG(S) (16)) 19 sets out the relationship between air quality management and planning in Scotland.

Scottish Government advice is that air quality is likely to be a material consideration for large scale proposals or if they are likely to be occupied by sensitive groups, such as the elderly or young children, or are likely to have cumulative effects.

The route of section C of the CTLR as currently proposed, runs directly above and through the H29 Development and as such breaches these regulations.

We understand that this is a ‘feeder’ road with a speed of 50mph and that traffic that is causing pollution in Scone and Bridgend is, according to this document going to be diverted down the CTLR along with traffic from all the developments planned to feed in (totalling over 1500 houses). The approved masterplan for the H29 Development clearly indicates housing to be predominately used by young parents with children and the elderly live. We are immensely disappointing that this Air Quality section focusses on benefits to current AQMAs and completely ignores the effects transferring this traffic to north Scone on the people of North Scone, especially H29. In mitigation to future pollution, mention is made on p46 of some future exercise to look at cumulative effects (5 lines) but no details are given.

The proposed grade separated junction of the CTLR with the A9 will open a connection to traffic from the Bertha Park development, A85 and traffic from the A93 and A94. Added to this would be traffic from the Luncarty South development, the Stanley development and the proposed park and ride and employment land set out in PKC’s Local Development Plan 2, identified as adjacent to the grade separated junction. The EIA must establish a baseline for air quality within the affected area covered by LRMCC to establish an understanding of present levels. The expected change in air quality and noise must be assessed from all of the sources mentioned

The scoping document itself indicates that Scottish law should not permit this route through H29, as can be seen in both the 2015 Scottish Air Quality regulations and the current Scottish Government Air Quality draft document.

It is therefore essential in our opinion that these points are highlighted as reasons to ensure that the scope of any Air Quality Assessment, submitted with a proposed application, takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved.

Cultural Heritage

We agree with the proposal NOT to Scope Out any aspects of this topic as it can have significant effects on the historic environment. It is therefore essential in our opinion to ensure that the scope of any assessment, submitted with a proposed application, takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

The required assessment must adopt an overall approach to look at the:-  impact of loss of woodland from the Ancient Woodland Inventory on both sides,  impact on both designated landscape and landscape in general,  impact on flood plain,  impact on the River Tay Special Area of Conservation,  impact on Greenbelt, correctly designated

It is therefore essential in our opinion that these points are highlighted as reasons to ensure that the scope of any assessment, submitted with a proposed application, takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved.

Biodiversity

We agree with the proposal to carry out a full ecological impact assessment but consider that invertebrates should NOT be Scoped Out. Invertebrates should be scoped in and not out as no reason is given for this exclusion, especially as Freshwater Pearl Mussels are present on site It is therefore essential in our opinion to ensure that the scope of any assessment, submitted with a proposed application, takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved

Geology, Soils, Contamination & Hydrogeology The statements regarding geological conditions are at best extremely broad, based on desktop studies, since the BGS information for the area is extremely broad. We note that site investigation works have been carried out as part of the preparations for the project and as such these should be fully taken into account and used as substantiation for any decisions taken in the project.

Geology, soils and contamination’ should be scoped in as there is overwhelming policy and guidance on the protection of soil indeed the inclusion of soil is mandatory within Schedule 4 of the EIA Scotland Regs. 2017. Soil is more than mineral as it contains invertebrates, microbes and mycorrhizal fungi that provide the ecological functioning of soil.

The Local Development Plan clearly draws attention to groundwater concerns to the north of Scone and on page 142 clearly states:- “Groundwater flooding will need to be considered as spring and dry valleys are within the site boundary (H29)”. The determination of groundwater can only be ascertained by knowledge of the geology in the area. The scheme information indicates substantial excavation works north of the village and also the proposed H29 Development, which will inevitably have an effect on the groundwater in the area.

As such it is essential that Geology is Scoped IN to the proposals as it will have an effect on the hydrology of the area.

In respect of Hydrogeology, the proposal clearly notes the potential for “significant alterations to groundwater to occur”.

We note the intention to include Hydrology within the Scope of the assessment, but would reiterate our concern that Geology is Scoped IN .

Materials

We note the intention to mitigate the disposal of surplus materials, which could potentially be accommodated in landscape and acoustic bonding. We note that such actions are proposed to be covered in any future MMP/MLP and SWMP.

Noise & Vibration

Traffic noise is the biggest cause of UK noise pollution. It is not just constantly annoying, there is a scientifically proven detrimental effect on health/well-being and the speed passing the school, where this will be clearly audible and distracting to pupils learning. The current noise zones shown in documentation shows that noise as a nuisance will affect all of H29, including the proposed school, and the top of the current existing boundary of North Scone. As a result many of these houses will have the right to claim for insulation to be provided to them by the Council. To avoid these costs the road should be moved to the North. The markers round the area on the map on p7 of the document indicate the noise of cars at 30mph however these must take account of cars travelling at the proposed speed of 50mph. We are concerned that permission is being sought for a road so close to a village and through a development when noise pollution at a significant level affecting health and well-being will occur. The methodology of this section is far from clear. The areas to be included in the assessment are far less than those in PKC’s Stage 2 Report and there is no reason given for this.

It is therefore essential in our opinion that these points are highlighted as reasons to ensure that the scope of any assessment, submitted with a proposed application, takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved.

People & Communities

We agree with the proposal NOT to Scope Out any aspects of this topic as it can have significant effects on NMU’s and the general public. It is therefore essential in our opinion to ensure that the scope of any assessment, submitted with a proposed application, takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved

Agriculture, Forestry & Sporting Interests

The documentation states the proposal to ‘scope out’ any forestry impact assessment but should include information on tree loss and proposed compensatory planting.

The second paragraph of section 9.1, clearly makes reference the loss of forestry and how these impacts are unlikely to be ‘significant’ We consider this to be a poor assumption to make and requires a much more rigorous assessment, which would look at the impact of loss of woodland from the Ancient Woodland Inventory on both sides, the impact on protected species and the impact on designated landscape.

To assume that the proposal is unlikely to have significant impacts’ is far too casual an approach and appears inaccurate with no firm evidence. Considering the area of land and the size of project to be undertaken it would be more likely ‘significant impacts’ would be the case. The irreversible and significant land changing impacts that will occur during this project are such that information to back up such an application requires to be rigorous and speculation should not be used.

Key land uses should not be limited to ‘agriculture and forestry / woodland only and recreational usage must be included. A vast amount of the land usage is for recreational purposes, which is not limited only to local community members but includes recreational use for groups including ramblers, walkers, runners, cyclists, school children and equine groups. We consider it be essential that all aspects are fully consulted and reported upon and it is positive to note that agriculture is being ‘scoped in’ to the assessment.

It is imperative that a Forestry Impact Assessment is NOT ‘scoped out’ on the weak assumption of the impacts of this project not ‘likely’ being significant. It is not enough merely to include descriptions of loss of forestry and relevant planting and mitigation.

The report does note significant effects of the CTLR on NMUs and as a result suggests inclusion within the scoping of an assessment of the impact of the proposed road. Muirward Wood is noted as a significant area for NMUs and therefore there is little logic in scoping out forestry from an impact assessment. It is therefore essential in our opinion that these points are highlighted as reasons to ensure that the scope of any assessment, submitted with a proposed application, includes a Forestry Assessment and takes full cognisance of the statutory and legal aspects involved.

Road Drainage & the Water Environment

We note the reference to the Geology and Soils Annexe and would again reiterate that Geology must be Scoped In.

It is important to note the statement regarding “Cumulative impacts both between interrelated EIA topics on the CTLR Project and other “reasonably foreseeable developments.”

It is particularly relevant in respect of drainage matters as silting of drains and watercourses, together with surcharging of drains and streams can have significant effects on other areas. The types of drainage involved in SUDS systems must be designated as this can affect the groundwater conditions, which as previously stated are of major concern within the area.

Particular importance must be placed on ensuring that the CTLR works do not cause effects outwith the site, both upstream and downstream.

The proposal is to Scope In the whole topic of Road Drainage & the Water Environment, which we commend and trust that full cognisance will be taken of each stage of construction and the finished condition.

Climate

Cumulative impacts from related developments as previously outlined must be included in the EIA. The project may be liable to climate change during the construction phase in relation to working next to the River Tay. The increasing frequency of damaging floods cannot be ruled out.

We agree with the proposal to Scope In the requirement for a GHG Emission Assessment and also a Climate Change Assessment for the completed CTLR.

Socio-economic, Human Health & Major Accidents and Disasters

The report indicates that economic benefits will accrue as a result of the CTLR, which appears to be a very broad assumption and must be clarified more accurately.

We note that it is proposed to include an HIA assessment within the scope of the proposed application and this should include all the impacts on NMU’s and people being able to go about their everyday lives.

In drawing up these assessments it is essential that the proposers fully consult with both NMU’s and the public in general. Previous involvement with the proposers has avoided any consultation with the public and we have concerns as to the relevance of any assessment being included in the documentation.

The implementation of a ‘Place Standard tool’ should not replace proper community consultation, especially since an online tool discriminates many of the community members for various reasons including lack of computer skills and technical know-how. Those that live in the community have a far better understanding of the local area and daily impacts and should be consulted in the simplest way possible.

Whilst we appreciate that details of any future major accidents and disasters can be impossible to determine, the statement that “there will be suitable safety measures included within the design” is in itself inadequate.

We trust that the scope of requirements for the EIA will ensure that full consideration is given to a commitment to incorporate measures for the safety of pedestrians (including children), cyclists and other NMUs. Such provisions should ensure safe crossing points for all such users.

We agree with the proposal to have no specific Assessment requirements in respect of EIAR. However it is therefore essential in our opinion that these points are highlighted as reasons to ensure that the scope of any assessment of other technical areas, submitted with a proposed application, incorporates full cognisance of the EIAR requirements as well as the statutory and legal aspects involved. Regards Hazel Mackinnon, secretary Scone and District Community Council Callum Petrie

From: hazel Sent: 26 September 2018 16:50 To: Development Management - Generic Email Account Cc: Callum Petrie Subject: Additional Scoping Opinion Comments on the EIA for the CTLR from the SDCC

20 Spoutwells Road

Scone PH2 6RW

Tel 01738551162

[email protected]

Planning and Development 26/09/18

35 Kinnoull Street

Perth PH1 5GD

Dear Sir/ Madam Please find several additional comments from the Community Council on the EIA scoping information for the CTLR as follows:

Air quality. This can be tweaked to look at the reverse impact on the movement of traffic on the Stormontfield Road, A93, Muirward Wood and A94 in relation to traffic from Perth via a new route and from the following not currently connected; ie: from the A85, from approvals for the Almond Valley and Ruthvenfield developments, the desire for PKC to open up Perth West, from Bertha Park, the Luncarty South development, development at Stanley and from the A9.

Greenbelt By far the majority of the route is on Greenbelt and most in the Scone area. The test of the robustness of this designation fails public expectation; PKC's policy is given priority over all other considerations. This gives rise to questions about the intended value of Greenbelt within the LDP. A copy of the policy from the LDP follows:

Policy NE5: Green Belt Within the area designated as Green Belt, development will only be permitted where: (a) it can be demonstrated that the development is essential for agriculture, horticulture (including allotments) or forestry operations that are appropriate to the Green Belt. (b) It constitutes woodlands or forestry, including community woodlands. (c) It constitutes uses which advance the Council's aims of improving public access to the countryside around Perth and are appropriate to the character of the Green Belt, including recreational, educational and outdoor sports development including modest related buildings which are located and designed in such a way as not to detract from the character of the Green Belt. (d) For buildings, where it involves alterations, extensions and changes of use to existing buildings, these must not detract from the character of the Green Belt, (in the case of changes of use to residential property, these will only be permitted where the building is of suitable architectural quality). (e) For essential infrastructure such as roads and other transport infrastructure, masts and telecom equipment 1 it must be demonstrated that they require a Green Belt location. (f) For all development within the Green Belt appropriate measures may require to mitigate any adverse impact on the character of the Green Belt.

Notes: 1.) The Housing in the Countryside Policy RD3 does not apply in the Green Belt. 2.) The Council, in partnership with landowners and others, will seek to prepare Supplementary Guidance which will take the form of a management plan for the Green Belt with the aim of developing the following:  A sustainable rural economy  Increased recreational usage.  Landscape enhancement where appropriate.  Improved path network providing links to the wider countryside.  Links to relevant Green Networks within settlements.

These criteria appear to have been ignored,

Regards Hazel Mackinnon, secretary Scone and District Community Council

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

2 APPENDIX 2: Consultee Contact Details

*As per SWECO consult table – not standard to PKC, including non-statutory consultees.

Consultee Contact Name Email Address Historic Environment Scotland Andrew Stevenson [email protected] (HES) PKC Environmental Health Lousie Akroyd [email protected] Officer Kirsty Steven PKC Community Greenspace Jane Pritchard [email protected] Officer PKC Structures and Flooding Russell Stewart [email protected] Team RSPB Claire Smith [email protected] SEPA Debbie Crichton [email protected] SNH Nicki McIntyre [email protected] Transport Scotland Network Rail Mo Johnston [email protected] NHS Public Health Jackie Hyland [email protected] Tayside District Salmon David Summers [email protected] Fisheried Board (TDSFB) Forestry Commission Scotland Neil McFarlane [email protected] Central Perth Community Council Luncarty, Redgorton and George Black [email protected] Moneydie Community Council Scone and District Community Hazel MacKinnon [email protected] Council Bridgend Community Council Jack Rivett [email protected] North Muirton Community [email protected] Council British Horse Society Jennifer [email protected] Helen Mauchlen [email protected] National Farming Union Kate Maitland [email protected] Scotland Perth and Kinross Hertiage Sarah Winlow [email protected] Trust Scottish Water Rebecca Williams [email protected] [email protected] Scotways John Mackay [email protected] Sustrans Neill Malone [email protected]

 Consultees added by PKC (in addition to suggested list supplied)

 Items in red identify no response received. CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND SCOPING

Appendix 5.3 – Consultation Diary

Cross Tay Link Road

Revision Date Version Author Technical Checker Approver Number Reviewer P01 08.01.19 DRAFT E. R McLEAN R McLEAN D RITCHIE COOPER P02 21.10.19 FINAL E. R McLEAN R McLEAN D RITCHIE COOPER BIM Reference: 119046-SWECO-EGN-000-RP-EN-20022

This document has been prepared on behalf of Perth and Kinross Council by Sweco for Cross Tay Link Road. It is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. Sweco accepts no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from Perth and Kinross Council.

Prepared for: Prepared by: Perth and Kinross Council Sweco Pullar House Suite 4.2, City Park 35 Kinnoull Street 368 Alexandra Parade Perth Glasgow PH1 5GD G31 3AU

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Diary

Table 1.1: Consultation Sumamary Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date • It was stated that the priority of BEAR is road safety and ensuring that the duration of any closures on the A9 are minimised • It was agreed that temporary lane closures are acceptable on the A9 dual carriageway as long as the time is minimised, and they are between 09.30 and 15.30 Meeting • It was confirmed that temporary barriers would need to be considered if the rig is working in the verge within 5m of the carriageway BEAR Scotland December 2018 • I was noted that the speed limit could be reduced to 50mph if desired • It was requested that courtesy boards are put up in advance of the works

• Email correspondence highlighted that many equestrians using the areas in and around Scone and Luncarty. • It was also highlighted that the proposed development at Scone is a concern to local riders as the forestry area is frequently used as a riding circuit Email • It was noted that there are a few livery yards in the proposed location with Scone being noted as having a large number of livery establishments. May / June 2018 • Equestrians are noted to use Muirward Wood and the area round the airport. British Horse Society • It was emphasised that safe riding locations is important as Road Traffic Accidents involving equestrians occur on a regular basis. (BHS) • Provided a mark-up of the equestrian routes in the area used by Scottish Endurance Riding Club • Provided a list of livery yards in and around the CTLR study area

Email • Confirmed receipt of the Scoping Report and provided no comments. December 2018

Email • Email highlighted the key concern that there should be a segregated cycle path alongside the road in its full length or along both sides. It was noted that cyclist February 2018 provision should be made at junctions and roundabouts.

• Further feedback was received following the NMU consultation meeting (June 2018): • A buffer zone of over 1.5m is recommended between the main carriageway and the shared path to prevent unpleasant cycling conditions ByCycle • Concerns were raised about potential distractions to drivers from bright cyclist lights. Thus, further emphasising the recommendation to have a larger than 1.5m Email buffer zone. June 2018 • It was highlighted that there are a lot of horses in the Scone area. It was noted that horses are easily spooked by traffic • It was noted that at the proposed crossing at Stormontfield Road would be required to be in accordance with BHS guidance on road crossings for horses. • Highlighted preference is for the south of Stormontfield to remain open for NMU use

• Raised that key points to be considered in the design are as follows:

− To make sure that all paths and pavements are accessible for wheelchair users and also the visually impaired, Centre for Inclusive Email − Dropped kerbs are in the appropriate places Living in Perth and January 2018 − Any crossing points are accessible with dropped kerbs and tactile paving Kinross (CILPK) − there is ramped access on any over passes − appropriate signage on paths.

• Provided an update to the progress of the CTLR Project • No significant issues raised in previous consultation at earlier stages of the project. • Noted the biggest impact on woodland is at Muirward Wood which is mainly used by walkers. There are several stables in the north-eastern extents of the wood. • Noted that and tree loss should be mitigated through replacement planting. • It was noted that there is active tree felling in all areas of woodland impacted by the proposed project Meeting • Felling licence agreed to in advance of any tree felling works on site but noted the scenarios where a felling licence isn’t required (trees under 8cm at breast September 2017 3 height, 1.3m above ground; 5m of trees in a calendar quarter) Forestry Commission • Advised to fell trees outside of breeding bird season Scotland (FCS) • Noted that planting used as screening it can’t be considered as mitigation planting for tree loss. ‘Like for like’ replacement on tree planting is the preferred option but semi-natural woodland could be considered better than like for like planting. Planting should be as close to the loss as possible, or to extend an area of woodland. • It was noted that tree loss is measured by the total tree numbers

Email • It was noted that the woodlands in the study area are well used by the public with some tracks as well as forest roads. There are a number of geocaches located January 2018 within the woodland.

2019 PAGE 1 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date • It was noted that Bertha Park development is retaining most of the tree loss (~1ha). • It was noted that there are some changes to acceptable tree loss mitigation measures. These measures included woodland management and the gifting of land Meeting were discussed. June 2018 • It was stated that compensatory planting does not need to be within the CTLR Project area, the requirement is that it remains within the PKC boundary. • It was noted that FCS will be consulted by HES with regards to tree loss in the GDL • Planting is only considered to be screening if it is defined as so in a planning condition

• As a follow up from the meeting held, it was confirmed that Mansfield Estate owns Highfield Plantation. A map of the woodland areas owned by Mansfield Estate Email was provided. June 2018 • Provided feedback on the compensatory plantation where there is existing woodland in the proposed area to the north of the caravan park, therefore it could be considered as being non-permanent removal.

Email • To check FCS’s opinion on a change to one of the areas of compensatory planting previously proposed. September 2018

Email • Provided scoping response (see Appendix 5.2 for full response) advising that comment has already been provided regarding compensatory planting. October 2018

Email • Advised that area 1 in the compensatory planting plans looks too box like and suggested a landscape appraisal. It was noted that the preference for November 2018 compensatory planting areas should fit into the landscape.

• It was noted that if any items of importance were found at the potential extension of the Roman Camp (North Western Parkland), it would not make the area ‘designated’ • It was confirmed that consent would only be required if works result in a direct impact on a Scheduled Monument or if any Scheduled Monument was flooded. • It was noted that this area of Perth has so many designations and history that there is a fair chance that something would be found during GI boreholes or trial pits. • It was noted that HES would like to see the results from the archaeological investigation • The preference would have been for the road to be out with the GDL, however it was recognised that the current route presents the most appropriate route to go through the GDL with minimal impact. Meeting • It was noted that the Scone North Masterplan Consultation could have useful information to inform the stage 3 assessment (makes reference to screening November 2017 planting). • It was agreed that compensatory planting along the boundary was not sympathetic to the openness and visibility of the GDL. • HES stated they are happy with the approach of categorisation of different areas in the GDL • HES highlighted they would like to provide input to the LVIA mitigation strategy • HES are content with the approach of combining landscape and cultural heritage viewpoints however it is important that they are assessed separately • It was recommended that SuDS ponds should be kept to the south of the Stormontfield Road junction and would be shared once SuDS locations are developed further. • It was stated that the HES department of PKC would deal with any special requirements Historical Environment Scotland Telephone • It was noted that no specific consents/ permissions are required in terms of tree removal in the GDL. (HES) conversation • There is a requirement for the location of trees to be removed, how many trees to be removed and the information on the tree species to be shared with HES. December 2017

• It was confirmed that area 5 from the mapping provided is the area which falls within the Inventory Designed Landscape of Scone Palace Letter • The tree location in area 5 contains mature conifers. It was confirmed that selective felling from GI works will not have a significant impact on the designed January 2018 landscape.

• It was stated that the updated CTLR design appeared to be cleaner due to the changes at Stormontfield Road. • It was noted that the alignment has moved closer to the Scheduled Monument SM4072, north of Scone Racecourse • No concerns were raised about Highfield Plantation NMU bridge, however further discussion will be held. • HES will be updated on accommodation fencing, acoustic barriers and mammal fencing as design progresses Meeting • Queries were raised about the lighting requirements of the road, it was confirmed that the road will be lit at junction locations June 2018 • It was stated that an impact assessment would be required for the proposed temporary works bisecting the SM2403. Further geophysical survey work may be undertaken to determine to location of the best position for the access track. • It was noted that the SM6946 (ring ditch) would be required to be fenced off during construction. It was advised that this area encompasses a buffer zone • The potential for compensatory planting as part of the Scone north development was raised as a potential opportunity.

Letter • HES confirmed that they are content with the areas proposed for compensatory planting

2019 PAGE 2 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date June 2018 • It was noted that although the proposed compensatory planting in the area would be located amongst several scheduled monuments, given the presence of existing trees. • It was recommended that species used in the adjoining woodland areas of historic woodland, to ensure that any new woodland fits with the designed landscape setting. • It was recommended that a percentage of longer lived tree species with fast growing trees to establish the woodland quickly. • HES recommended that consideration is given to planting individual trees along the western side of the GDL. Replanting individual specimen trees in this location would restore the parkland character of this section of the GDL as well as re-introducing trees of high culture and nature conservation value into the area. • Concerns were highlighted about the proposed temporary works crossing the River Almond in proximity to SM2403. A Schedules Monument Consent (SMC) would be required. • Any proposed temporary construction compound at Coney Bank / Loch Eye would be required to be located outwith the scheduled monument area • The area at Sherifftown Wood designated for temporary construction would impact the scheduled monument SM4072 would be required to be located outwith the scheduled monument area.

Email • Received a scoping response (Appendix 5.2) October 2018

• Advised that they have no issues with compensatory planting 20m out with the extent of a scheduled Area, Email • Advised that they are content with the viewpoints proposed as they are in line with previous recommendations November 2018 • They raised that it is important when considering the viewpoints to assess the impact on cultural significance and integrity of setting.

• Concerns were raised on the River Tay construction crossing route through Bertha Roman Fort. A scheduled monument consent would be required for the temporary road. • Noted that Bertha Roman Fort is a complex archaeological monument with significant remains likely to survive close to the surface across the entire scheduled Email area. Therefore, micro siting to avoid the impact is unlikely to be feasible. November 2018 • It was recommended that a significant study of the area would be required to investigate the temporary access route. This will include geophysical surveys, test pitting to determine soil depths across the monument and significant engineering into the design of the road to ensure that nationally important remains are protected from damage.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the options for construction access for the Tay Bridge. • HES stated that the Bertha Fort SM site is a deeply significant site with a significant amount of well-preserved Roman archaeological features close to EGL. It was further stated that micro-siting the road through the SM was not worth pursuing. • It was confirmed that there has been limited investigations in the past and provided the 2008 geophysical survey results • It was also noted that unauthorised metal detecting had taken place on the site in the past which had resulted in a number of finds. • It was stated that as well as the road across the SM, there are concerns about the bridging structure over the River Almond and the impact that the supports would have on the escarpment on the northern bank. Meeting • HES suggested that existing vegetation could be holding the escarpment together and removal of vegetation could have an impact to the southern extents. December 2018 • It was noted that if the access road was considered to cause an impact, the consent would be called to the Scottish Ministers and due to the national significance of the site it would be difficult to make the case. • Ploughed topsoil depth would need to be confirmed on site through isolated trial pitting. • Trial pitting would require a Scheduled Monument Consent • Requested that a WSI is completed prior to additional investigations. • HES noted that they would expect that construction and decommissioning of the road should have archaeological supervision. • It was noted that any scheme which impacts the monument would be contrary to national policy.

• Advised that they would not accept hand augering in the scheduled monument and would therefore prefer hand digging the topsoil in test pits. Email • Hand augering would only be considered where test pits have established that there is no potential to disturb archaeological remains January 2019 • It was noted that HES should take on the role of curator in the WSI

Email • Scheduled Monument Consent was granted for Bertha Roman Fort with the condition that 1 weeks’ notice is provided prior to any works commencing March 2019

Email • As the development is above the Normal Tidal Limit (NTL) a marine licence would not be required Marine Scotland January 2018 • Marine elements would not be required in any EIA

National Farming Union • No response provided through consultation and no scoping response provided. Scotland (NFU Email and Voicemail Scotland)

2019 PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date • It was noted that the railway track at the location of the proposed crossing is on embankment and therefore vehicle incursion is unlikely to be a problem. • The ground levels to the west of the track could be an issue. Requirement to ensure flooding issues are no worse than existing post construction. • National Rail would expect a presence on site during construction works adjacent and over their boundary. Requested to see methodologies beforehand. • It was raised that the provision of suitable welfare facilities is an ongoing concern for Network Rail • Signal siting was raised as a potential issue as the track is on a curve at this location. Meeting Held • It was confirmed that the vertical clearance of the track should include the future electrification of the line. This desirable clearance is 6.335m. October 2018 • It was noted that a bridge agreement would be required • The need for possession of the railway for works taking place is required • Concerns were raised of the ‘biggest’ constraint of access to the eastern side of the railway • Parapet requirements would need to be standard installation – 1.8m high, 4Ha containment with steeple copes • Concerns of the GI are for the access to borehole locations and not the works • It was raised that a stability analysis may be required subject to earthworks and drainage proposals

• It was discussed that over sailing rights will be required for the Tay Crossing spanning the railway, which will be progressed through the CPO process • Network Rail had no major requirements at this stage and would reserve comment until the design is developed further Meeting • Transport Scotland may invest in the upgrade of signalling, loop control and electrification of the line in the future February 2018 • The bridge at the Whinnies was previously agreed that they would be no issue provided the vehicles are limited to 40 tonnes. • A 1.8m parapet over the Tay Crossing will only be required if the railway is electrified.

• It was confirmed that Network Rail will need to use the access road to take access to existing structural assets • Network Rail noted that neither of the Tay Crossing construction access options are optimal due to the associated constraints therefore it is being looked at for Network Rail smaller regular deliveries would be taken through the underbridge with larger deliveries being taken over the railway via a temporary access. • Any potential for to reduce the road level under the underpass was only feasible through intrusive investigations including trial pits to determine the foundation extents and form. • A full assessment and permanent works design would be required and would need approval prior to works proceeding Meeting • Any approach to the bridge would need to be managed through the use of goal post systems April 2018 • Night time rules of the route possessions would be preferred rather than using watchmen under open line working during the day. • It would not be possible to operate the crossing point during the day under open line conditions as there is future aspiration to increase train frequency on the route to every 30 mins. • Any access would be under full time supervision by Network Rail and would plan all line blocks required. • Network Rail noted that they would construct the temporary construction access themselves. However, the CTLR contractor would construct the approach earthwork ramps to the crossing in advance • The proximity of the temporary piled supports to the railway will need careful consideration.

• It was agreed that horizontal clearances to permanent and temporary structures are to be in accordance with Network Rail requirements • The design team noted the preference of balances cantilever with a CFT (Cantilever Former Traveller) for the construction method. However, option 2 of Temporary trestle supports with formwork supported over railway is preferred by Network Rail on the basis that it is better understood Meeting • It was queried whether excavation or piling for temporary piers would be required in the existing railway embankment. February 2019 • Detailed work phasing plans would be required for works adjacent to and over the railway. • There was no requirement for pier protection from a Network Rail perspective • The Network Rail boundary may not match the railway boundary. However, this isn’t predicted to be an issue as the contractor maintaining a secure boundary to the railway boundary during construction.

• Concerns were raised regarding the traffic impacts at the Broxden and Inveralmond roundabouts • Advised that they are happy with the consultation that has been undertaken • Requested the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is located in a separate chapter of the EIAR which is to provide a cohesive chapter outlining all the potential Meeting health impacts. National Health Service September 2018 • Noise impacts as a result of the proposed CTLR is the key concern. (NHS) – Directorate of • It was highlighted that the construction stage and the programming of this is the most significant concern to the public health. In particular, the cumulative Public Health construction impacts. • Encouraged the use of the place standard Scotland tool

Email • Scoping response was provided (Appendix 5.2) and feedback was provided on the digital scoping report. November 2018 • Positive feedback was provided for the digital scoping report.

Perth Airport / Scottish • Noted that the airport is currently allocated for employment use in the Perth LDP, but are looking to change this to mixed use to accommodate future Meeting Aero Club development

2019 PAGE 4 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date July 2018 • It was advised that there is consent for residential apartments in the airport grounds which is linked to CTLR being in place. Existing consent is 50 units with aspirations for 150 over 20 years. • A further development linked to the CTLR at Balbeggie was noted • The main concern raised is for the A94 to be future proofed to allow for a cycleway/footway connection to link Scone to the airport. • It was noted that up to 50 planes take off and land each day in the airport

• Ramblers highlighted key areas to consider for NMU provision in design • Highlighted the requirement for pedestrian access cross the re-aligned A9 Email • Noted that it would be beneficial for access to the two core paths either side of the River Tay to be provided from the CTLR. January 2018 • Queried the accommodation of the route core path SCON/139 at Stormontfield roundabout. Perth and District • Queried the provision of a footway along the length of the CTLR Ramblers • Following the NMU meeting in June 2018, further comments were provided from Perth and District Ramblers: Email • Concerns were raised about core path LUNC/124 due to at-grade crossing of the A9. June 2018 • Reiterated the desire to have a link to connect the core paths either side of the River Tay (LUNC/102 and SCON/140/1) to the CTLR. • Safe access across the realigned A9 to Bertha Park was highlighted as being important to the core path (LUNC/102 and LUNC/2)

• Noted main paddling activities are in the Stanley area where there are white-water rapids and in the Perth town area. Email • Highlighted key concern would be the timescales of the development and how long it would make the section of the river unnavigable Perth Canoe Club January 2018 • Recommended the implementation of access/ egress points both upstream and downstream of the construction works

• It was acknowledged that there has been very little archaeological investigation within the Tay River corridor, but there have been a number of significant finds, therefore a pier in the river is not suitable. • It was noted that the designation for the Grassy Walls Roman camp and prehistoric settlement, Sheriffton was a strange shape. There is a possibility to amend the designation to reflect the protected area Meeting • It was noted that limited geophysics has been undertaken in the scheme location. It was highlighted that geophysics does not seem to work that well in the area January 2018 due to the geology of the ground conditions • It was highlighted that survey within the woodland would not be possible and that trial trenching would be proposed in the area during the GI • No site investigations were undertaken in the area prior to 2000 (e.g. the race course) • It was noted that for the Bertha Park development, investigations covered 6% of the development Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) • Advised a two-level approach for the archaeological trial trenching: High or Moderate/Low Email • Advised the recommended High and Moderate/Low sensitivity areas September 2018 • Some areas in the Moderate/Low category may require targeting samples of geophysical anomalies

Email • Scoping response was provided (Appendix 5.2) October 2018 • Positive feedback was provided on the digital scoping response

Email • Consultation was undertaken to determine PKHTs view on the written scheme of investigations for the archaeological trenching Janurary 2019 • PKHT advised that they are happy with the approach adopted for the archaeological investigations

• It was noted that the sensitive environmental receptors are generally the various surface waters in the vicinity of the scheme, shallow groundwater within PSSR Meeting granular soil in the vicinity of the River Tay and the bedrock groundwater in the higher surrounding areas. September 2017 • The Sottish Water abstraction near Muirton may require further consideration even though it is 1km downstream as it supplies water to the most of Perth

Geo-Structures • Discussion of the draft GI locations and that the scope is based on a worst case structural option. Consultation meeting • It was requested that the access requirements and long-term maintenance will be considered alongside the appreciation of 120 year Whole Life Costing made October 2017 •

Perth and Kinross • It was noted that the PKC policy is generally to not light unrestricted rural roads, however roundabouts would need to be lit Council (PKC) • AJ Stephens have requested that the section between Highfield Road and the A94 is to be designed as a ‘Street’ with reasonable priority given to NMUs Lighting Team crossing the road to minimise severance. Any changes will require the section to be lit. Meeting • It was noted that a segregated shared use footway/cycleway is proposed along the full length of the CTLR. The cycleway would need to be lit. Potentially by low November 2017 level solar studs. • The A9 overbridge lighting columns would need to be positioned on blisters • It was requested that a 100mm duct is provided along both verges of the CTLR for future proofing

EHO Meeting • The receptors which were used at DMRB Stage 2 did not include Bertha Park or Highfield, these would need to be considered at DMRB Stage 3

2019 PAGE 5 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date April 2018 • Noise modelling requirements to be a mix of short term attended and long term unattended monitoring to provide information on the diurnal profile and short term noise sources • It was highlighted that at some locations the ‘with development’ scenario would be significant due to the prevailing levels of environmental noise. • Air Quality modelling to be concentrated in Perth City Centre, however, some locations should be reviewed for suitability • It was highlighted that a Regional Air Quality Model undertaken for PKC assessed the impacts from CTLR • It was highlighted that for the 2037 scenarios, it would be difficult to separate the impacts from CTLR with the other developments in a sensible manner. Further discussion to be had.

• Following the NMU meeting held in June 2018, the PKC Greenspace Officer provided comments. • If possible, it would be advantageous to have a greater than 1.5m buffer between the segregated NMU route and the CTLR road. • Alternative low maintenance green / constructed barriers were recommended as an option. • It was recommended to include a connection linking NCN at Inveralmond to the cycling core path (LUNC/102) Luncarty. A link to the CTLR River Tay bridge was recommended. It was noted that this would be required to be for all users. • Recommendation to minimise shared use sections along the core path LUNC/102 to Luncarty. Email • It was highlighted that it would be beneficial to improve safe crossing of the A9 at the bus stop locations. June 2018 • It was noted that a linkage to the CTLR bridge and the core paths either side of the River Tay. • A ramped NMU link between the CTLR bridge and core path SCON/140 was highlighted as being important. • An NMU link to the stopped up section of Stormontfield Road was noted as being beneficial to maintain connectivity to the Palace for events. • It was highlighted as being important to connect the core paths SCON/30 and SCON/11 along the A93. • The opportunity for a green bridge in Highfield Plantation for NMUs is supported. It was noted as being beneficial to be located near the roundabout. The potential for additional linking routes is to be established. • Core path SCON/123 is highlighted as being beneficial for being improved and linked as part of the scheme.

Email • It was advised from the EHO that the North Scone development would need to be considered at Stage 3 EIA July 2018

• PKC EHO agreed that no additional air quality monitoring is required to support model verification of the proposed Rapid Air dispersion modelling Email • Air Quality modelling was advised to be undertaken for all receptors identified for the DMRB Stage 2 assessment with additional indicative receptor locations at October 2018 the proposed Bertha Park and Scone residential developments. • The CTLR and consented developments should be assessed for the potential cumulative emission effects on air quality

Email • Scoping responses received (Appendix 5.2) October 2018

• It was noted that the A9 is the most complicated earthworks section, in particular the design of the A9 interchange embankments where ground improvements Meeting have been considered. Geotechnical • It was confirmed that settlement was expected to be in the region of 200mm with over 70% during construction. Structures • A longer maintenance period for surfacing behind structures was recommended to be considered Janurary 2019 • It was confirmed that a minimum 600mm freeboard was achieved at both piers

• It was stated that consideration must be given to the face that PKC Greenspace currently only cut verge grass and other grass areas once a year. The design should consider this • The landscaped treatment of the bunded earthworks adjacent to the Bertha Loch Burn was advised to be more appropriately developed as functional open space to consider the development masterplan. • The concept of the parking area to the grubbed-up section of the A9 was supported and encouraged to be referred to as the ‘park and cycle’ • The SuDS pond at Bertha Fort is to be reshaped if possible Meeting Landscape • Encouraged the softening of the woodland edge along the A9 & Greenspace • It was noted that the owner of Denmarkfield House has expressed an interest in taking ownership and maintenance of woodland areas which may be created as February 2019 a part of the scheme • Encouraged the introduction of scrub vegetation on the earthworks at the eastern approach to bridge to reinforce riparian woodland. • Where possible, it is encouraged to return the land to agricultural use following construction works. • Maintenance of fencing through the GDL was discouraged due to maintenance costs • The SuDS wetland area received support as it was viewed as a positive feature of the scheme. • It was noted that the preference for Stormontfield Road was to retain the similar feature of the existing road. • The preference for tree planting along field boundaries instead of along the road was noted

Email • Confirmation that they are happy with the proposed landscape viewpoint locations.

2019 PAGE 6 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date February 2019

• It was noted that the only concern with the CTLR alignment was the relationship with Phase 4 of the Scone North development. • It was advised that the planning portal has a 10MB file size limit and it was agreed that files should be named appropriately so it is clear what they are Meeting PKC • It was agreed that it would be useful to agree on file names in advance of submission Planning Team • It was stated that each technical environmental chapter would have an executive summary, so the assessment results can be easily found. February 2019 • It was agreed that a digital format for the EIA is deemed acceptable as long as it contained the same information as the submission • A feedback section is to be included on the PKC website to allow comments on the digital EIA to be gathered. • It was agreed that it would be useful for the draft PAN to be submitted to PKC Planning for initial review

• Unaware of breeding Schedule 1 raptors likely to be affected by the development • Encourage engagement with the local bird recorder to determine species in the wider area are as well as the requirement for breeding bird surveys Email • Noted the woods around Scone Palace support a breeding population of Hawfinch and is the most important site in Scotland for this species January 2018 • It was highlighted that all woodland loss in this area is to be kept to a minimum, compensatory planting is required and any tree clearance works must be undertaken outside breeding bird season RSPB Scotland • Noted the presence of Tawny Owls in some woods and advised on one next box in Highfield that is occasionally used • It was also noted that there is likely to be Buzzard, Sparrowhawk, Kestrel and Barn Owl in the CTLR study area Email • Confirmed no known Osprey sites in the area April 2018 • Raised the importance of Hawfinch data for the project • Encouraged any tree removal is kept to a minimum and that any tree clearance is outwith breeding season

• Noted that the club welcomes the increased activity to the facilities as the new road allows members to access the club without going through Perth Email • However, highlighted that the CTLR will make the area more attractive to developers which will have a negative impact to the Aero Club. Scottish Aero Club January 2018 • Advised that the airport has been in operation since 1936 and is an active training airport, maintenance facility and home to over 100 locally owned light aircrafts.

• Highlighted that Scottish Canoe Association has no significant concerns at this stage. Email Scottish Canoe • Requested that the River Tay is kept safely navigable as much as possible January 2018 Association • Noted that they are happy to work with us to devise an alternative route during construction

• It was stated that two levels of treatment in accordance with the SuDS manual would be applicable • It was noted that ponds are not necessary at all outfalls and the appropriate solution would be assessed on a case by case basis. However, pre-attenuation features are not favourable as they offer no treatment • CIRIA Simple Index method should be applied to the outfall solutions • SEPA advised that they will accept a shut off on the SuDS facility outlet to deal with accidental spillages/ pollution incidents • It was noted that SEPA do not have a model for Cramock Burn and do not have a specific requirement for the model for the FRA. • It was highlighted that compensatory storage would be required if the road infrastructure impinges on the floodplain for Cramock Burn. • Emphasis was made to ensure that the road infrastructure will need to be above a 1:200yr rainfall event + freeboard (~600mm) + climate change allowance Meeting • SEPA require attenuation within the pond for 1:200yr event and protection from inundation for 1:30yr event September 2017 • It was confirmed that the developments that have permission to begin construction do not need to be incorporated into the model • SEPA noted their preference to stay out of the watercourse regarding piers, however no permanent options are completely dismissed. Scottish Environment • It was raised that SEPA discounted any option of temporary works where part of the river bank was lost to form a causeway. Protection Agency • It was highlighted that dredging would not be accepted by SEPA (SEPA) • SEPA noted that any potential bed disturbance at minor watercourses during construction should be avoided where possible. • Noted that SEPA do not have any specific requirements for the water quality assessment • It was stated that pearl mussed were spotted in the section of the River Tay • SEPA raised that a Scottish Water abstraction point for Perth is located at the confluence between the River Tay and River Almond

• It was agreed that a minimum of 2 levels of SuDS treatment is required prior to each drainage outfall. The assessment will also consider routine runoff and accidental spillage calculations to demonstrate that SuDS mitigation is appropriate. SEPA agreed with this method. Joint meeting with • CAR pre-application discussion will take place at an appropriate time during the EIA Report. It was recommended that Sweco apply for draft CAR licences prior SNH to the construction tender. June 2018 • Deer fencing was raised as a concern by SNH and the fencing will have to be based in evidence and designed to relate to the character of the landscape • It was noted that there are not any specific requirements for the mitigation planting, but it was noted that native species would be preferred • SNH noted that deer mitigation will need to be carefully considered as if deer are deemed to be an issue, deer fencing would be required. • SNH noted that it would be preferable for a crossing of the CTLR.

2019 PAGE 7 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date • SNH noted that any crossing of the CTLR at Highfield would be welcomed.

• Raised that the link road may encroach into an area of functional floodplain of the Cramock Burn and/or the River Tay to the north of Perth Racecourse. • The assessment on flood risk would need to consider the River Tay, the Crammock Burn, the Bertha Loch Burn and other small watercourses along the route of the new road and surface water. Email • Consideration of the groundwater and subsurface drainage would be required at the cutting of Highfield July 2018 • Advised that abutments should be located outwith the functional floodplain • Recommended that the hydraulic model would better represent the channel, structures and floodplain at Cramock Burn than the SEPA Flood Map. • It was noted as being expected that bridge and culvert crossings will be designed so that there is not a restriction to design flows which would result in the backing up of floodwater and increasing flooding to property or causing the new road to flood.

• It was advised that SEPA will take a pragmatic approach to appraising mitigation, providing the proposed can demonstrate the CTLR causes no detrimental impact to flood risk on receptors • Mitigation should demonstrate that there will be no detrimental impact upon the water environment • It was noted that the agreed approach to mitigation is to contain flooding by raising an embankment beyond the southern bank of the burn and the west of the CTLR. • It was confirmed that CAR licencing would be required for any river engineering works associated with this option. The licence would consider the length of the Meeting proposed embankment and the peak depth of water created September 2018 • Any requirements for attenuation may be reduced due to existing attenuation schemes further upstream in the Bertha Loch Burn catchment. • It was raised that the allowance of letting the burn flood was not favoured by PKC due to the large land purchase requirements and long term maintenance. • SEPA noted that works by Scottish Water in the proposed area of flooding, therefore Scottish Water may have an interest in the mitigation design for the CTLR. • Concerns were raised that Transport Scotland are planning to realign a section of the A9 by Luncarty and any conflicts in works. • A precautionary approach was recommended to design mitigation without the inclusion of a potential attenuation of flows in Bertha Loch Burn upstream associated with Bertha Park. • It was clarified that SEPA generally require temporary structures to achieve 1 in 200 year protection against flooding

• It was advised that culvert maintenance would need to be discussed with PKC Flooding Team to avoid blockages. • It was confirmed that a 300mm is an acceptable freeboard level for Stormontfield Road. • It was agreed that compensatory storage is not required at Bertha Loch Burn. • It was requested that the FRA states that there is no detrimental impact to flood risk as a result of Bertha Loch Burn. • It was noted that containing flows within the channel could increase velocities and should be explored further. • It was agreed that a 300mm freeboard with a separate mammal passage was acceptable for the A9 culvert providing there was no increase in flood risk. It was advised that PKC would be required to maintain the culvert to minimise sediment build up • It was noted that nothing had been approved in terms of the sewage works for Bertha Park development, therefore it was agreed that the embankment is a suitable flood protection. • It was confirmed that a maintenance regime would be required after high flows and that no development would be supported behind this informal scheme of an embankment. Meeting • A complex CAR licence would be required as the proposed embankment is 150m long and 0.7m high. December 2018 • The Broxy culvert is proposed as a ~200m culvert with a freeboard of over 600mm which would not increase the risk of flooding. It was noted that if authorisation is required then it would be a simple CAR licence. • It was clarified that the Tay Crossing piers would fall under ‘Guidance of activities in the vicinity of inland waters and activities affecting surface water depended wetlands. • It was advised that any watercourse realignment would require a CAR licence regardless of the dimensions • A project based construction licence could be progressed by PKC or alternatively a construction licence could be prepared an submitted by the eventual contractor. • It was advised that it is possible to set out the licence then complete the Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) at the time of construction. • It was explained that the drainage in both existing and proposed regimes in the drainage outfalls go from a high point to a low point at the SuDS pond. • It was advised that two levels of treatment are provided where feasible. •

• It was highlighted that the preference was to minimise any tree loss • SNH noted that the preference is to have a structural solution to the crossing of the River which does not include a permanent structure in the River Tay and SAC. Scottish Natural Meeting • The protection of freshwater mussels and fish would be a key concern when considering both temporary works and construction activities Heritage (SNH) September 2017 • It was stated that surveys would be required before any works could take place in the river. These surveys would be best completed when the water level is low. • A licence to remove freshwater mussels would be required if they are present in the surveys. To be granted the licence it would need to be proven that there is no suitable alternative.

2019 PAGE 8 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date • There is the potential that SNH would accept temporary structures in the river, however this is dependent on the outcome of the surveys. • It was recommended to undertake surveys prior to the GI works to confirm the presence of protected species • SNH stated that GI works can take place up to 5-10m of the Tay, subject to acceptable method statements and mitigation in place. • It was noted that if appropriate conditions for Lamprey are identified, fish surveys would be required. It would be acceptable to electro-fish to move them to the immediate area. • It was decided that for the purpose of the CTLR project that beavers are considered as a European Protected Species • SNH stated that they would accept either separate mammal tunnels or appropriately sized culverts with suitable mammal ledge provision. • It was confirmed that SNH are happy that wintering bird surveys are scoped out of the EIA • SNH stated that fresh water invertebrate surveys would not be required but should be compliant with the conditions of the SAC. • Appropriate surveying of INNS should be undertaken as certain species exist within the project extents

Joint meeting with • See comments in SEPA SEPA June 2018

• Advised that reference is made to the SEA (00463) and the comments associated with it, in particular those on the River Tay Special Area of Conservation. Email • Recommendation to check for carbon rich soil in the CTLR area January 2018 • The Sidlaw Hills Special Landscape Area should be considered in the assessment

•

Email • Confirmation that there is no objection to the proposed pier positions and the use of cofferdams for the Tay crossing July 2018 • Highlighted that impacts will need to be avoided to the FWPM.

Email • Provided a scoping response (Appendix 5.2) October 2018

Email • SNH advised that as soils are a non-renewable resource, it is important for large scale developments to fully explore soils at EIA November 2018

• It was advised that the proposed viewpoints were on or close to the line of the CTLR. Therefore, are considered to too obviously pass the test of being Email significantly impacted. This would mean that any mitigation of effects on views would not be relevant or achievable. November 2018 • SNH provided recommended viewpoint locations • Comments were provided on the proposed compensatory planting locations.

Email • Provided comments on the digital scoping report. Advised that their preference is the traditional method of reporting November 2018 • Advised that they liked the interactive maps

Email • It was confirmed that no further survey effort is required for pearl mussels for the EIA Report. December 2018

Email • They would like the link route to Luncarty to be taken account of during the design process. January 2018 • Would be keen to see provision made for cyclists as part of the crossing designs Sustrans Voicemail / Email • Requested feedback for the scoping response. No feedback was received. November 2018

• It was highlighted that the key interest in the project was the crossing of the River Tay • It was noted that TDSFB do not object to piers in the river, however it has the possibility to divide opinion • Key issues would be in relation to the disruption of fishing rights during construction, potential in-channel works and visual instruction from a new crossing structure Meeting • It was noted that fish surveys had not been undertaken in the proposed section of the River Tay due to its size. September 2018 Tay District Salmon • Noted that the riverbed would be a suitable spawning habitat Fisheries Board • It was noted that pearl mussels are very likely in that section of the Tay (TDSFB) • It was highlighted that the preferred period for in-channel construction works would be January to June • TDSFB noted that recreational activity is predominately upstream

Meeting • Concerns were noted about flooding around the River Almond May 2018 • Concerns about the vertical clearance of the bridge for angers were raised • It was recommended that the installation and extraction of coffer dams were out-with the main fishing season (July – October)

2019 PAGE 9 OF APPENDIX 5.3

CHAPTER 5 APPENDIX 5.3 CROSS TAY LINK ROAD CONSULTATION DIARY EIA REPORT (VOLUME 2)

Consultation Type / Key Issues and Points Raised Consultee Date • The optimal time for surveys would be between June and July for the River Tay

Voicemail / Email • Requested feedback for the scoping response. No feedback was received. November 2018

• It was confirmed that direct access on the new A9 would not be acceptable • It is expected that two lanes of traffic in both directions are to be kept open for the majority of the duration of the construction, however it is acknowledged that suitable traffic management and single lanes may be permitted • It was highlighted that the A9 is a high load route, therefore 6.45m headroom is required • It was ruled out that the use of concrete safety barrier in the central reserve • Agreement was made that the Departures and Relaxations in the geometry design would need to be discussed and agreed with the TS standard branch Meeting • Current default for SuDS ponds is for them to be fenced, will look to confirm this approach at a later date

Transport Scotland • It was noted that TS do not object to the use of swales, however it was queried if it is necessary as the route is adjacent to the River Tay October 2017 • The requirement for the provision of NMU links were highlighted and it was noted that the expectation was for the connections to existing routes N/S and E/W to be considered in the design. • It was considered that a crossover would be desirable to the north of the Inveralmond Roundabout if possible • The preference of Transport Scotland is to have open aspect structures with a maximum height of 1.8m. • It was noted that Transport Scotland would look to avoid piers in the central reserve and would expect the bridge to be low maintenance and fully integral • It was stated that AIPs will be required for Transport Scotland’s structures

• It was advised that a review and value engineering exercise was taken on the DMRB Stage 2 Alignment • In principle, it was confirmed that TS were content with the design proposals and noted their likely acceptance of the weaving length departure on the southbound diverge Meeting • It was encouraged that a departure is submitted to address the technicality of a RRS to be installed along the length of a two-way loop January 2018 • The change in noise ratios were advised that they may not technically comply with Section 4 of TD22, • It was noted that the redrafting of TD09 is ongoing and that a new revision of this standard may be published towards the end of 2019. • It was noted that TS would accept the CTLR Project being taken forward based on current standards

• It was confirmed that structures should have a maximum abutment height of 1.8m • It was advised that layby provision and to be looked at if the laybys could be provided at bus stop locations. Meeting • It was explained that a park and ride facilities is being proposed in close proximity to the A9 May 2018 • A 3 span A9 overbridge design was preferred. • Crosshead beams were noted as not being acceptable • TS advised that the CTLR will have to adhere to the aesthetic guide

• It was agreed that no parking layby’s were required • The inclusion of bus stops on the A9 are designed for a like-for-like basis and that this would result in a departure. The use of bus shelters was encouraged to Meeting reduce the change of road users mistaking the bus stops as slip roads. September 2018 • In principle, the bus stop proposals were agreed by all in the meeting. • The interface with the utilities associated with Bertha Park will need to be considered

• It was requested that road direction signs are bi-lingual Meeting • It was explained that departures for local authority roads which interface with TS road are usually submitted to TS for information February 2019 • TS confirmed that CCTV coverage will be required across the new A9 junction

2019 PAGE 10 OF APPENDIX 5.3

Chapter 5 – Consultation and Scoping October 2019 PAGE 0 OF CHAPTER 6 Appendix 5.4 – Q&A Document (Spring 2018)

July 2018

Perth Transport Futures Project, Phase 2 Cross Tay Link Road

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Perth Transport Futures Project, Phase 2 | Cross Tay Link Road Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions – Questions & Answers

The Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) is the second phase of Perth Transport Futures Project. Perth & Kinross Council appointed Sweco to design the CTLR in July 2017. The design is currently ongoing and more information on this scheme can be found on the project website: www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/cross-tay-link-road

The Council, along with representatives from The consultation sessions were a success with Sweco, carried out public consultation sessions on over 400 members of the public attending over the the design of the Cross Tay Link Road in Spring various events, demonstrating the importance of 2018. These sessions were a chance for the this project to the local area. Many questions were public to view the current plans, ask any questions asked and answered on the day but questions were and give their views on the current design. The also sent to the Council after the events by email. following sessions were held: Rather than reply to individual queries on a case by case basis, the questions have been collated and answers given in this ‘questions and answers’ 21 May 2018 14:00 to 18:00 document. This will ensure that everyone who sent Perth Concert Hall, Perth in a query will see all questions that have been asked at the consultation sessions along with the answers given therefore ensuring that everyone 23 May 2018 16:00 to 19:00 who has taken part is as informed as possible about the scheme. Luncarty Memorial Hall, Luncarty The following questions and concerns were raised by members of the public during the 28 May 2018 14:00 to 20:00 consultations. These are listed along with an answer to the question and, where applicable, RDM Institute, Scone the proposed actions associated with the issue.

18 June 2018 16:00 to 19:00 Coupar Angus Town Hall

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 1 Q1 Q2 Should the Cross Tay Link Road How will the CTLR affect (CTLR) be a dual carriageway pedestrian access in and around rather than a single carriageway? Highfield woods?

There were significant concerns over future Concerns were raised over the CTLR severing the proofing the Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) for paths to and within the woods. Many consultees increases in traffic volumes in the coming decades. noted how well used these paths are and that they Many consultees were of the opinion that it should need to be retained wherever possible. be a dual carriageway. ANSWER ANSWER It is acknowledged that a section of the CTLR There is no need for the CTLR to be dual route severs this area of woodland and some of carriageway based on the traffic modelling which the paths within it. The project team are aware includes all development in the current LDP and of the significance of this to the local community. is projected up to 2038. Therefore the additional Various options are being considered to mitigate environmental impact, land take and cost this severance including pedestrian crossings, associated with a dual carriageway cannot not be toucan crossings and provision of a pedestrian and justified. wildlife bridge to retain the connection between the woodland on either side of the CTLR. The project team is working with various external user groups and access officers within the Council to establish the best solutions for this issue. Proposals will be presented to the public at the next round of consultations in early 2019. Q3

What impact will the CTLR have ANSWER on Highfield Woodland? The CTLR cuts through Highfield woodland at a lower level than the existing woodland floor. This Concerns were raised about the environmental will result in a significant excavation through the impact of the road in this area and specifically the woodland and the loss of an area of trees. Work is loss of woodland which is an amenity to the local already underway to identify areas for tree planting community and a habitat for local wildlife. to compensate for the loss of this woodland and habitat. This is being done in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, Historic Environment Scotland and the landowner. As stated above the project team are also working on solutions to ensure connectivity of the woodland for use by the local community and wildlife once the CTLR is in place.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 2 Q4 Q5 What will be the speed limit What will be done to mitigate the on the CTLR? noise and air pollution caused by vehicles throughout CTLR route? Concerns were raised over the proposed 50mph speed limit through the section of the CTLR Concerns were raised over noise and air pollution through the future H29 housing development at due to the traffic being routed through this area. Scone North. Comments were received stating that Specifically, mention was made of the caravan they believed that this section should be a 30mph park at Scone Estates, Balboughty Farm cottages speed limit. and the Scone North development (H29).

ANSWER ANSWER The speed limit will be 50mph on the mainline The noise and air quality impacts of the CTLR will CTLR from its junction with the A94 to its junction be assessed as part of the EIA that will accompany with the A9. The project team are currently the planning application for the scheme. Where reviewing the proposed speed limit on the A94 required, mitigation will be proposed as part of for when the CTLR is in place and it is likely that the design. This will not be decided until next there will be a reduced speed limit on the A94 year when the latter stages of the EIA have which extends further north than it does at present. been reached and the impacts can be properly It should be noted that the section of the CTLR determined. Examples of typical mitigation include through the Scone North (H29) development will noise barriers, landscaping and earth bunds. It need to be reviewed and will likely be reduced is likely that these type of mitigation features will to a 30mph once this phase of the development need to be included at sensitive areas along the commences and is completed. CTLR route in the final design.

Q6

What impact will the CTLR have on ANSWER local drainage systems and will it The CTLR will be subject to a full flood risk cause any flooding problems? assessment which will be submitted as part of the planning process. All drainage systems will have Queries were raised over the design of drainage the required attenuation built in to the design as systems for the CTLR and the flood assessments well as two levels of water treatment to ensure that that will need to be carried out as part of the the CTLR does not exacerbate flooding or pollution planning process. of local watercourses.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 3 Q7 Q8 Is Stormontfield roundabout being What impact will the CTLR have adequately designed to cope with on the landscape with regard to events at Scone Palace and the excavations? racecourse? Queries were raised with regard to the extent of Concerns were raised over the design of this the excavations required and the resultant effect roundabout and whether it will be sufficient to allow on the landscape through the CTLR corridor. for event traffic entering and exiting Scone Palace or the racecourse. ANSWER There will be significant excavations required as ANSWER part of the scheme. At present it is estimated that The CTLR and the widened Stormontfield Road the CTLR east of the River Tay will require the are being designed to accommodate, where excavation of approximately 150,000 cubic metres possible, for events at the race course and Scone of material. This has been reduced from 330,000 Palace. Extra lanes will be provided on the cubic metres over the past year through design roundabout exits (CTLR and Stormontfield Road review and alterations as the project team seek to south) to ensure that any impact on the CTLR is make the design as efficient and environmentally minimised. friendly as possible. The project team will continue to work to reduce this further if possible over the coming months, as they work positively with environmental bodies and landowners to make sure the final scheme design is as sympathetic to the surrounding landscape as possible. Q9

What off-road cycle facilities are ANSWER to be provided as part of the CTLR A 3m wide shared use cycle / footpath is to be scheme? provided as part of the CTLR. This will be on the south side of the CTLR with a separation strip There were concerns from families that the cyclist currently proposed at 1.5 metres between the provision will be aimed at commuters and not road and the path (plus a further 1 metre hardstrip leisure cyclists. beside the running surface of the road). This is under review following comments received from representatives of non-motorised users. It is also proposed to improve pedestrian and cycle links on the A93, the A94 and along the line of the existing A9 from the CTLR to Inveralmond Roundabout. The design of these facilities will be carried out in the coming year based on feedback from the public consultations and from user groups.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 4 Q10 Q11 Can you confirm what tree Are traffic controlled pedestrian planting is to be proposed to crossings to be provided along mitigate the visual effect of the the CTLR to provide safe crossing CTLR on the landscape? points for children and people with mobility issues? Some members of the public asked that adequate tree planting and landscaping is provided to Concerns were raised that the CTLR will severe minimise the visual impact of the road on the pedestrian routes and it was requested that landscape. provision for continued safe use of these routes is included in the design. ANSWER The project team are keen that the visual impact of ANSWER the road is mitigated as much as possible through Traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings, are good landscaping design. In some areas this will being considered for inclusion in the design where involve tree planting however in other areas, such they are appropriate based on projected traffic as the designed landscape which surrounds Scone flows and pedestrian movements. It is likely that Palace, this would not be appropriate. These crossing facilities will be provided near the A94 areas will need to be assessed on a case by case and Highfield Lane at the east end of the CTLR basis. The project team has already been liaising where pedestrian movements are higher. There with Historic Environment Scotland, the Forestry may be scope for including them elsewhere on the Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage and the route and this will be assessed as the design and affected landowners in this regard. The proposed planning application process moves forward. landscape design will be on show at the public consultations in early 2019.

Q12 How much land (arable and -- Woodland: 9.1 hectares (1.28 hectares temporary woodland) is affected by the CTLR landtake for the purposes of construction) scheme? Land will be required to accommodate sustainable drainage facilities such as ponds, and for Concerns were raised about the amount of land environmental mitigation measures, such as being taken for the scheme and it was highlighted noise bunds. However, it is emphasised that the that this should be minimised. design team will seek to minimise landtake in the developing design and the above areas are expected to reduce as the design progresses. ANSWER The current areas of land required to Any land acquired for the scheme but not required accommodate the proposals are: will be handed back to the landowner. -- Agricultural: 60.4 hectares (20.8 hectares temporary landtake for the purposes of construction)

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 5 Q13 Q14 Can the scheme be delivered Is the scheme now certain to go more quickly? ahead and is all funding in place?

Many consultees felt that the road should be Consultees asked if the scheme was now certain delivered more quickly than the programmed to proceed and if the Council had secured all of the opening year of 2023. money required.

ANSWER ANSWER The timescale for delivery of the Cross Tay Link The Council committed £78million of capital road is dictated by the land purchase process, funding to this project in its capital budget in June and funding. The Council is currently finalising 2016. The remaining £42million is being sought as the areas of land that will be required through part of the Tay Cities Deal. News of the success a series of site investigations. Experience on of the Tay Cities Deal is expected in Summer previous similar schemes shows that it is likely 2018. More information is available at https://www. to be early 2021 before the required land is taycities.co.uk/. acquired. If the land purchase process goes particularly well there may be scope to bring construction forward by six months or so. (See Q.14 on funding.)

Q15 What impact will the CTLR have ANSWER on existing traffic delays at The current traffic modelling shows that additional Inveralmond Roundabout? traffic will be diverted via Inveralmond Roundabout. The Council is working positively with Transport Significant concerns were raised over Inveralmond Scotland to encourage them to make relatively Roundabout and the possibility that the CTLR will minor improvements to Inveralmond Roundabout result in increased traffic volumes and therefore that could mitigate the delays caused by this extra increased delays at this existing junction. traffic. It is also highlighted that Phase 1 of Perth Transport Futures Project is due to be fully open by Spring 2019 and provides an alternative access into Inveralmond Industrial Estate thereby reducing traffic approaching Inveralmond Roundabout from the south. We acknowledge that members of the public also expressed concerns over the existing traffic delays at Inveralmond Roundabout, regardless of the CTLR, however the Council is not responsible for this junction and therefore concerns should be taken to Transport Scotland and/or BEAR Scotland. The project team has advised Transport Scotland and BEAR Scotland of these concerns.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 6 Q16 Q17 Can the old A9 between Luncarty What impact will the CTLR have and Inveralmond roundabout be on traffic levels on the A94 north turned into a cycle / walkway? of Scone?

Concern was raised that the redundant section Consultees expressed concerns over the CTLR of the A9 dual carriageway would be left as it is. causing an increase in traffic on the A94 north of Requests were made that this is enhanced with Scone, notably HGV traffic. landscaping and used as a facility for walking and cycling. ANSWER It is acknowledged that the CTLR has the potential ANSWER to attract more traffic on to the A94 north of Scone, Yes. It is currently envisaged that the final design however it is currently envisaged that this will be will include an enhanced cycle and pedestrian negligible. The current traffic modelling shows a facility in this location as well as a good quality traffic increase of approximately 2-4% when the landscaping scheme. CTLR is complete. This modelling is yet to be finalised and final figures will be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which will accompany the planning application for the CTLR. The Council’s Traffic & Network Team are currently working on a route safety strategy for the A94 and will also closely monitor the A94 upon completion of the CTLR.

Q18 Will the CTLR affect the number of ANSWER vehicles speeding on the A94? Although the CTLR is likely to cause a slight increase in traffic on the A94 north of Scone, there Consultees raised concerns over the possibility of is no reason to believe that this will make any the CTLR generating more through traffic which is difference to vehicle speeds or driver behaviour. more likely to speed, specifically in the vicinity of As stated the Council’s Traffic & Network Team the A94 at Scone. are currently working on a route safety strategy for the A94 and will also closely monitor the A94 upon completion of the CTLR.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 7 Q19 Q20 What will be done to mitigate the Why are the Council considering effects of the CTLR on the nearby closure of a section of Newmains Steading? Stormontfield Road?

Residents in Newmains Steading requested Concerns were raised by residents who use this that the road be moved further away from their route regularly over the potential stopping up of properties citing road safety, pedestrian safety, Stormontfield Road. noise, air pollution and the closure of one of their accesses as the reasons for this. ANSWER This is being considered as part of a strategy to ANSWER ensure better access in this area, including to the The project team are working with the residents of racecourse and Scone Palace from the CTLR. Newmains Steading to try and alleviate concerns The current proposal is to widen Stormontfield that they have with the existing design. Positive Road from the CTLR southwards to the access discussions are ongoing and solutions are being to Scone Palace. The remainder of Stormontfield sought to address their main issues. Road (between the palace access and the A93) will then no longer be required as traffic can use the CTLR to get onto the A93. This will be a safer route with better capacity. The section of Stormontfield Road to be stopped up will be left available to non-motorised users and for use during events and emergencies. This proposal has not yet been finalised but it is currently intended to include this in the final design. Q21

Can the Council provide traffic ANSWER calming through Scone to help It is not envisaged that this will be required due deter HGVs using this route after to the predicted reduction in HGVs using the A94 CTLR is open? through Scone as a result of the CTLR opening. However, the Council’s Traffic & Network Team will Concerns were raised about the number of HGVs continue to monitor the safety of the A94 (including using the main route through Scone and the safety the section through Scone) after the CTLR has and health implications associated with this for opened. Scone residents.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 8 Q22 Q23 Will this road and subsequent How will the Luncarty South development cause Perth and development affect the CTLR? Scone to lose their character and Concerns were raised over the proposed become less attractive places? development at Luncarty South and whether this will be accounted for in the design of the CTLR Concerns were raised about the scale of the and specifically the new junction on the A9. changes to the character of the city and villages in the Perth area caused by the development that is proposed in line with the Council’s local ANSWER development plan. The Luncarty South development has been included in the traffic modelling which is used to ANSWER inform the design of the CTLR. New development in Perth and its surrounding villages will inevitably change the visual landscape, but this does not necessarily make them less attractive. New development can often help to support the sustainability of town and village Q24 centres, allow for the provision of new or improved educational facilities and ensure the accessibility Why has the current route through of key services. These qualities can make places Scone North (H29) been selected? more desirable to live in. All development was once new; character is created through time and people Concerns were raised about the route through rather than strategy. It is of note that evidence the proposed Scone North development given suggests that villages which have seen little that there will be development on both sides of it. development over a sustained period often see a Requests were made for the CTLR to be moved decline in their services. The Council is committed further north, preferably to become the boundary of to good placemaking principles and has produced the proposed development. guidance to support the community, developers and planners through the process. This can be ANSWER found here www.pkc.gov.uk/placemaking. The route of the CTLR is within a corridor that was included in the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2014. This corridor is also included in the current revision to the LDP. It has been the case since the Council adopted the LDP 2014 that Scone North (H29) extends beyond this corridor. The route of the CTLR within this corridor has been subject to various reports and options appraisals which are all available on the project website (https://www. perthtransportfutures.co.uk/cross-tay-linkroad/). When determining the route of a road many factors are considered, and include the environment, engineering, buildability and cost. In summary the route of the CTLR has been subject to a lengthy selection and appraisal process and it is not proposed to revisit this.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 9 Q25 Q26 Why is Highfield roundabout What will the CTLR do for Air shown on the plans when there is quality in the Perth area? no development there when the Concerns were raised specifically with regard road is to be opened? to Bridgend and Perth City Centre but also with regard to air quality along the proposed route of Queries were raised over the need for this the CTLR. roundabout and why it is included in the scheme. ANSWER ANSWER Air quality is directly linked to the traffic levels on a Highfield Roundabout is not required as part route and the traffic modelling carried out to date of the CTLR scheme but is a requirement of shows that there will be a significant reduction the developer as part of the Scone North (H29) in traffic in Bridgend and various streets within development. It is currently proposed that the the City Centre once the CTLR is in place. For Council includes this roundabout in the scheme example the A94 south of the CTLR shows a on the basis that the developer pays for the extra reduction in traffic at morning peak times of 37- associated cost. This will minimise future delays 40% and Old Perth Bridge shows a reduction of and disruption as the roundabout will not need to 26-27% for the same period at the year of opening. be retrofitted at a later date. It also makes sense This modelling is yet to be finalised and final economically to build the roundabout at this time. figures and air quality assessments will be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment which will accompany the planning application for the CTLR. Q27

What impact will the CTLR have ANSWER on the number of HGVs using the The current traffic modelling shows that there will road network in Perth City Centre? be a reduction in traffic on many roads in Perth City Centre as a result of the CTLR. The following Concerns were raised over the large volumes indicates the expected reductions in HGV traffic in of HGV traffic using the roads in the city centre. Perth city centre with the CTLR in place: Queries were raised with regard to the possibility -- Queen’s Bridge eastbound – 33% of introducing restrictions to prevent this. -- Queen’s Bridge westbound – 36% -- South Street – 62% -- Canal Street – 44% -- Main St northbound (north of Perth Bridge) – 46% -- Main St southbound (north of Perth Bridge) – 47% The traffic modelling is yet to be finalised and final figures may vary. These will be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment which will accompany the planning application for the CTLR.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 10 Q28 What work has been carried out to establish the predicted reduction in traffic levels through Scone, Bridgend and Perth City Centre?

The logic that the provision of the CTLR will reduce traffic in these areas was questioned by some residents.

ANSWER The Perth Wide Area S-Paramics Transport pattern for the year of opening of the CTLR (2023) model managed on behalf of Perth and Kinross and the design year (2038). Two scenarios are Council by consultants SYSTRA has been used tested - with and without the CTLR. as the basis for testing the changes in travel The traffic model takes account of the generalised patterns, routing and demand across the modelled cost of journeys (time, distance, fuel etc.) for all area as a result of the CTLR. The process journeys made during the periods tested, and undertaken to test the implications of road scheme re-routes traffic in a way that balances out flow, follows international best practice and Scottish delay, speed and congestion across the network, Government guidance and is described as follows. taking account of savings in travel time and The traffic model has been developed to replicate, distance that could be possible as a result of the in the first instance, the prevailing traffic patterns scheme. This is based on assumptions of route during the AM and PM peak periods for the year choices drivers will make. Certain trips will benefit 2017. The model outputs are checked against from the scheme and others will not, depending observed traffic flows and journey times in a on the origin and destination of each journey. The validation process which must meet certain differences in traffic demand between the with and Government defined criteria. These validated without CTLR scenarios, will highlight changes in outputs establish the Base model which is then traffic flow, delay (and hence congestion) across used in forecasting mode, whereby natural traffic the full network as traffic is rearranged because of growth and trips generated by new developments the scheme. This includes the areas identified in are overlaid to provide an estimated travel demand the query.

Q29

Can you please ensure that you ANSWER involve local schools in the design Consideration will be given to the scope for benefits of the CTLR through Highfield to the community through the CTLR project. This woodland? could include involvement of the community in suitable aspects of the project’s development. For example, the school children could have an input It was highlighted that the route of the CTLR to: naming the bridge at Highfield; or the design of through the Highfield woodland will affect amenity appropriate landscape features such as waymarker well used by local children. It was suggested that signs in Highfield woods; or other landscape the Council should engage with local children so features. Sweco have been involved with similar that they can become involved in the development successful exercises before and have found these of the scheme. to be particularly beneficial when the children are able to visit and view the outcome of their work.

Spring 2018 Public Consultation Sessions - Questions & Answers 11 Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD

T: 01738 475 000 [email protected] Chapter 5 - Consultation and Scoping October 2019 PAGE 0 OF CHAPTER 6 Appendix 5.5 – Q&A Document (August 2019)

AUGUST 2019 PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS Perth Transport Futures Project - Phase 2 - Cross Tay Link Road Summer 2019 Public Exhibition Events Questions & Answers

The Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) is the second phase of Perth Transport Futures Project. Perth & Kinross Council appointed design consultants Sweco in July 2017 to progress the specimen design of the CTLR and prepare the planning application and supporting documentation. The specimen design is prepared to sufficient detail to allow a planning application to be prepared. The detailed design is then to be completed by the contractor who constructs the road. The specimen design has now been completed, and it is proposed to submit the planning application for the CTLR in November 2019. Further information about the project is available online at the project website, www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/cross-tay-link-road.

The Council’s Roads Infrastructure Team, as the Developer for the project, along with representatives from Sweco, held public exhibitions as part of the statutory pre-planning application process. These events provided local people with the opportunity to view and comment on the developed design, which showed the work undertaken since the last public exhibitions which took place in Spring 2018.

The following events were held:

21 August 2019 – Luncarty Memorial Hall (2pm – 7pm) 22 August 2019 – Scone Robert Douglas Memorial Hal (2pm – 7pm) 27 August 2019 – Coupar Angus Town Hall (2pm – 7pm) 28 August 2019 - Perth Civic Hall, 2 High Street (2pm – 7pm)

The events were attended by approximately 380 people consisting of residents, Community Council representatives, local Elected Members and contractors interested in tendering for the contract. Local Community Council representatives also attended the events in advance of them opening to the public.

Many questions about the proposals were asked and answered at the event. However people were also encouraged to provide feedback through paper forms or online via a Survey Monkey digital form, or if preferred, by letter or email after the event. The deadline for submitting comments was 20 September 2019.

Given the number of comments raised and questions asked, rather than reply to individual queries on a case by case basis, the questions have been collated and answers given in this ‘Q & A’ document. This ensures that all questions that have been asked are visible to everyone.

The questions and answers are listed below and, where applicable, proposed actions are detailed. Q1 Q3

Is all funding in place now to build the road? Is it possible to have more than one ‘green bridge’? If not, why is the one proposed at ANSWER the location in Highfield? Yes, the Council approved £78 Million of ANSWER capital funding in June 2016. The Scottish Government confirmed their contribution of The location of the green bridge at Highfield £40 Million in January 2019. The overall has been selected carefully and was scheme budget is £118 Million and includes all dependant on the surrounding topography, costs associated with the project. path network and usage. The proposed bridge is located at a point where the new road is well below existing ground level Q2 meaning that there is no need for large embankments to carry paths up and over the Can the road be built sooner? new road. This minimises the footprint of the bridge and allows the connection to be at ANSWER existing ground level, making it more natural The Council is progressing the project as and effective. This is the only location where quickly as it can, taking into account the the topography provides this opportunity. statutory processes that have to be followed. The programme for getting the project to site is dictated by how long the land purchase Q4 process takes. The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for the land was due to be Can lighting be included on the shared use published earlier this year but because of the cycle/foot path, making it more appealing review of the alignment of the CTLR between and seem safer for use at night? the A93 and A94 it was delayed. It will now ANSWER be published in November 2019. This was raised by a lot of people at the The Council’s current programme allows for events and as a result the design team are the worst case scenario where objections to now investigating the potential to incorporate the CPO are received and cannot be resolved, lighting along the shared use cycle/foot path. resulting in the requirement for a public local There are environmental concerns with inquiry or hearing. Allowing for this, works providing street lighting over the full length in are programmed to start on site in Autumn this rural area, however there are options for 2021. If a public local enquiry or hearing is more sustainable and subtle ground level not required, it may be possible to bring this solar lights to be provided. If possible, the date forward. aim is to include lights in the final detailed design.

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Q5 Q7

How long will we need to wait for Phase 3 to What is the impact of the CTLR on traffic link the CTLR to Phase 1 through the levels on the A94 and A93 north of Scone? development at Bertha Park? ANSWER ANSWER The outcomes from the Opening Year traffic Phase 3 of Perth Transport Futures Project modelling suggests there will be an increase in links Phases 1 and 2, and responsibility for traffic on the A94 north of the CTLR of around providing it lies with the Bertha Park 12% over the course of the day. On the A93 developer. The developer is required to have corridor north of the CTLR, the modelling it in place if more than 750 houses are built. suggests there will be an increase in traffic of The timing of this is therefore very much 51% over the course of the day. These figures dependant on the housing market. are extracted from the Transport Statement which will be part of the planning application submission. Q6

Is the closure of Stormontfield Road Q8 necessary, and what length is the diversion for traffic using that section of Stormontfield Will the CTLR generate more Heavy Goods Road just now? Vehicles on the A94 and A93 north of Scone?

ANSWER ANSWER

The CTLR will provide a better and safer The outcomes from the Opening Year traffic access to Perth Racecourse, the caravan park modelling suggests there will be a slight and to Stormontfield than exists at present. decrease in the numbers of HGV movements Once the CTLR is in place there will be no on the A94 north of CTLR of around 8% over need for the junction from the A93 into the course of the day. On the A93 corridor Stormontfield Road, as access can be taken north of CTLR, the modelling forecasts there via the A93 and the new roundabout, will be a slight increase in the numbers of HGV providing an improvement on the current sub- movements of around 15% over the course of standard junction design. This section of the day. Stormontfield Road will remain accessible for non-motorised users and for vehicular traffic use during major events in the area, with a temporary traffic management plan in place. In comparison with the current route via Stormontfield Road, a road user travelling to and from the Stormontfield area will travel an extra approximately 2.1 km per journey as a result of the CTLR project.

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Measure not yet installed include: Q9 1. Puffin crossing on Main Street, Burrelton scheduled for installation Autumn 2019; If traffic levels are projected to increase on 2. Public consultation is already underway the A94 and A93 north of the CTLR, what is for a 40mph speed limit buffer on both the Council planning to do to ensure that this approaches on A94 to Meigle at east and does not compromise road safety and air west of the village (and on B954 south of quality in the communities on this route? village); Can we have average speed cameras? 3. The first phase of a signing strategy, ANSWER involving upgrade of all direction and warning signs, from Meigle to Longleys is The traffic modelling undertaken for the CTLR scheduled for Autumn 2019; and shows an increase in traffic in peak periods on 4. The second phase of a signing strategy the A94 and A93, but daily traffic flows are from Coupar Angus to Woodside is being still within the capacity of the road. However designed and is scheduled for Winter it is not the intention of the project to make 2019/20. matters worse for local villages and measures to alleviate potential impacts are being Average speed cameras are not appropriate investigated by the Council’s Traffic & for use on a route that has a significant Network Team. Some measures have already number of changes to the speed limit. As been implemented to improve road safety on above, more laybys are being installed for these routes, and more are being considered. deployment of safety camera vans. Measures already installed include: Changes to traffic flows when the proposed

1. Signalised junctions, with pedestrian CTLR Project becomes operational will have a crossing facilities installed on Forfar Road, beneficial effect on annual mean NO2, PM10 Coupar Angus; and PM2.5 concentrations at the majority of

2. Lay-by installed east of Coupar Angus for locations assessed, in the Perth AQMA deployment of safety camera van by particularly within the Perth City Centre and Safety Cameras Scotland (partnership at Bridgend. Where the modelling has between Transport Scotland and Police predicted an adverse impact the magnitude of Scotland); change is described as ‘Negligible Adverse’ for

3. Lay-by installed east of Meigle for all pollutants. deployment of safety camera van by Safety Cameras Scotland; Based on the air quality assessment, it is 4. Lay-by installed west of Meigle for concluded that the proposed CTLR Project deployment of safety camera van by would have an overall negligible (beneficial) Safety Cameras Scotland; effect on air quality with regards to human 5. Puffin crossing installed on Main Street, health which is not significant. Balbeggie; 6. Vehicle-activated signs installed at Balbeggie, Burrelton and Meigle;

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Transport Scotland. The Council will continue Q10 to liaise with Transport Scotland on how the projects can be taken forward both in the short term and as part of a longer term Is anything being put in place to prevent rat approach. running via Denmarkfield and into Luncarty via the private road? This is a concern as it has occurred during the current A9 dualling works. Q12

ANSWER Is consideration being given to linking the CTLR to the A90 east of Perth? The access road to Denmarkfield is being designed as a single track road with passing ANSWER places to ensure that it is appropriate for the level of traffic using it and to ensure that it is The need for the CTLR came out of a wide consistent with the private road to which it ranging consultation exercise with numerous leads. This single track road will be a shared stakeholders in 2008. A range of projects and space for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. schemes was considered at the time, some of There will be a road hump on the entrance to which were taken forward and some which this access road to provide a ‘gateway’ into it were not. This process eventually led to the and to discourage vehicles from using it as a development of the Perth Transport Futures rat-run into Luncarty. Project which is currently progressing. At no time was there ever a proposal to take forward a project linking the proposed CTLR Q11 to the A90 east of Perth. At this present time there is no compelling traffic reason to take this forward, but that is not to say that might Are there any plans to improve the need to be considered at some future point in Inveralmond Roundabout given that the time. CTLR will generate more traffic through this already congested roundabout?

ANSWER Q13

Traffic congestion is an existing issue at both Can a barrier be included between the road Inveralmond and Broxden roundabouts. and the proposed shared use cycle/foot Transport Scotland is aware of this, and the path? Council has worked constructively with Transport Scotland to identify improvements ANSWER that could be made to these junctions. As far as the Council is aware, these works are not A barrier is not proposed between the road programmed at present. and the shared use cycle/foot path. Instead, this path is set back 3 metres from the nearest It is anticipated that improvements at these traffic lane. The original set back was 2 metres two roundabouts will be considered within but has been increased to 3 metres, following the new Strategic Transport Projects Review the feedback received from the public and which is currently being undertaken by non-motorised users. The paths have also

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers been set back away from the road wherever expected on this active travel route. The possible. However this is not possible predicted level of usage along the CTLR - throughout the CTLR as the path would need derived from existing flows along routes - to follow the existing shape of the indicate that a shared use environment, and as a result, path gradients pedestrian/cycleway is appropriate NMU would be too steep in places to meet usable provision along the CTLR. The segregation of standards. the cycle and pedestrian facilities would also take up a greater area making the The scheme has been assessed for the environmental and land-take impacts more provision of barrier using the Road Restraint significant than the current proposals. This Risk Assessment Process (RRRAP) that is a cannot be justified given that a shared use requirement for Motorway, All Purpose Roads facility can provide adequate capacity. and other Classified roads with a speed limit of 50 mph or above. From this assessment the section of the scheme which has the Q15 highest speeds also has the vast majority of barrier in the project, which, in this case is the Why is there no bridge or underpass crossing realigned A9 dual carriageway and its slip for pedestrians and cyclists in the Scone roads. The CTLR which has a speed limit of 50 North (H29) development? mph in comparison with the 70 mph speed limit of the A9, has very little requirement for ANSWER barrier across its length. As the CTLR also makes up the vast majority of roadside non- The section of the CTLR through the Scone motorised user (NMU) provision for the North (H29) development has been designed project, there is little scope to justify the so that it will initially be subject to a 50mph provision of barrier placed between the road speed limit when there is no development on carriageway and the shared use NMU facilities this section of the CTLR. Once the CTLR is in given the negative effect it would have on place, the number of cyclists and pedestrians cost, visual impact and maintenance crossing the CTLR will be low, much less than requirements. In the limited number of is required for a bridge / underpass crossing locations where there is a requirement for or even for a traffic signal controlled crossing barrier and there is an adjacent NMU facility. cycleway/footway we will place the barrier on However, due to the number of concerns the roadside of the cycleway/footway. raised on this issue the project will include Toucan crossing facilities at all roundabouts, including in the Scone North area, on the CTLR

Q14 to assist with crossing.

Can the shared use cycle / footpath be The design of Scone North and how it segregated to separate pedestrians and interfaces with the CTLR will be managed cyclists? through the detailed design and planning process for the development. ANSWER

Segregation of the shared use cycle/foot path is not required due to the levels of usage

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Q16 Q18

Can the active travel routes be extended into Why is the Council building roads, when, Perth to make it easier to walk and cycle into instead it could implement low emission the city? zones, increase parking charges, invest more in public transport and cycling ANSWER infrastructure?

Phase 4 of Perth Transport Futures Project is ANSWER intended to address this issue. Phase 4 aims to deliver various infrastructure projects that The CTLR is part of Perth Transport Futures will facilitate a shift towards greener travel Project (PTFP) which forms part of the modes in Perth and the surrounding area. Many of these proposals are only possible strategy for Perth’s transport system. The aim once the CTLR is in place to free up capacity of PTFP is to facilitate the sustainable on the city’s roads network. These proposals economic growth of Perth while also include Park & Ride facilities and public realm addressing traffic congestion and air quality improvements as well as improved cycling and issues in the city and surrounding area. Phase pedestrian facilities in the city. The Council 4 of PTFP will consist of projects which will has already secured funding from Sustrans to facilitate and encourage a shift towards more commence with the provision of better cycling infrastructure on the Dunkeld Road corridor sustainable modes of travel in and around the as part of its Perth, People, Place Initiative. city including cycling infrastructure, Park & Ride sites and public realm improvement schemes. These projects can only be made Q17 possible as result of the CTLR given the positive impact it will have on freeing up road Will the road have an impact on air quality at space in the City Centre. Scone Palace and the caravan park?

ANSWER Q19

Changes to traffic flows when the proposed What measures are being proposed to CTLR Project becomes operational will have a mitigate predicted increases in noise for beneficial effect on annual mean NO , PM 2 10 existing properties along the route of the and PM concentrations at the majority of 2.5 CTLR? locations assessed, particularly in Perth city centre and at Bridgend. At receptor locations ANSWER where an adverse impact is predicted, the magnitude of change is described as The majority of noise sensitive receptors ‘Negligible Adverse’ i.e. only a very small within the study area are not predicted to increase in concentrations. experience significant effects. For the small number of residential and commercial properties which are predicted to have significant effects, mitigation within the design is proposed.

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Q20 Q22

Why is noise mitigation not being provided Will the road drainage systems cause for the future development at Scone North? flooding of existing water courses (e.g. Crammock Burn)? ANSWER ANSWER Noise mitigation is not required as part of the CTLR scheme as the receptors to the noise The project is subject to a full flood model and (the houses in Scone North) do not exist yet. flood risk assessment. This ensures that the This issue will be addressed in the road infrastructure will not negatively affect Environmental Impact Assessment which will flooding in the CTLR corridor and surrounding accompany the planning application for the area. Drainage systems are being designed to CTLR. The assessment of the development current guidance with allowance for climate and provision of noise mitigation is for the change, two levels of pollution treatment and developer of Scone North to address and flow control which limit the out-flows into agree with the Council as Planning Authority. local watercourses to a level equivalent to a green field run off.

Q21 Q23 What measures are being proposed as part of the CTLR project to ensure reductions in How are you going to prevent there being traffic speed on the southbound approach to increased usage of the very narrow the new roundabout on the A94? Stormontfield Road after opening of the CTLR? ANSWER ANSWER As part of the CTLR project, revisions are proposed to the speed limits on the approach Residents of the Stormontfield area have to Scone from the north on the A94. A raised this issue at previous consultation reduced speed limit of 40mph is proposed events. The design of the traffic signs will from a point north of the New Mains address this issue with signage to be included development to the Scone Park & Ride discouraging use of this route by large roundabout. The road will also be narrowed vehicles. by removing the climbing lane currently in place in this location. These measures, together with the introduction of the Q24 roundabout, where the CTLR meets the A94 will help to reduce traffic speeds in this Can a Park & Ride facility be provided at section of the A94 on approach to Scone. Stormontfield Roundabout?

ANSWER

Park & Ride facilities are proposed as part of Phase 4 of Perth Transport Futures Project. Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Stormontfield Road is not currently being Guidance for Local Air Quality Management considered as a location for a site, and it is (TG16). unlikely to be considered in the future given its proximity to the strategic transport routes and the proposed Park & Ride site at Bertha Q26 Park. Why is the Council proposing to close the crossing of the A9 by core path LUNC/124? Q25 ANSWER

How will the Council monitor air and noise Pedestrians are currently able to walk across pollution in the future along the route of the the four lanes of the A9 dual carriageway at CTLR to ensure that levels are as predicted? the Denmarkfield junction between core ANSWER paths LUNC/102 and LUNC/124, despite there being no crossing infrastructure. Also the core Local authorities in the UK have a path network is not continuous over the A9 in responsibility under Local Air Quality this location (there is a gap between the two Management (LAQM) legislation to review air core paths either side of the A9). quality. Where concentrations exceed national objectives, measures should be put in The pedestrian crossing strategy for the place to reduce emissions, and be reported in design of this section of the A9, as agreed the local Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP). One with Transport Scotland, is to minimise at- of these measures could include monitoring; grade pedestrian crossings (crossings with no however, the EIA is not predicting an bridge or underpass) of the dual carriageway. exceedance of these objectives along the This is in keeping with the strategy for the A9 route of the CTLR. Dualling Project as a whole. Therefore it has been agreed with Transport Scotland that A monitoring regime is something that will be only one at-grade pedestrian crossing will agreed as part of the Contractor’s remain (the existing one at the Redgorton bus requirements for this Project. This would be stops) and will be improved. This is discussed and agreed as part of their approximately 500 metres north of the appointment and in consultation with the Denmarkfield junction and is used much more Council’s Environmental Health Department. frequently by pedestrians than the Denmarkfield location. Air Quality and Noise will have been assessed and appraised as part of the planning A grade separated junction is also being application process. PKC would only proceed provided approximately 500 metres south of with further assessment and/or monitoring of the Denmarkfield junction with facilities the newly built road if there was a significant allowing pedestrians to cross the A9 safely. change in the predicted overall traffic flow, Both of these crossing points will be linked to layout or if new exposure (i.e. residential the Denmarkfield junction via a new path properties) is introduced along the route or network. It is the Council’s view that meets any of the other criteria for roads set pedestrian crossing facilities are being out in the UK Government’s Technical improved as part of the CTLR project however it is acknowledged that there are significant

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers diversions for a low number of pedestrians who currently cross the A9 at the Denmarkfield junction.

Perth Transport Futures Project – Phase 2 – Cross Tay Link Road August 2019 Public Exhibitions Questions & Answers

Chapter 5 - Consultation and Scoping October 2019 PAGE 0 OF CHAPTER 6 Appendix 5.6 – Public Exhibition Report

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD

119046

PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT STAGE 3

repo001.docx 2015-10-05 repo001.docx Sweco

Version Record

Ver No Date Originator Checker Approver Status Suitability

P01 08/06/18 DSR CC ACR S3 For Review P02.1 12/07/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P02.2 12/07/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P02.3 12/07/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P02 12/07/18 DSR CC ACR S3 For Review P03.1 31/07/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P03.2 31/07/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P03.3 01/08/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P03 02/08/18 DSR CC ACR S2 For Information P04.1 20/08/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P04.2 20/08/18 DSR CC ACR S0 WIP P04 24/08/18 DSR CC ACR S2 For Information

This document has been prepared on behalf of Perth and Kinross Council by Sweco for the Cross Tay Link Road project. It is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. Sweco accepts no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from Perth and Kinross Council.

Sweco UK Limited Sweco UK Limited Suite 4.2, City Park Reg.no 2888385 368 Alexandra Parade Reg. office: Leeds Glasgow, G31 3AU Grove House +44 141 414 1700 Mansion Gate Drive LS7 4DN www.sweco.co.uk

Glossary

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment

DMRB – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

CTLR – Cross Tay Link Road

NMU – Non-Motorised Users

Sweco UK Limited Sweco UK Limited Suite 4.2, City Park Reg.no 2888385 368 Alexandra Parade Reg. office: Leeds Glasgow, G31 3AU Grove House +44 141 414 1700 Mansion Gate Drive

www.sweco.co.uk repo001.docx 2015-10-05 repo001.docx

Table of contents

Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 6 1.1 Perth Transport Futures Project 6 1.2 Phase 2: The Cross Tay Link Road 6 1.3 Benefits 6 1.4 Delivery 6 1.5 Project Costs 6 1.6 Public Consultations held May/June 2018 7

2 Summary of Responses 8 2.1 Responses received at Consultation Events 8 2.2 Responses received subsequent to Consultation Events 8 2.3 Feedback Responses Received 8 2.4 Issues / Concerns Raised by an Individual 18

3 Conclusions 20

APPENDIX A | Feedback Responses 21

Sweco UK Limited Sweco UK Limited Suite 4.2, City Park Reg.no 2888385 368 Alexandra Parade Reg. office: Leeds Glasgow, G31 3AU Grove House +44 141 414 1700 Mansion Gate Drive

www.sweco.co.uk

Executive Summary The Perth Transport Futures Project is an integrated series of infrastructure improvements developed over the last decade to address Perth’s long-term transportation needs and facilitate the sustainable growth of the city.

The Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) is Phase 2 of the Perth Transport Futures Project, and is the much needed new road infrastructure linking the A9 over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 north of Scone. It includes realignment of a section of the A9, provision of a new bridge over the River Tay and railway, and provision of a new grade separated junction on the A9 north of Inveralmond Roundabout. By diverting through traffic away from Perth City Centre, this phase will help to improve air quality and alleviate traffic congestion in the city centre and Bridgend, as well as facilitating sustainable development as envisaged in the Council’s Local Development Plan.

The CTLR is currently progressing through Stage 3 of the DMRB Scheme Assessment process and part of this is the development of the specimen design. The road geometry will be fixed at the end of July 2018 therefore Perth and Kinross Council decided that it was important to invite the public to see the proposals and express their views in a series of consultations before that point to enable any changes to be made. These events took place in venues at Perth, Luncarty, Scone, and Coupar Angus, all of which were well attended and a range of views were expressed.

The consultations were effective in gauging public opinion of the project overall and in identifying specific areas of concern. The road scheme was widely viewed as a long awaited measure which will bring significant benefits to the city centre of Perth in the relief of traffic flows, albeit there are a number of issues which remain of concern to local people.

The main areas of concern are:

1. Inveralmond Roundabout – Long delays on all approaches to the roundabout were reported as being a current problem. In the future this will be exacerbated by the development traffic and the redirected traffic which currently goes through the city centre which will take the CTLR via Inveralmond Roundabout. Broxden Roundabout is also a concern due to the proposed new developments. Transport Scotland have informed the Council that they are exploring options for improvements at both junctions.

2. The A94 north of the CTLR will likely experience additional traffic flows. A significant number of vehicles currently divert from the A90 onto the A94 via Forfar to avoid the Kingsway at Dundee. The CTLR will make this option more attractive given that the CTLR will provide an alternative to the A94 through Scone and the centre of Perth.

3. Highfield Plantation is locally recognised as a high amenity area and the existing network of paths through the woodland provide a valuable recreational facility to local walkers including children. The CTLR cuts through the plantation and the design team are working to minimise the impact on the walkers, ecology and drainage.

The tables in section 2.1 and 2.2 describe the feedback received from the attendees and state the actions required as appropriate. These actions will be agreed then progressed.

In addition to progressing the actions the next step is to respond individually to the feedback received providing a link to Perth and Kinross Council’s website where the Question & Answer document will be uploaded. This will give everyone access to the responses to all of the questions raised.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 5 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

1 Introduction

1.1 Perth Transport Futures Project The Perth Transport Futures Project is an integrated series of infrastructure improvements developed over the last decade to address Perth’s long-term transportation needs and facilitate the sustainable growth of the city. It consists of four phases: 1 - A new A9 / A85 junction and Link Road to Bertha Park; 2 - The Cross Tay Link Road; 3 - Bertha Park Connection (between Phases 1 & 2); and 4 - Associated City Centre Improvements including sustainable transport measures and improvements envisaged by the City Plan.

1.2 Phase 2: The Cross Tay Link Road The Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) consists of new road infrastructure linking the A9 over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 north of Scone. It includes realignment of a section of the A9, provision of a new bridge over the River Tay and railway, and provision of a new grade separated junction on the A9 north of Inveralmond Roundabout. This phase will help to improve air quality and alleviate traffic congestion in Perth City Centre and Bridgend as well as facilitating sustainable development as envisaged in the Council’s Local Development Plan.

1.3 Benefits The CTLR project will: - Reduce traffic congestion in and around Perth; - Improve City Centre and Bridgend air quality issues; - Provide new transport infrastructure which will enable new, planned and committed developments for both housing and employment; and - Enable City Centre improvements as envisaged in the Perth City Plan.

1.4 Delivery The project is being delivered by the Council’s Roads Infrastructure Team who has employed Sweco to progress the site investigations, specimen design and planning application.

1.5 Project Costs The estimated cost of the project is in the region of £120million with the majority of the funding being provided by Perth and Kinross Council, highlighting the significance of the project to the local economy. Additional funding is being sought from the UK and Scottish Governments, through the Tay Cities Deal, reflecting the importance to the wider Tay Cities area economy.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 6 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

1.6 Public Consultations held May/June 2018 The Council held a round of public consultations in advance of the upcoming statutory consultations for Stage 3 of the DMRB Scheme Assessment process. The specimen design phase is underway and the first pass of the road geometry should be concluded in August. The drainage and other ancillary design items will follow thereafter, including road restraint systems, traffic signs and road markings, and pavement design. At this stage it was helpful to gauge the public’s views and listen to their concerns and suggestions. This report consolidates the feedback responses received into tabular form (see the table in section 2.1) and provides a summary of them. In addition, there were a number of further points which were made by individuals and these are covered in the table in section 2.4. In general, the public were supportive of the Cross Tay Link Road and appreciate the benefits it offers in the relief of traffic in the city centre. However, concerns were raised on aspects which affect the daily lives of those living and working in and around Perth. Many of these were well-considered and due consideration has been given to the proposed actions in section 2.3. In addition, Perth and Kinross Council (assisted by Sweco) are providing individual responses, as required, by email where contact details have been left on the forms. Overall the public consultation exercise was found to be a great success with an attendance estimated at around 400 people over the course of four sessions held in Perth, Luncarty, Scone and Coupar Angus. The discussions were lively and engaging and the public were clearly very interested in the project.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 7 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

2 Summary of Responses A total of 63 responses were received as a result of the consultations at the 4 venues: 8 at Perth Concert Hall; 24 at Luncarty Memorial Hall; 25 at the Robert Douglas Memorial Institute in Scone; 6 at Coupar Angus Town Hall, and subsequently 11 further feedback responses have been received by email/letter.

2.1 Responses received at Consultation Events There were a number of general comments received in the feedback forms left at the events which can be summarised as follows: 1. A significant number of participants voiced enthusiasm for the project as a whole and the benefits that it will bring in relieving traffic in Perth City Centre (particularly Bridgend and Atholl Street) and Scone. The potential to improve and regenerate the city centre area was recognised by the large majority of attendees. 2. The reduction in air pollution associated with the above reduction in traffic in the centre of Perth and Scone was appreciated. 3. There were positive comments received on the presentation material which was generally thought to be clear and informative. 4. There was a general request to be kept informed with progress.

2.2 Responses received subsequent to Consultation Events There were also a number of comments received in the feedback emails received subsequent to the events which can be summarised as follows: 1. Scone and District Community Council made a specific request to be consulted further. In a letter dated 5 June 2018, Scone and District Community Council listed numerous concerns and requested a meeting to discuss these in more detail. Their concerns are covered in the table in section 2.3 below. The Community Council would like opportunities to comment as the design progresses and requested a schedule of proposed consultations rather than waiting until mid-2019 when the design will be completed. 2. A few emails were received reiterating some of the concerns in the Community Council letter, including: a request for an alternative alignment of the CTLR to the north of Newmains to avoid the CTLR route passing through the proposed Scone North development. 3. Comments were also received on behalf of the Newmains residents. These are listed in the table in section 2.3 below and the main concerns related to the CTLR alignment being moved closer to Newmains and the proposed closure of their existing south access.

The following section contains a summary of the responses received and the proposed actions.

2.3 Feedback Responses Received The issues raised in the feedback (both at the consultation events and subsequently) are listed below in order of the frequency with which they were raised. The benefits are listed separately from the concerns. The actions identified below will be taken forward by Perth and Kinross Council and Sweco as appropriate. Additional actions which have been identified for the first time as an outcome of the consultation are highlighted in yellow. The Council is committed, where reasonably practicable, to the appropriate implementation of the actions identified.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 8 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Response / Actions Additional Comments

Benefits

1 Improved None made N/A Many participants vehicular access voiced this point of (12*) between A9 and view. Scone

2 Reduced (HGV) Refer to number 4 in N/A Many of the traffic through ‘Concerns Raised’ participants (6*) Scone below acknowledged the benefits of reduced (HGV) traffic through Scone in addition to those who submitted feedback forms. 3 Reduced traffic Refer to number 5 in N/A Many of the (noise and ‘Concerns Raised’ participants (5*) pollution) at below acknowledged the Bridgend and benefits of reduced Atholl Street traffic at Bridgend in addition to those who submitted feedback forms.

4 Shared cycleway 1 Safe crossing points 1 Review appropriate A small number of along CTLR is along CTLR pedestrian crossing comments were (4*) appreciated (considering children options in the received requesting and dog walkers). developing design. segregated walking and cycle routes. 2 Improve off-road 2 The de-trunked A9 Most were satisfied routes for family cycling corridor will include a with the proposed as well as commuting. cycle / pedestrian shared cycleway. route and a landscape scheme.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 9 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Actions Additional Comments Concerns Raised

1 Inveralmond Roundabout currently The project team is Similar concerns Roundabout congested. CTLR will actively encouraging were raised (9*) congestion bypass the city centre and Transport Scotland to about Broxden by (4**) shed more A94 traffic implement relatively a smaller number onto Inveralmond. minor measures at of participants. Development traffic will Inveralmond This is already a compound this. Roundabout which significant issue. would alleviate One suggestion was a The CTLR traffic existing delays. pedestrian bridge to modelling shows Respondents should improve safety / traffic increased traffic take their concerns to flows. flows on TS given that these Inveralmond junctions are their Roundabout. responsibility.

2 Pedestrian access 1 Safe and easy access 1a Review options for Involving the across CTLR across the road. wildlife / pedestrian local children (7*) including to crossing provision at could help to 2 Pedestrian / cycle link (4**) Highfield Woods Highfield cutting. deliver requested along the top of community the cutting. 1b Review pedestrian benefits which crossing options 3 Impact on children of are likely to be including toucan CTLR going through their required as per crossings ‘playground’, including contractual their concerns about 2 Provide a path requirements. ecology. along the top of the cutting to link the 4 Impact on deer queried. severed paths to any wildlife / pedestrian crossing. 3 Consider involving local children in mitigating impact of road. PKC / SWECO to visit nearby schools and other children’s groups. 4 Environmental Impact Assessment to address implications for deer.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 10 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Actions Additional Comments

3 Additional traffic 1 More long distance traffic 1 The CTLR traffic model This is likely to be on A94 will divert onto A94 from takes account of the a significant issue (6*) the A90 via Forfar. There potential for increased to the residents of (1**) was a view that this is not traffic flows on the A94 the settlements accounted for in the traffic and shows an average 2- along the A94 model. 4% increase in flows in corridor. Further the opening year (2023) consultation 2 Consultation requested on A94. This will not required to keep in Coupar Angus, Meigle, exceed the capacity of them informed. Burrelton and Balbeggie. the A94 however it is acknowledged that this is a concern to the communities on the A94. 2 PKC Traffic & Network Team will monitor the A94 after opening of CTLR. They are also working on a route action plan for the A94 at present. 3 A consultation event was subsequently carried out in Coupar Angus. 4 Maximising Would like to see This is not expected to Many of the reduction in measures to further be required due to the Scone (6*) (HGV) traffic discourage through traffic predicted reduction in participants through Scone in Scone. HGVs using the A94 expressed a through Scone post- desire to see CTLR opening. However, measures to the Council’s Traffic & further Network Team will discourage monitor the safety of the through traffic in A94 (including the Scone, in addition section through Scone) to those who after the CTLR has submitted opened. feedback forms.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 11 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Actions Additional Comments

5 Noise and Would like to see Air quality and noise are Many of the pollution at measures to further linked to the traffic levels participants (5*) Bridgend and discourage through traffic. on a route and the traffic voiced this point Atholl Street modelling carried out to of view in addition date shows that there will to those who be a significant reduction submitted in traffic in Bridgend and feedback forms. various streets within the City Centre once the CTLR is in place. Therefore no action is proposed.

6 Luncarty Increased traffic accessing The Luncarty South PKC Planning development the A9 via Scarth Road. development has been and developer will (5*) traffic included in the traffic require to modelling which is used manage the to inform the design of implementation of the CTLR. Both phases the second phase have been modelled and of the the design development. accommodates Phase 1. The developer will be responsible for any upgrades required to the road network for Phase 2.

7 Impact on Queried the provision of The route of the CTLR There is no Highfield woods alternative route to the has been considered proposal to revisit (5*) north of Highfield woods. along with the corridor for the options the CTLR which was appraisal. included in the Local Development Plan (LDP) 2014 and is included in the current revision to the LDP.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 12 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Actions Additional Comments

8 CTLR routing CTLR routed through the The route of the CTLR The route of the with respect to middle of a housing has been considered CTLR has been (1*) Scone north development. Requested along with the corridor for subject to a (4**) development that road be routed to the CTLR which was lengthy selection north of housing included in the Local and appraisal development. Development Plan (LDP) process and it is 2014 and is included in not proposed to the current revision to the revisit this. LDP.

9 Noise and Noise and air pollution The noise and pollution pollution impact assessment and mitigation impacts will be covered (3*) proposals for: by the Environmental (1**) Assessment to be carried • Scone caravan out in support of the site planning application for • Balboughty Farm the project. Mitigation Cottages measures will be identified where • North Scone appropriate, i.e. it is likely Housing that screening measures will be required at sensitive locations along the route.

10 Proposed speed Concern that 50mph speed The speed limit will be limit on CTLR limit proposed is 50mph on the mainline (3*) inappropriate through the CTLR from its junction North Scone development. with the A94 to its junction with the A9. It should be noted that the section of the CTLR through the Scone North (H29) development will need to be reviewed and will likely be reduced to a 30mph once this phase of the development commences and is completed.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 13 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Actions Additional Comments

11 Tree loss Scone community loss of Work is underway to woodland to be identify areas for tree (3*) compensated, particularly planting to compensate for at roundabout areas to the loss of this woodland soften their visual impact. and habitat. This is being done in conjunction with the

Forestry Commission, Historic Environment Scotland and the landowners.

12 Proximity of 1 Use of private access 1 Contract to include The project proposed road to road by construction Newmains access in the team are (2*) Newmains vehicles. pre-construction survey and working with (1**) Steadings make good any damage. the residents 2 Closure of south access of Newmains into Newmains is 2 Design is currently under Steading to try detrimental. review in this area. South and alleviate access retention is part of 3 Speed of vehicles on concerns that this review. approach to the remaining they have with north access due to 3 Overtaking lane to be the existing overtaking lane. removed. Consideration design. given to extending the Positive 4 Noise and air pollution reduced speed limit. discussions concerns due to the are ongoing proximity of the CTLR. 4 EIA will address issues of and solutions noise and air pollution 5 Safe pedestrian access are being along with mitigation. from Newmains to Scone. sought to 5 Design provides address their improved (widened) main issues. cycleway to Scone and traffic light controlled pedestrian/cycle crossings are being considered for inclusion.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 14 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

13 Closure of Alternative route via CTLR The section of Stormontfield and A93 / Balboughty is Stormontfield Road to be (2*) Road inconvenient. stopped up (in future (1**) access to the A93 will be

taken via CTLR) will be left

available to non-motorised users and for use during events and emergencies. This proposal has not yet been finalised but it is currently intended to include this in the final design. The alternative route provided by the CTLR will be to a higher, safer standard and will only add approximately 3.2km to a driver’s journey.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events Reference Theme Specific Concerns Actions Additional Comments

14 Future proofing of The disruption caused by There is no need for the the CTLR design future dualling if required. CTLR to be dual (2*) Comment made that CTLR carriageway based on

should be dualled between the traffic modelling the A9 and the palace. which includes all development in the current LDP and is projected up to 2037. Therefore the additional environmental impact, land take and cost associated with a dual carriageway cannot not be justified.

15 Vehicle speeds Reduce speed limit to The project team are on A94 30mph between Scone currently reviewing the (2*) and the airport (secondary proposed speed limit on school bus route). the A94 when the CTLR is in place and it is likely that there will be a reduced speed limit on the A94 which extends further north than it does at present.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 15 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

16 Air quality issue Phasing of new housing The pollution impacts of in Bridgend area developments the CTLR and (1*) exacerbating the issue. subsequent development will be covered by the Environmental Assessment to be carried out in support of the planning application for the project. Mitigation measures will be identified where appropriate. It should be noted that the CTLR itself will have a beneficial impact on air quality in Bridgend.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 16 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

17 Drainage and Information relating to the Where possible all flood assessment SUDs proposals and drainage systems will (1**) discharges to: have the required attenuation built in to the • Annaty Burn design to ensure that the • Crammock Burn CTLR does not exacerbate flooding of • Gelly Burn local watercourses. A Flood Risk Assessment will also be prepared and published as part of the planning process.

18 Highfield Scone CC challenged the Highfield Roundabout is Roundabout need for this junction other a requirement of the (1**) than the developer’s developer as part of the request as it may hinder Scone North (H29) traffic on the CTLR. development. It is currently proposed that Scone CC also queried its the Council includes this location. roundabout in the scheme and the developer pays for the extra cost. This will minimise future delays and disruption as the roundabout will not need to be retrofitted at a later date.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 17 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

19 Stormontfield Roundabout to be The CTLR and the Roundabout designed to avoid queuing widened Stormontfield (1**) (event) traffic inhibiting Road are being designed vehicle movements to / to accommodate, where from Stormontfield. possible, for events at the race course and Safe cycle access required Scone Palace. Extra between Stormontfield Rd lanes will be provided on (popular with cyclists) and the roundabout exits the proposed CTLR. (CTLR and Stormontfield Road south) to ensure that any impact on the CTLR is minimised. Stormontfield Road pedestrians and cyclists proposed to share the road space as they currently do. Slips will be provided onto and off the cycleway in the vicinity of the roundabout.

(*) Number of times raised in feedback received at the consultation events (**) Number of times raised in feedback received subsequent to the consultation events

2.4 Issues / Concerns Raised by an Individual In addition to the collated and summarised responses received above the following concerns were raised by one individual and are recorded here for information. No additional action is proposed within the scope of the CTLR project in relation to these concerns.

Reference Theme Specific Concerns Response

1 Funding If City Deals funding The Council committed £78million of capital funding to falls through which this project in June 2016. The remaining £42million is PKC budget will being sought as part of the Tay Cities Deal. News of this funding come from? success of the Tay Cities Deal is expected later this year. More information is available at: https://www.taycities.co.uk/ . If the Deal is unsuccessful the shortfall in funding will be considered by the Council.

2 Extent of Requested to know Approx. 150,000 m 3 of material is estimated to be cuttings how much cutting is excavated along the line of the CTLR between the River required. Tay and the A94 based on the current design.

3 Removal of Requested the Approx. 90,000 m 2 of woodland (mainly ancient) is to be woodland number of trees to be removed between the River Tay and the A94. A more removed in historical accurate figure can be provided as the design develops. (ancient) woodland.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 18 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

4 City Centre Can something be This is remote from the scheme and could potentially be traffic done to avoid HGVs reviewed as part of the Phase 4 proposals. turning into King Street then on to S Methven and N Methven Street? E.g. restrict turns into King Street.

5 City Centre Can a Bye-Law be HGVs need to access the city centre as a destination and traffic introduced to stop it is therefore unlikely to be feasible to enforce such a law. HGVs leaving the A9/M90 to use the city centre as a through route.

6 Scone traffic Requested The traffic model takes account of the generalised cost of explanation of the journeys (time, distance, fuel etc), and reroutes traffic in a

20% traffic reduction way that balances out flow, delay, speed and congestion through Scone and across the network, taking account of savings in travel asked if it can be time and distance that could be possible as a result of the guaranteed? scheme. Certain trips will benefit from the scheme and others will not, depending on the origin and destination of each journey. The differences in traffic demand between the ‘with’ and ‘without’ CTLR scenarios, will highlight changes in traffic flow, delay (and hence congestion) across the full network as traffic is rearranged as a result of the scheme. In this manner the traffic reduction has been identified through Scone. No guarantees can be given as the model includes predictions and assumptions.

7 Re-opening Rail link/service Outside Perth and Kinross Council’s remit. railways requested to Luncarty.

8 Routine Request for re- Outside the CTLR project scope. Comment passed to Maintenance painting of faded road PKC Road Maintenance Partnership. markings on existing roads.

9 Perth Concerned that new New development in Perth and its surrounding villages surrounding road and proposed will inevitably change the visual landscape, but this does environment development may not necessarily make them less attractive. New make the Perth area development can often help to support the sustainability a less attractive place of town and village centres, allow for the provision of new to live. or improved educational facilities and ensure the accessibility of key services. These qualities can make places more desirable to live in.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 19 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

3 Conclusions

The consultation exercise has been considered effective in gauging public opinion of the project overall and in identifying areas of concern.

The Cross Tay Link Road implementation (Phase 2 of the Perth Transport Futures project) is widely viewed as a long awaited measure which will bring significant benefits to the city centre of Perth in the relief of traffic flows, albeit there are current issues which will not be helped by the proposals.

The main areas of concern expressed are:

1. Inveralmond Roundabout – Currently long delays on all approaches to the roundabout are experienced, and details were given relating specifically to northbound and southbound on the A9 and Ruthvenfield Road at peak times. In the future this will be exacerbated by the development traffic and the redirected traffic which currently goes through the city centre which will be redirected via the CTLR and Inveralmond Roundabout. Broxden Roundabout is also giving concern due to the proposed new developments, but the bypass effect will not have such a significant effect on Broxden as the vehicles using the CTLR would have been going through Broxden already, perhaps taking a different exit.

2. The A94 north of the CTLR is likely to experience additional traffic flows. A significant number of vehicles currently divert from the A90 onto the A94 via Forfar to avoid the Kingsway at Dundee. The CTLR will make this option more attractive given that the CTLR provides an alternative route to the A94 through Scone and the centre of Perth. Whilst there is understood to be capacity available on the A94 it is recognised that there may be road safety concerns in Coupar Angus, Meigle, Burrelton, and Balbeggie with the increased flows, particularly of HGVs. The Council’s road safety team are preparing a route strategy for the A94 and will monitor the route post completion of the CTLR.

3. Highfield Plantation is locally recognised as a high amenity area and the existing network of paths through the woodland provide a valuable recreational facility to local walkers including children. The CTLR cuts through the plantation and the design team are working to minimise the impact on the non-motorised users, ecology and drainage. Optimising access and road safety and mitigating the environmental impact are the key objectives. The opportunity to involve local children was raised by an attendee at the Scone consultation this will be considered as a community benefits measure.

In addition to agreeing and implementing the actions the next step is to respond individually to those who provided feedback. The Council has compiled a Question & Answer document including responses to all questions and this will be available on the project website (www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk) for anyone to access. This means that everyone should have access to all of the information received.

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD 20 | P a g e PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

APPENDIX A | Feedback Responses

CROSS TAY LINK ROAD PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT JUNE 2018

Chapter 5 - Consultation and Scoping October 2019 PAGE 0 OF CHAPTER 6 Appendix 5.7 – Proposal of Application Notice (PAN)

Cooper, Emma

From: Cooper, Emma Sent: 10 July 2019 09:36 Subject: Cross Tay Link Road - Planning Application Notice Attachments: CTLR - Planning Application Notice.pdf

Good Morning,

Please see attached the Cross Tay Link Road Planning Application Notice (PAN) for your information.

Kind Regards,

Emma Cooper Sweco UK Limited Assistant Consultant (EIA) Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Edinburgh 139 Fountainbridge +44 131 550 6382 Edinburgh, EH3 9QG

+44 7824 408 677 +44 131 550 6300 [email protected] www.sweco.co.uk

Registered Office: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN Company Registration No 2888385 (Registered in England and Wales)

Please click here to read our confidentiality and disclaimer clause. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

In the absence of any other agreement signed by Sweco, Sweco will provide its services under its standard terms of appointment which can be found here.

1 Jamie Scott/Callum Petrie Sweco UK Limited Planning Officer Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Development Management 139 Fountainbridge Planning and Development Edinburgh, EH3 9QG Perth and Kinross Council +44 131 550 6300 Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street Perth PH1 5GD Issued to: [email protected]

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

09/07/2019 Project Name: Cross Tay Link Road Project Reference: 119046 Document Reference: PAN Cover Letter_July 2019 Dear Sir / Madam TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE: MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT – CROSS TAY LINK ROAD (PHASE 2) AT THE A9 OVER THE RIVER TAY TO THE A93 AND A94

FOR PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL

SWECO act on behalf of Perth and Kinross Council Roads Infrastructure team in relation to the delivery of Phase 2 of the Cross Tay Link Road.

The attached Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) is submitted to the Council Development Management team to give notice that a planning application is intended to be submitted following a formal period of statutory Pre-Application Consultation.

The PAN is submitted in the context of the relevant Regulations.

Proposal of Application Notice

The Proposal of Application Notice relates to the forthcoming submission of an “application for planning permission proposing the major infrastructure project – Cross Tay Link Road (Phase 2)”.

A site location plan is attached, detailing the current proposed route and extent of the works within a line of deviation.

Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN +44 113 262 0000 | [email protected] | www.sweco.co.uk Sweco UK Limited, a company incorporated in England & Wales (Reg. number 02888385) 1 of 3 The proposed development relates to a transport and infrastructure proposal, including for the construction of new or replacement roads, where its length exceeds 8km. As such the proposal is categorised as a ‘major application proposal’ in the context of the Town & Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

The submission of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) follows earlier consultations with communities and discussions with the Council including Jillian Ferguson and Callum Petrie regarding the proposed development.

Proposed Development

The Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR) represents Phase 2 of the Perth Transport Futures Project.

The CTLR Project consists of a new road linking the A9 over the River Tay to the A93 and A94 north of Scone. It includes the realignment of a section of the A9, provision of a new bridge over the River Tay and Perth to Inverness railway line, provision of a new grade separated junction on the A9 north of Inveralmond Roundabout, a roundabout at Highfield Lane, new roundabouts on the A93 and A94 and a green bridge at Highfield Plantation. The proposals also include new and improved cycling and walking infrastructure along the length of the route.

Sweco commenced consultations in September 2017 with key stakeholders and consultees and these discussions have influenced the design as we have progressed through the review of the DMRB Stage 2 into Specimen Design. This has included an initial value engineering exercise.

The submission of the PAN follows an initial round of public consultation which took place in May and June 2018. The earlier engagement with the public and stakeholders has informed the process and the proposals to be brought forward.

A series of further public exhibition events are planned, as detailed in the attached schedules, with several opportunities planned to allow for parties to attend events or respond online.

Pre-Application Consultation

We confirm that we have today sent a copy of this notice to the local Councillors as well as the local community councils.

A variety of other stakeholders have been made aware of the submission of the PAN and the details of the public exhibitions as detailed on the attached schedule.

It is the intention that formal public consultation event in the form of a public exhibitions will take place at the following venues on the dates provided: -

1. Luncarty: 21st August 14:00 to 19:00, Luncarty Memorial Hall, Woodside, Off Scarth Road, Luncarty, PH1 3HF; 2. Scone: 22nd August 14:00 to 19:00, Robert Douglas Memorial Hall, 102 Abbey Road, Scone, PH2 6RU; 3. Coupar Angus: 27th August 14:00 to 19:00, Coupar Angus Town Hall, Union Street, Coupar Angus, PH13 9AE; and 4. Perth: 28th August 14:00 to 19:00, Civic Hall, 2 High Street, Perth, PH1 5PH.

PAN Cover Letter_July 2019, 05/07/2019 2 of 3 Details of the events and venues will be confirmed to all stakeholders identified in the PAN as soon as possible. An advertisement will be placed in the local press advertising the arrangements at least 7 days beforehand (i.e. no later than 14 August 2019), with details also posted on the project website www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk.

We trust that the above and attached is satisfactory. We look forward to receiving formal confirmation of the receipt of the Proposal of Application Notice in early course.

Should you require any further information at this stage, please do not hesitate to contact Emma Cooper ([email protected] / 0131 550 6382) of this office direct.

Yours faithfully

Becky McLean EIA Technical Director +44 131 550 6405 +44 7766 504 923 [email protected]

SWECO

Enc. Schedule of PAN Consultees Site Location Plan

PAN Cover Letter_July 2019, 05/07/2019 3 of 3 Proposal of Application Notice

Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (Regulations 4-7)

The Council will respond within 21 days of receiving the Notice. It will advise whether the proposed Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) is satisfactory or if additional notification and consultation above the statutory minimum is required. The minimum consultation activity includes consultation with the relevant community council(s), the holding of a public event, and its advertisement.

1. Applicant’s Details Name

Address

Telephone Email

2. Agent’s Details (if applicable)

Name

Address

Telephone Email

3. Postal address of the prospective development site (if applicable). If there is no postal address, describe its location.

Note: In order to properly identify the site show its outline on an OS base plan and attach it to the completed Notice.

4. Describe the development to be carried out.

Note: Include enough detail to enable the planning authority to determine the class of development within the new hierarchy. For example, state as applicable the number of residential units; the floor area of buildings in square metres; the capacity of the facility; and the length of infrastructure projects, etc.

5. State which other parties have received a copy of this PAN.

6. Describe what consultation is being proposed, when such consultation will take place, who will be consulted and what form it will take.

Note: A public event held by the prospective applicant in accordance with the above requirements, is not to be held earlier than 7 days after the date and place of such an event has been published in the local newspaper.

Send to:

[email protected]

Development Management Housing and Environment Perth & Kinross Council Pullar House 35 Kinnoull Street PERTH PH1 5GD

HOW WE USE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION

The information provided by you will be used by Perth & Kinross Council to process the planning application. The information will be published on the internet as part of the Council’s Planning Portal.

The Council may check information provided by you, or information about you provided by a third party, with other information held by us. We may also get

information from certain third parties or share your information with them in order to verify its accuracy, prevent or detect crime, protect public funds or where required by law.

For further information, please look at our website www.pkc.gov.uk/dataprotection; email [email protected] or phone 01738 477933.

Reviewed April 2018

Legend Proposed CTLR Project ± Proposed Red Line Boundary Proposed Developmetns (LDP 2014)

Luncarty

Luncarty South

Redgorton

0 1 2 Km

Bertha Park North Scone

PKC Community Councils Boundary Scone

CCoonnttaaiinnss OOSS ddaattaa ©© CCrroowwnn Almond Valley CCooppyyrriigghhtt aanndd ddaattaabbaassee rriigghhtt 22001198

P01 02/07/2019 For Information JB CC

Rev. Rev. Date Drawing Suitability Drawn Appr'd

Bridgend Sweco, City Park Bldg Alexandra Parade, Suite 3/5, City Park, 368 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow G31 3AU Tel: +44 (0) 141 414 1700

Client Perth

Project

Cross Tay Link Road

Drawing Title Figure 1.1 - Site Location

Scale @ A3 1:40,000 DO NOT SCALE Project No. 119046 Status S2 BIM No. 119046-SWECO-EGN-000-DR-GS-20001

This drawing should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Sweco UK Limited was commissioned. Sweco UK Limited accepts no responsibility for this drawing to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. Any party which breaches the provisions of this disclaimer shall idemnify Sweco UK Limited for all loss or damage arising therefrom.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 OS 100016971. Use of this data is subject to terms and conditions. SWECO

Stakeholder Parties receiving a copy of the PAN:-

Community Councils

· Bridgend, Gannochy and Kinnoull · Coupar Angus · Luncarty, Redgorton and Moneydie Community Council · Meigle and Ardler · North Inch and Muirton · North Muirton · Scone and District Community Council

Local Councillors

· Provost Dennis Melloy · Cllr Fiona Sarwar · Cllr Lewis Simpson · Cllr Colin Stewart (Ward 2 Strathmore)

· Cllr Ian James · Cllr Anne Jarvis · Cllr Grant Laing (Ward 5 Strathtay)

· Cllr Chris Ahern · Cllr Peter Barrett · Cllr Eric Drysdale · Cllr Andrew Parrott (Ward 12 Perth City Centre)

Stakeholder Parties also receiving a copy of the PAN submission:-

MP’s and MSP’s

· Perth and North Perthshire Cllr Peter Wishart · Ochil and South Perthshire Cllr Luke Graham

MSPs

· Perthshire South and Kinross-shire Cllr Roseanna Cunningham · Perthshire North Cllr John Swinney

Regional MSPs for the Mid Scotland and Fife Area

· Cllr Murdo Fraser · Cllr Alex Rowley · Cllr Elizabeth Jane Smith · Cllr Claire Baker · Cllr Dean Lockhart · Cllr Alexander Stewart · Cllr Mark Ruskell SWECO

Members of European Parliament

· Cllr Alyn Smith · Cllr Christian Allard · Cllr Louis Stedman-Bryce · Cllr Sheila Ritchie · Cllr Aileen McLeod · Baroness Nosheena Mobarik

Stakeholders

· HES · Perth and Kinross Council · SEPA · SNH · Forestry Commission Scotland · Transport Scotland · British Horse Society · Buglife Scotland · Butterfly Conservation · ByCycle · CILPK · Crown Estate · Health and Safety Executive · Marine Scotland · National Grid · National Health Service (NHS) Tayside · Network Rail Scotland · Perth and District Anglers Association · Perth and District Ramblers · Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust · Perth Canoe Club · Perth Racecourse · RSPB Scotland · Scottish Aero Club · Scottish Canoe Association · Scottish Orienteering · Scottish Water · Scottish Wildlife Trust · Scotways · SSE · Sustrans · Tay District Salmon Fisheries Board · Tayside Raptor Study Group · Visit Scotland

SV10421/Schedule of PAN Consultees Cooper, Emma

From: Cooper, Emma Sent: 26 August 2019 14:44 Subject: RE: Cross Tay Link Road - Proposal of Application Notice Attachments: CTLR_PAN_RLB_26.08.19.pdf

Good Afternoon,

Further to our earlier e-mail attaching a copy of the Proposal of Application Notice submitted to Perth and Kinross Council we attach an updated plan for your attention. The changes are minimal and either represent areas that are being regularised or to include small tie ins for junctions or access roads. The others are:

1. An area of proposed riparian planning located on the banks of the River Tay. This has recently been added into the design as part of the proposed mitigation; and 2. A construction compensatory flooding area on the banks of the River Almond, that SEPA have recently advised would be required should one of the Tay Crossing Bridge construction access options be used.

Kind Regards,

Emma Cooper Sweco UK Limited Assistant Consultant (EIA) Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Edinburgh 139 Fountainbridge +44 131 550 6382 Edinburgh, EH3 9QG

+44 7824 408 677 +44 131 550 6300 [email protected] www.sweco.co.uk

Registered Office: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN Company Registration No 2888385 (Registered in England and Wales)

Please click here to read our confidentiality and disclaimer clause. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

In the absence of any other agreement signed by Sweco, Sweco will provide its services under its standard terms of appointment which can be found here.

From: Cooper, Emma Sent: 10 July 2019 09:36 Subject: Cross Tay Link Road - Planning Application Notice

Good Morning,

Please see attached the Cross Tay Link Road Planning Application Notice (PAN) for your information.

Kind Regards,

Emma Cooper Sweco UK Limited Assistant Consultant (EIA) Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Edinburgh 139 Fountainbridge +44 131 550 6382 Edinburgh, EH3 9QG

+44 7824 408 677 +44 131 550 6300 [email protected] www.sweco.co.uk

Registered Office: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN Company Registration No 2888385 (Registered in England and Wales)

1

Please click here to read our confidentiality and disclaimer clause. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

In the absence of any other agreement signed by Sweco, Sweco will provide its services under its standard terms of appointment which can be found here.

2 Legend Proposed CTLR Project ± Proposed Red Line Boundary Proposed Developments (LDP 2014)

Luncarty

Luncarty South

Redgorton

0 1 2 Km

PKC Community North Scone Councils Boundary

Bertha Park CCoonnttaaiinnss OOSS ddaattaa ©© CCrroowwnn CCooppyyrriigghhtt aanndd ddaattaabbaassee rriigghhtt 2019 Scone 2019 P01 26/08/2019 For Information JB CC

Rev. Rev. Date Drawing Suitability Drawn Appr'd

Sweco, City Park Bldg Alexandra Parade, Suite 3/5, City Park, 368 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow G31 3AU Tel: +44 (0) 141 414 1700

Client Almond Valley

Project

Cross Tay Link Road

Drawing Title Figure 1.1 - Perth Site Location Scale @ A3 1:30,000 DO NOT SCALE Bridgend Project No. 119046 Status S2 BIM No. 119046-SWECO-EGN-000-DR-GS-20001

This drawing should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Sweco UK Limited was commissioned. Sweco UK Limited accepts no responsibility for this drawing to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. Any party which breaches the provisions of this disclaimer shall idemnify Sweco UK Limited for all loss or damage arising therefrom.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 OS 100016971. Use of this data is subject to terms and conditions. Cooper, Emma

From: Cooper, Emma Sent: 10 September 2019 10:44 Subject: Cross Tay Link Road - Proposal of Application Notice - Pre-Application Consultation Material

Good Morning,

Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) events have been held since the previous correspondence sent regarding the Proposal of Application Notice.

Please find the materials presented at the PAC events below:  CTLR Exhibition Boards 2019 Board 1 (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Boards-2019-Board-1.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Boards 2019 Board 2 (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Boards-2019-Board-2.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Boards 2019 Board 3 (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Boards-2019-Board-3.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Boards 2019 Board 4 (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Boards-2019-Board-4.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Boards 2019 Board 5 (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Boards-2019-Board-5.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Banner The CTLR Project (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Banner-The-CTLR-Project.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Banner Progress and Project Milestones (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Banner-Progress-and-Project-Milestones.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Banner EIA (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Banner-EIA.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Banner Construction (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR-Consultation-Banner-Construction.pdf)  CTLR Exhibition Leaflet (https://www.perthtransportfutures.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CTLR- Consultation-Leaflet.pdf)

If you haven’t done so already, please provide any comments you may have on the PAC material by Friday 20th September. Please note that comments received on this material do not represent a formal comment on the planning application.

Kind Regards,

Emma Cooper Sweco UK Limited Assistant Consultant (EIA) Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Edinburgh 139 Fountainbridge +44 131 550 6382 Edinburgh, EH3 9QG

+44 7824 408 677 +44 131 550 6300 [email protected] www.sweco.co.uk

Registered Office: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN Company Registration No 2888385 (Registered in England and Wales)

Please click here to read our confidentiality and disclaimer clause. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

In the absence of any other agreement signed by Sweco, Sweco will provide its services under its standard terms of appointment which can be found here.

1 From: Cooper, Emma Sent: 26 August 2019 14:44 Subject: RE: Cross Tay Link Road - Proposal of Application Notice

Good Afternoon,

Further to our earlier e-mail attaching a copy of the Proposal of Application Notice submitted to Perth and Kinross Council we attach an updated plan for your attention. The changes are minimal and either represent areas that are being regularised or to include small tie ins for junctions or access roads. The others are:

1. An area of proposed riparian planning located on the banks of the River Tay. This has recently been added into the design as part of the proposed mitigation; and 2. A construction compensatory flooding area on the banks of the River Almond, that SEPA have recently advised would be required should one of the Tay Crossing Bridge construction access options be used.

Kind Regards,

Emma Cooper Sweco UK Limited Assistant Consultant (EIA) Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Edinburgh 139 Fountainbridge +44 131 550 6382 Edinburgh, EH3 9QG

+44 7824 408 677 +44 131 550 6300 [email protected] www.sweco.co.uk

Registered Office: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN Company Registration No 2888385 (Registered in England and Wales)

Please click here to read our confidentiality and disclaimer clause. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

In the absence of any other agreement signed by Sweco, Sweco will provide its services under its standard terms of appointment which can be found here.

From: Cooper, Emma Sent: 10 July 2019 09:36 Subject: Cross Tay Link Road - Planning Application Notice

Good Morning,

Please see attached the Cross Tay Link Road Planning Application Notice (PAN) for your information.

Kind Regards,

Emma Cooper Sweco UK Limited Assistant Consultant (EIA) Sweco 2nd Floor Quay 2 Edinburgh 139 Fountainbridge +44 131 550 6382 Edinburgh, EH3 9QG

+44 7824 408 677 +44 131 550 6300 [email protected] www.sweco.co.uk

Registered Office: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN Company Registration No 2888385 (Registered in England and Wales)

Please click here to read our confidentiality and disclaimer clause. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

In the absence of any other agreement signed by Sweco, Sweco will provide its services under its standard terms of appointment which can be found here.

2