1 in the Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Airport Rail
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT EDINBURGH AIRPORT RAIL LINK BILL OBJECTION TO THE BILL BY MEADOWFIELD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED 1. Meadowfield Developments Limited (“the Company”) is a company incorporated in Scotland under the Companies Acts and has its registered office at Level 1, Citymark, 150 Fountainbridge, Edinburgh EH3 9PE. 2. The promoter of the above mentioned Bill (“the Bill”) is tie limited (“tie”). The effect of the Bill would be to authorise the construction and operation of a rail line (“EARL”) linking Edinburgh Airport with the existing rail network. The Bill would also authorise tie to acquire compulsorily land required for the construction and operation of EARL and to stop up, alter and interfere with roads. 3. The Company’s interests would be adversely affected by the Bill. 4. The Company is the heritable proprietor of a substantial area of land situated in a locality known as West Edinburgh which lies west of Edinburgh and east of Edinburgh Airport. That area of land (“the Company’s land”) is managed for the Company by Cardross Asset Management Limited and includes the whole or parts of plots 678, 679, 681, 681a-683, 686, 687, 699, 701, 703, 704, 706, 709, 713, 714, 719-722, 725, 729, 729a, 736 as shown on the Parliamentary plans submitted with the Bill. The Company is also the heritable proprietor of plots 718, 723, 726 and 728 and heritable proprietor in part of plots 676, 677 and 680. The EDIN 1169186 v 1 1 Schedules accompanying Letter No. 413 do not identify the Company as the heritable proprietor of these plots and accordingly the Company has not received the requisite notices in respect of all its affected heritable interests. 5. The Company does not object to and welcomes the principle of the Bill but the Company does object to certain provisions of the Bill and matters arising from the Bill as mentioned below. The Company submits that the Bill is also deficient in certain respects and should be amended as indicated below. 6. In a Government White Paper - “The Future of Air Transport” - produced by the Department for Transport in December 2003, the rapid growth of traffic at Edinburgh Airport is forecast to reach about 20,000,000 passengers per annum by the year 2030. The Company’s land together with other land situated in West Edinburgh, is currently designated as Green Belt. In the West Edinburgh Planning Framework it is stated that “Scottish Ministers also recognise the long- term economic development potential of the national asset that is West Edinburgh”. It is also acknowledged in that paper that, in appropriate circumstances, “there may be justification to release [that] Green Belt land for high quality economic development.” 7. Section 16 and other related provisions of the Bill would confer on the authorised undertaker powers to acquire extensive areas of land for the construction, operation and maintenance of EARL. In the case of the Company’s land, the Company submits that the area proposed for compulsory acquisition exceeds the land actually required for the purposes of EARL. The Company submits that further work should be carried out by tie to further identify and restrict the extent of the land which tie needs to acquire for EARL; and that the Bill should be amended accordingly. 8. With further reference to paragraph 7 above, the Company notes that no detailed engineering plans and specifications have been prepared for EARL. The Company submits that tie should not be permitted to proceed with the promotion of the Bill until tie has produced those detailed plans and specifications and EDIN 1169186 v 1 2 allowed the Company sufficient time to give reasonable consideration to those plans and sections to the extent that those plans and sections contain proposals which may affect the Company’s land. 9. The Bill would confer powers on tie to acquire or temporarily possess an extensive part of the Company’s land on which to construct the works to be authorised by the Bill. Such an acquisition would, in the Company’s submission, go beyond what could reasonably be required for such works. 10. Part of the Company’s land lies to the north of the Edinburgh-Fife railway line but is connected to the land as shown on the Parliamentary plans submitted with the Bill. The Company considers that it is important to retain this access, which is used by both pedestrians and vehicles. The authorised works would separate land to the south of the rail line from the land and buildings located to the north of the Edinburgh-Fife railway and a detailed alterative route of access should be provided. Further, the Company considers that a future spur north from Gogar roundabout or any future access road to Edinburgh Airport to Turnhouse Road would provide an enhanced access for freight traffic to and from Edinburgh Airport and could also serve as a dedicated access should the Company’s land in this location be developed. Given this, the Company considers that the Bill should be amended both to preserve the link as existing between land to the north of the railway and land to the south at Gogar and for EARL to be designed to allow a future enhanced north spur from Gogar roundabout to Turnhouse Road. This has already been agreed and reserved with the City of Edinburgh Council through an agreement relating to the Edinburgh Tram Line 2 scheme. 11. tie have provided insufficient detail as to the apparatus underneath plots 681, 709, 713 and 729. In the event that such apparatus will be owned or operated by a EDIN 1169186 v 1 3 statutory undertaker then it is submitted that such statutory undertakers have adequate statutory powers to locate their apparatus on land not within their ownership and it is accordingly inappropriate for the Bill to duplicate such powers. Plot 729 (and other plots are) to be acquired for “maintenance” purposes. It is submitted that the area included for that purpose is excessive. Accordingly, the Company objects to the acquisition of these plots. 12. The Company believes that some of the Company’s land which is proposed to be permanently acquired is only required temporarily for the construction of EARL. The Company submits that the Bill should be amended to provide that so much of the Company’s land as is only temporarily required should be occupied by tie in accordance with the provisions of a section to be framed along the lines of section 20 of the Bill (Temporary use of land for construction of works). 13. The Company objects to the provisions of the Bill which apply the legislation applicable to planning agreements to developer contributions in respect of the proposed scheme. The Company’s land is not served by the proposed scheme and it will not derive any benefit from the scheme. The Company’s land does not, nor would it if developed, create any need for the proposed scheme. Any contributions to be sought from developers should only relate to those proposals which it can be demonstrated directly contribute to any need to implement the proposed scheme. 14. The Company apprehends that the construction of EARL will, unless preventative measures are put in place, injuriously affect the Company’s retained land. The Company submits that tie should therefore be required to agree with the Company a code of construction practice to be imposed upon, and to be adhered to by, the contractors who will carry out the works to be authorised by the Bill to ensure that measures are employed to minimise injurious affection to the Company’s retained land and being a code which will be enforceable by the Company in the event that those contractors should fail to comply with its requirements and thereby cause injurious affection to that land. EDIN 1169186 v 1 4 15. tie have not offered to the Company any opportunity to carry on meaningful consultations with the Company regarding tie’s proposals for EARL, due to the absence of detailed design drawings. However, the Company is willing to discuss, at the earliest practicable opportunity, those proposals with tie with a view to resolving some or all of the matters referred to above. 16. In the absence of detailed consultations between tie and the Company and due to the limited time available to the Company to consider the Bill, the Company may wish to raise other matters which may be subsequently identified as of concern to the Company and, if necessary, give evidence in relation to those matters. Sarah Pirie Solicitor for the Company Burness LLP 50 Lothian Road Edinburgh EH3 9WJ Dated 12 May 2006 EDIN 1169186 v 1 5.