FoI request re 11/00310
Text of objections 58 - 73
Objection 58
I wish to object to Babcock applying for a Harbour Revision Order. I object on the grounds that: 1. There is no need for another Container Port on the Forth as there is plenty of capacity at Grangemouth, which also has better access to the transport system of Scotland. 2. The links to the Rail and road system are wholly inadequate for moving containers into and out of this Container Port if given the go ahead. 3. I do not believe that they will provide 200 jobs. Grangemouth, I believe, operate with far less people than 200. 4. The dredging needed to get channels deep enough to get ships in and out of this Terminal will have a severe impact on the environment both the surrounding sea walls and piers but also the marine and bird life. 5. The 'carbon impact' of a terminal at this location would be huge as tugs would be needed to move ships into place and there would be ongoing dredging to keep channels open.
I do not know where the money is coming from to build such a project, can't believe that Babcock are totally funding, but if the Scottish Government are subsidising this would be very wrong in this environment. The money could be better spent much needed projects to grow the economy and not on something that does not have a strong business case to contribute to the economy.
Objection 59
I write to you of my concern of the above proposal.
I hereby object to the proposal on the following grounds.
• 24/7 noise affecting the quality of life in surrounding villages. • Negligible job creation for the disruption. • Additional strain on local A roads with haulage vehicles • There is an under utilised terminal at Grangemouth on the Firth of Forth already.
I hope you consider my objection.
Objection 60
Objection 61
Proposed Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order and Proposed River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order
As owner occupiers of the property which would be most severely affected by both noise and visual impact, we write to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed construction of a container terminal on the RD57 site at Rosyth.
Objection 62
As a village resident in Charlestown I wish to lodge an objection to the proposal to build a container terminal at Rosyth. Reading the document sent to you by this Community Council there are various points that do not stand up in my opinion. Mainly that containers would only be able to come in at high tide. The volume of traffic on the present road system would not be acceptable. Dredging a deeper channel would have a devestating effect on the shore line. In the present climate this is a waste of time and effort when the opportunity is there to extend the Grangemouth facility. There are others to many to detail here. I have to add my name to this objection.
Objection 63
I write to express my concern at the news that engineering support services organisation Babcock is planning to proceed with plans to develop the container terminal at Rosyth by obtaining a Harbour Revision Order - rather than following a democratic planning process which would allow for contributions and comments from the many stakeholders affected by this proposed development.
There appears to be little merit in the proposed Harbour Revision Scheme. I am a resident of the Charlestown/Limekilns area and am very alarmed that the considerable impact that this development would have on our communities would be entirely disregarded and sidestepped by following such a process.
My main concerns with this proposal are as follows:
- Babcock claims it will handle 400,000 containers per year at its Rosyth site - without taking business from other operators. This figure represents more containers in total than currently visit ALL Scottish container ports and freight terminals. There is no evidence to support this claim.
- This scheme would not make a contribution to the Fife economy or provide the number of jobs that Babcock promise.
- If more capacity for containers were needed on the Forth, this could easily be met by Grangemouth. Grangemouth container port would require very few infrastructure upgrades to meet this demand.
- Container transport in and out of the port will be by road, since the rail route alternatives through Inverkething have been assessed as severely limited. The road congestion that this represents for the town of Rosyth and for other traffic users of the A985 as well as the Forth Road Bridge will be horrendous. Given the hold-ups that were frequently experienced on this road during the snowy weather in December 2010, total grid-lock would be likely if container traffic were added in to the mix.
- Due to the massive increases in noise levels, constant activity and necessary changes to the marine environment to accommodate the container terminal - such as dredging - the impact of such a project on the marine environment and birdlife could be catastrophic.
- The noise and light pollution this project would have on the village of Limekilns and its residents all day and all night, would severely disrupt sleep patterns and add considerably to levels of stress and mental ill-health.
I object to Babcock's proposals and strongly oppose that Babcock be granted a Harbour Revision Order.
Objection 64
We write to express our concern and dismay at the decision by Babcock to apply for a Harbour Revision Order, which will allow the company to bypass the rigorous scrutiny of their proposals for a container terminal at Rosyth, and related works, that would be undertaken were the company required to follow standard planning procedures by making a Planning Application to Fife Council. As residents of Charles Way in Limekilns village, and thus very close neighbours of the proposed developments, we view this as a grossly improper attempt to circumvent normal democratic planning regulations and requirements, and thus to sidestep the need to consult with and take proper account of the very significant, and as yet wholly unaddressed, concerns of the neighbouring communities.
To date, Babcock has totally failed to make a commercial or environmental case for the need for an additional container terminal on the Forth, let alone in Scotland. In the first instance, there is absolutely no need to construct an additional terminal on the Forth capable of handling 400,000 containers per year when, even in recent boom years, the total numbers of containers handled by ALL Scottish container terminals/ports was less than that number. If there is a real future requirement to augment existing container capacity on the Forth, the existing terminal at Grangemouth could more than double its existing capacity without significant infrastructure upgrade or environmental impact. By comparison, proceeding with the construction of a new container terminal at Rosyth would require massive upgrades to existing transport infrastructure, and would make an enormous (but, in the absence of rigorous environmental impact assessments, as yet unquantified) impact on the sensitive environment in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. It is already clear that connecting the proposed terminal to the national rail network will be highly problematic, and therefore that all container transport in and out of the terminal would have to be undertaken by road. The A985 is already overloaded as a transport artery over-run by large articulated lorries, and would require significant upgrading and re-routing were it to be able to handle the additional traffic that would generated by a new terminal.
The proposed terminal at Rosyth will not be able to accommodate larger container ships than those already docking at Grangemouth, as the Forth bridges limit the maximum size of vessels for both ports. There is thus no benefit to developing a terminal at Rosyth rather than expanding the existing facility at Grangemouth. Further, since Grangemouth employs just 50 operators, it is hard to see how Babcock's economic justification, based on creating 200 operational jobs, will deliver. In terms of cost/benefit, the proposed terminal will not make a significant contribution to the economy of Fife, and will not deliver a significant uplift in terms of local employment opportunities.
By contrast, it is absolutely clear that there will be a significant loss of amenity for local communities were the proposed development to go ahead, including major noise and light pollution at all times of the day and night. Further, the project will require dredged approach channels and alongside berths. As a Royal Navy hydrographic surveyor who has served as the National Hydrographer for both Oman and Fiji, I am acutely aware of the often unexpected and usually highly negative impacts that dredging, which inevitably disturbs the established tidal and environmental equilibrium, can make on the adjacent environment. Of particular concern will be the probable scouring effects on the adjacent shoreline due to altered tidal streams - which could both undermine the coastal defences at Limekilns, and destroy the environmentally sensitive foreshore that is a valuable habitat for a wide range of marine and bird life.
In view of the above, we hereby register our very strongest objections to the application made by Babcock for a Harbour Revision Order, and request that Babcock should be required to follow standard planning application procedures by referring their proposals to Fife Council.
Finally, we would be grateful for your early acknowledgment of receipt of this objection. Thank you.
Objection 65
Proposed Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order and Proposed River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order 201[x]
I write to object to the application by Babcock for both of the above Harbour Revision Orders. I write as a private individual. I live in a property which would be severely affected by visual impact and noise if the above development should ever be allowed to go ahead. The effects on my quality of life and my loss of amenity would be devastating. It would be beneficial if some use were found for the reclaimed land known as RD57 which was constructed at huge public expense and which has lain derelict for almost 20 years. However, the container terminal proposal by Babcock is a totally inappropriate use of this site for all the reasons given in the Community Council’s letter of objection. I object to the application on all the grounds listed in the objection submitted by Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council. I would also note that, on several occasions, I have been personally offended by the arrogant and disdainful attitude that Babcock personnel have adopted when I have, as ______of the Community Council, made quite reasonable and reasoned approaches to them. Their approach to consultation and community engagement has been dire. In an attempt to adopt an objective view of the proposals, I have been giving much thought of late to something I learnt on my MBA course. The widely used test for a Business Strategy (Johnson and Scholes) is that it should be shown to pass the tests of Suitability, Acceptability and Feasibility. It seems appropriate to analyse Babcock’s Strategy for a container terminal at Rosyth using these three tests.
1. Suitability. a) Does it take advantage of opportunities which are already there, such as the organisation’s resources and capabilities? From available information, I argue that Babcock has neither the experience, the resources nor the capabilities necessary to develop this project. The only resource they have is a piece of unused infrastructure and £85 million of cash. Fail b) Does it fit the organisation’s objectives including rates of return on capital, profitability, and other non-financial performance indicators, which, these days might (as suggested on Babcock’s web site) include an acknowledgement of the organisation’s social responsibility? The Community Council’s submission indicates that the rate of return on capital and predicted profitability are zero, if not negative. Babcock personnel have, in their dealings with local stakeholders, failed to acknowledge that their business might have any social responsibility, beyond making inflated promises of jobs to be created. Fail c) Does it fit with the organisation’s core business? As far as can be ascertained, Babcock have no experience of container operations. While many other activities are mentioned on the Babcock web site there is no mention of container terminals. Fail
2. Feasibility. The test of feasibility of a proposed strategy considers how well it would work in practice and how difficult it might be to achieve. a) Can the strategy be resourced? Apparently, Babcock has the financial capability. However, capital is not the only resource required. A secure market and customers for their service would also be required, as would proper deep water access, and strategic road and rail infrastructure. None of these exist. Neither is there evidence of expertise in managing a container terminal. Fail b) Can the organisation actually achieve the required level of operational performance? Once again the Community Council’s analysis indicates that the level of operational performance predicted is wildly optimistic, and unlikely ever to be achieved. Fail c) How will the competition react and how will the organisation cope with the reaction? The local competitor is Forth Ports. As it receives barely a mention in the HRO submission, it has to be assumed that Babcock have yet to consider how difficult it might be to overcome the substantial barriers to entry into the very small Scottish container freight market. The result of any effort to acquire market share could be a price war which could well lead to the failure of both operations with adverse social consequences for Central Scotland. Fail
3. Acceptability. This test addresses the issues of how stakeholders might feel about the expected outcomes of the strategy – in terms of risk, profitability, reward, ethics and relationships. a) What is the risk to shareholders in terms of financial or cost benefit performance? As the project is unlikely return a profit for the company in the foreseeable future, shareholders could regret the opportunity cost of embarking upon this project when there are alternative uses for the available capital. Fail b) What could be the effect of relationships with the organisation’s stakeholders? Stakeholders are sometimes considered according to their importance by words beginning with ‘D’ . Failure to engage effectively and at an early stage with Definitive stakeholders such as Forth Ports does not bode well for future relationships. In demonstrating a similar reluctance to engage with Discretionary stakeholders such as the representatives of local residents, Babcock have not engendered trust in their ability to be honest and open in discussion of issues of mutual interest. It would seem that other stakeholders, which could variously be described as Dominant (or even Dangerous) such as the local authority, politicians and the local press have been taken in by Babcock’s promises of jobs and a boost to the local economy. The future trust of these stakeholders in Babcock when they make grandiose promises will be severely compromised. Fail
Having carried out this brief analysis, I would contend that the proposals fail on all three strategic tests. The project has no commercial legitimacy, nor should it have been included in the National Plan because it has no national legitimacy nor does it comply with any of the six criteria required for inclusion in NPF2.
Objection 66
To Whom It May Concern,
The residents of Crombie have been canvassed and 43 people raised an objection to the development of the Babcock terminal in Rosyth. As a result of these responses, Crombie Community Council have agreed to raise an objection to the Babcock Rosyth terminal on the behalf of these residents on the following grounds;
Crombie is a small village community, with a significant proportion of young families and children who attend the Primary school that is located on Main Road (A985). Main Road is the road that will be impacted by the huge increase in traffic volume estimated by Babcock - Not only will classes be disturbed each time one of the new 40ft container carrying lorries passes the school four times per hour, the increase in traffic due to the tail backs caused by the slower moving vehicles will increase the risk of pollution related health problems: research has proven children exposed to high levels of traffic pollution have a 45% higher chance of developing asthma see (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100409142431.htm)
These children being put at risk are the Children of families that have chosen a rural, not an inner city life so, these changes will impact the lives of families that choose to raise their child in a safe, low pollution environment only to have this environment destroyed.
The Increased Traffic Volume caused by the 40ft container carrying lorries passing people's homes 4 times an hour will also cause 24 hour disturbance to residents on the A985.
The upgrade to the A985 that Babcock has suggested will be required indicates the increased level of traffic Babcock themselves expect. Regardless of whether roads are upgraded, leaving Crombie onto the A985 by car will be more difficult and hazardous due to the increased traffic load.
It is the view of members of the Crombie Community Council that the benefits Babcock claim are outweighed by the negative impact of these developments on the small communities in west Fife.
The people of Crombie choose to live in a village with limited access and little vehicular disturbance, we do not agree that Babcock has the right to disturb our lives to this extent, the primary reason for this development is for Babcock to profit, we the residents of Crombie should not have these changes and risks forced on us in order for a company to profit.
Objection 67
I object strongly, as a Limekilns resident within sight of Rosyth dockyard, to Babcock's Harbour Revision Order application. My grounds of objection are: (1) The proposed development will cause a substantial increase in traffic and consequent danger at the already substandard Limekilns junction with the A985. (2) The dredging necessary to keep the shipping channels open will risk damage to the sea bed with the consequence of serious damage to the coast adjacent to the Dockyard and the bird and marine life which have special protection.
Objection 68
We write to you with much concern regarding the proposed container terminal at Rosyth.
Having read the available documents regarding this proposal we feel this project must not be allowed to go ahead for several reasons.
Firstly we fail to see how this proposal will, as claimed, make a contribution to Fife's economy. It is our understanding that it will simply service any growth in the local economy and will not in fact create any growth. The promised 200 jobs are unlikely to materialise as Grangemouth has just 50 operators.
There is an obvious limitation as to the size of ships entering the Forth due to the Forth Bridge therefore Rosyth will be unable to accommodate larger ships than those already using Grangemouth. Why then, is it necessary to initiate a dredging process that will cause irreversible damage to the stability of the sea bed and will have a consequent risk of damage to, and undermining of, sea walls, piers, and houses in our village. There will also be risks to the marine and bird life which have special protection.
There has been much concern already over the Limekilns junction with the A985 and we feel that this has been seriously overlooked in the proposal. There are huge issues concerning container transport in and out of the port and with the planned construction of the new Forth Road Bridge this can only increase our concerns and increase the likelihood of accidents at our road junction.
Moving to Fife from the west many years ago, we chose Limekilns as our home for several reasons but one outstanding reason was the feeling of peace on entering the village. Should this proposal go ahead, we fear it will change the whole feeling of our village with the inevitable generation of noise around the clock.
In conclusion, this proposal cannot be allowed to go ahead. Grangemouth can easily support any increase in container transport without the environmental and social upset to the surrounding areas.
Objection 69
Response to Proposed “River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order 201(X)” – the ‘River Order’
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents as deposited at Rosyth Library for public consultation. As a waterside resident, past user of these estuarine waters and observer of the very welcome 5000+ commercial shipping movements through the Forth Estuary every year, I write to express my concern about the above ‘River Order’, and to object to it. It should not be approved.
Babcock seek to take over control of an area of the estuary, from Forth Ports Authority, but make no acknowledgement of what this will entail, such a Port Marine Safety Code, buoyage and (presumably) a 24/7 harbourmaster. The record of shipping safety during the ~30 years I’ve lived close to the estuary has been very good, and I do not want to see this jeopardised by the introduction of ‘dual controls’ with incoming and outgoing ships passing to and fro from one harbour jurisdiction to another, especially as they carry out potentially hazardous manoeuvring and docking procedures off Rosyth in strong tidal currents. This would unnecessarily increase the risk of a marine accident occurring. It is not clear to me that this is one of the legitimate “Objects for whose Achievement Harbour Revision Orders may be made” (Sch. 2 of the 1964 Harbours Act – hereafter, ‘the Act’). I note that 9B of Sch. 2 of ‘the Act’ would specifically prohibit Babcock from delegating “functions relating to the laying down of buoys, the erection of lighthouses and the exhibition of lights, beacons and sea-marks, so far as those functions are exercisable for the purposes of the safety of navigation.” I submit that Babcock in their application have not adequately demonstrated their skills and plans in relation to marine buoyage to ensure the continuing safe navigation for all in the Forth Estuary. A further point of objection is that Babcock have failed to fulfill the fundamental requirement of 8(2)(d) of Sch 3 of ‘the Act’ which requires alternatives to the proposed order to be considered, and their environmental effects. For their HRO to be regarded as valid, the alternative of modifying the existing Grangemouth container terminal to provide the additional container capacity which may eventually be required should have been compared against the single proposal made.
I also object to the drafting of both the ‘River Order’ and the ‘RICT Order’ in ways which would give Babcock the right (if the orders are approved) to do virtually anything within their site area without going through normal planning processes. As drafted, they give Babcock virtually unrestricted scope to diverge from the detail of the plans presented, probably giving rise to even more nuisance to local residents. Given the errors and omissions in the material which they have submitted, and their poor record on consultation, local residents are bound to suspect that there is some reason for seeking to use the HRO mechanism which by-passes normal local authority procedures.
I note, and fully support, the inclusion in NPF2 of the development of a freight hub at Grangemouth where there is a good rail connection already in use, and scope for massive container volume expansion if and when it is required. The initiation of another container terminal at Rosyth, with less good communication links, and further from the source and destination of most of Scotland’s container traffic, looks neither sensible nor viable and would seem to potentially detract from the further development of the Grangemouth hub, and by this letter I lodge a further objection to the Rosyth scheme on the grounds of incompatibility with that widely supported NPF scheme.
Objection 70
RSPB Scotland objects to the RICT Order as currently drafted and supported by various documents on the applicant’s agent’s website. In particular: • The report to inform an Appropriate Assessment (“the AA report”) fails to address key issues in sufficient detail to enable Scottish Ministers to make a proper assessment; • The RICT Order as currently drafted is tied to the Environmental Statement (“the ES”) in its entirety, with no possibility for amendment or conditions – we therefore question whether a Harbour Revision Order is the appropriate mechanism to deliver what is largely a land-side development, listed as a project of national importance in the National Planning Framework.
The AA report
In our view, the AA report does not provide a sound basis for Scottish ministers to make an Appropriate Assessment of the terminal proposal in general, nor of either of the two Harbour Revision Orders (the “River Order” and the “RICT Order”). In particular, insufficient attention is given to the effects of dredging and to the effects of the proposals in combination with other plans and projects potentially affecting the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA). We also consider that the report does not adequately cover the likelihood or severity of effects of operational disturbance.
The main activity enabled by the RICT Order that gives us cause for concern is dredging – both capital and maintenance. The effects of both require assessment in terms of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, in effect a “Habitats Regulations Assessment” (HRA). Given the scale of dredging proposed, we would have expected to see evidence of modelling to predict the effects of the new channel on flow and sedimentation patterns in the Forth, and in particular on those intertidal parts of the Firth of Forth closest to the proposed development. Altered flows could result in either scour or accretion of sediments within the SPA. However, no evidence is presented or referred to in the AA report to allow Scottish Ministers to formulate an informed view as to either the likelihood or significance of any such effect. The AA report is wholly inadequate in this regard.
Similarly, the AA report does not consider the possibility of disturbance to SPA- qualifying birds due to maintenance dredging. This may represent a significant change in potentially disturbing activity for birds using the SPA and for SPA- qualifying species using the adjacent water. Maintenance dredging may be a significant source of disturbance, particularly if in practice it must be carried out more frequently than currently suggested. Again, in the absence of modelling work, it is not possible to judge the likelihood of this.
The AA report also fails to consider adequately the effects of disposal of what is likely to be an extremely large volume of dredgings.
Consideration of “in combination” effects by the AA report is wholly inadequate. Section 9 of the report merely refers to a previous report, for a different project (the replacement Forth crossing), with different effects, and taking into consideration a different combination of projects, including a proposal for a project on the site of the current proposal, but with different and less significant effects. It seems to us entirely unacceptable to offer up such a report as a surrogate for proper “in combination” assessment of the current proposal.
Detailed comments highlighting specific inadequacies in the AA report are highlighted in the attached Annex 1.
Relationship of the RICT Order and the ES
We have serious concerns about the relationship between the ES and the RICT Order. As we understand it, approval of the RICT Order as currently drafted would require as a matter of law that the project be carried out strictly according to the ES without any modification or amendment. The only choice would appear to be between either accepting or rejecting the ES (and thus the RICT Order) en bloc. As we have serious concerns about the ES (summarised in our comments on the AA report, above), we do not feel that it is a sound basis on which to allow the works proposed in the draft RICT Order. Because the ES is embedded in the Order, we feel we have no choice but to object to the Order itself.
We note that additional container freight capacity on the Forth is listed as a “national project” in the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/02105627/0) Although this means that (in terms of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006) it is accepted that there is a national need for such a development, listing in the framework also implies a high degree of detailed scrutiny and amendment of project detail through the Town & Country Planning process – informed rather than bound by the developer’s ES. This process enables consent to be given for a detailed project other than that for which consent is applied for; and for additional mitigation measures to be made binding by use of planning conditions under Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and Section 23 of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
It is not clear to us how binding conditions can be made in the case of a container terminal at Rosyth for which effective consent is given by means of a Harbour Revision Order. In particular, we do not see how mitigation that is not identified in the current ES, but which may be necessary to ensure the integrity of European wildlife sites, can be incorporated into the project and made binding on the developer. We would welcome clarification from Ministers on this matter – in particular whether mitigation measures can be specified in a Schedule to an amended RICT Order and, if so, whether Ministers might be minded to include such a Schedule, to include any measures that might safeguard integrity of the relevant European wildlife sites.
National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (NPF2)
Without prejudice to our position on the consenting mechanism currently proposed to deliver RICT, NPF2 identifies a number of requirements for the national project of additional container freight capacity on the Forth. We note that this capacity need not be delivered at Rosyth, though no alternative locations are specified in NPF2. There is in fact no absolute requirement to deliver any of the NPF2 national projects: for example, proposals can still be rejected on the grounds of unacceptable environmental impact. With regard to the Forth container capacity project, the Framework lists a number of matters to be addressed when consent is sought: • “Design of facilities and road and rail access arrangements; • carbon impact; • effects on natural heritage and biodiversity, including the Firth of Forth SPA; • any dredging required to maintain deep water channels and the disposal of dredged material; • any measures necessary to minimise, mitigate or compensate for adverse effects on the environment or communities; • and any Ministry of Defence interest. “Development proposals will require environmental impact assessment. As part of appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive, consideration of potential effects in combination with the Replacement Forth Crossing and development at Grangemouth will be required as the projects are developed. Environmental and appropriate assessment at the strategic level will be required for any developments which have not been subject to such assessment as part of the NPF preparation process. Any measures necessary to compensate for effects on the Firth of Forth SPA should be co-ordinated strategically over the area of the SPA”.
The documents supporting the draft RICT Order do not, in our view, cover these matters adequately. In particular, as noted above, the “in combination” assessment presented in the AA report fails to identify projects elsewhere in the Firth of Forth that may also have an effect on qualifying species of the SPA(s). In failing to assess a full range of potentially damaging projects “in combination”, the ES and AA reports also fail to be properly strategic at the spatial scale required by NPF2; and the Framework’s requirement to identify and implement mitigation and/or compensatory measures at the scale of the SPA thus also cannot be met.
I hope you find these comments helpful. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to be in touch.
Objection 71
Objection to Proposed “Rosyth International Container Terminal [Harbour Revision] Order 201[X]” – ‘the RICT Order’ and Objection to proposed “River Forth [Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits] Harbour Revision Order 201[X]” – the ‘River Order’.
I have read the various documents concerning these proposals in great detail. I am very familiar with responding to Scoping Opinion Requests, Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Statements [ES], but I have never previously encountered a Harbour Revision Order [HRO]. I have therefore read relevant parts of the Harbour Act 1964.
Originally, Babcock intended to lodge an application for the proposed Container Terminal with Fife Council following the usual planning procedures and processes. I consider that they are attempting to circumvent some accountability for planning requirements and for certain environmental responsibilities by instead routeing this proposal through the HRO procedures. Acquiring an HRO will enable them to “be laws unto themselves” as far as these environmental and other parameters are concerned. In addition, as part of the planning process to Fife Council, they had been requested to address certain local transport problems associated with the Scheme and to submit a business plan to Fife Council for the operation of the facility. They have done neither of these and by using the HRO process have avoided addressing these issues. Babcock staff claim that the business case cannot be made public for commercial confidentiality reasons, but it is obvious that the economies of this proposal are not viable.
One of my main concerns with the HRO is the change of operational boundary that the Scheme will have. In the Environmental Statement Figures document, at Figure 1.2, the boundary of the HRO is shown as extending some considerable distance into the adjoining Firth of Forth designated site; it would incorporate a large area of the protected site within the new boundary. This area of shore and intertidal zone is part of the Firth of Forth SPA, SSSI, Ramsar wetland, and Natura 2000 designation which is of national and international importance for certain bird species. Obviously if any industrial development was allowed to take place here then the integrity of the site would be severely compromised. The Forth estuary, especially the upper part of the estuary above the bridges, where the intertidal zones are rich in food supplies, is recognised as an extremely important habitat for migrating and other bird species in Scotland and there is a national and international requirement to preserve and enhance them. With an HRO, Babcock could expand their activities into this zone; and in fact they have considered this, as shown in the Environmental Statement [ES] at 3.3.3 at Option2. Additionally, there could be further land reclamation here which would not be subject to public consultation.
If Babcock were allowed the HRO then there would be implications for shipping and the management of shipping routes for them. This would be in conflict with existing arrangements and there would be different arrangements in this part of the estuary from the rest of it, which would be inoperable.
In the HRO document Inventory of Application Materials, Item 1.4, a letter from you to Mark Lancaster of Jacobs of 17/08/2010 states that the issue of carbon impact should be addressed in the submission, as set out in the NPF2. This has been omitted, yet it is a crucial requirement.
For the above reasons I object to Babcock being allowed an HRO. I object to the proposed development for the reasons I outline below. There is an inclusion in the National Planning Framework NPF2, of further provision for container freight movements on the Forth. There is already a fully functioning efficient facility at Grangemouth run by Forth Ports [which Jacobs do not acknowledge anywhere in their ES]. This facility is running well below capacity, additionally it has considerable scope for expansion. The Grangemouth hub is also included in NPF2. I have failed to find anywhere any justification for the identification of the need for two container terminals on the Forth, and enquiry from the Planning Directorate by a neighbour did not elicit any clarification on this. How on earth did this ill-judged proposal make it into NPF2?
The passenger ferry operation at Rosyth has been discontinued by its operator but it has since become a busy roll on-roll off freight facility. This mode of freight movement by Scottish producers, many of whom are small scale and have low levels of production and many of whom require to use refrigerated lorries for perishable produce, must continue to be catered for. The impact of an adjacent container terminal on this facility must be evaluated. Additionally, there is always the aspiration that one day the ferry operator will resume passenger services; if the current freight facility became unviable then there is the potential to lose this transport link.
I note from the documentation that the container terminal proposal has been in the pipeline since 2004, although I did not become aware of its existence until January 2010. Thus it was conceived at a time when the economy was healthier and maybe at that time Scotland did export and import more [although the Grangemouth facility could have coped with any increase]. Since then there has been a huge downturn in our fortunes yet this has not been considered in the persistence with this flawed proposal. I emphasise that Scotland has a small population, and we produce little for export compared with our neighbours. For the same reasons we also lack the financial capacity to support high levels of imports. Also, we have considerable growth to achieve to take us out of recession to even reach the position we were in before the financial crisis, which in itself was not strong. Therefore the existing facility at Grangemouth will be more than adequate for our needs for some considerable time.
The only customer identified in the ES is the whisky industry. However, the local transport links are so inadequate that it could be doubted that they would change their haulage routes and destinations to enable them to use Rosyth for the movement of large containers. It would be foolhardy to base a huge service industry [because that is basically what a container terminal is] on one customer, however large that customer might be. Diversification would be prudent. This would indeed be a high risk strategy and surely not acceptable to shareholders.
I can appreciate that Babcock were concerned about the viability of their business at Rosyth back in 2004 and needed to have a forward plan, especially considering at that time that the new aircraft carrier project was far from certain. However, we now know that this work is assured. There is still a need for the company, which is an important local employer, to ensure that it has additional projects in place for when the carriers contract is complete. The answer to this is not a container terminal, which is a business that runs on tight margins. This would increase risk for the company. In addition to this, the Babcock managers at the September 2010 exhibition in Charlestown said that their company had no intention of running the container facility; another operator would do that. It is difficult to see therefore what Babcock intend to get out of this proposal.
Babcock will not be the constructors of the terminal, contractors will be used. They will bring their own known workforce so no jobs, other than any unskilled jobs, will be local. Modern container terminals employ few people as many processes are automated, so the job creation estimates in the application documents, and bandied about in publicity material in the press, other media and exhibitions are very misleading.
The RD57 dry dock facility has never been used. It was built at great public expense to high standards of nuclear security to accommodate the servicing of our nuclear fleet. This work did not materialise – the contract went to Devonport. Despite this the work on RD57, which was only partly completed when this was known, was continued due to the constructor contract in place at the time. Therefore the local communities in general would like to see the site gainfully used. However, the current proposal is short sighted and lacks ambition. One area where Scotland has potential strength is the renewable energy industry. Hopefully, eventually we will be in a position to export electricity from offshore marine wind turbines and wave and tidal devices via the proposed European and Scandinavian hubs. In addition, there is a flourishing and growing renewable energy research and manufacturing industry in Fife downriver from Rosyth. I am surprised that Babcock have not tapped into this growth and been innovative in developing plans to collaborate with or compliment this industry. They would be well placed to do this and have the capacity to adapt to the skills required. A manufacturing capability where there is a demand for the products would employ more people, lead to more innovation, be more sustainable and create more wealth than this marginally profitable freight provision. Such an industry, if competently planned and developed would have a viable future and ensure jobs going forward out of the current economic climate.
Additionally, there have been recent reports of decommissioned vessels from the nuclear fleet requiring facilities for their dismantling. Again, the purpose built RD57 would be well placed to accommodate this work and this option should be strongly pursued and competition from elsewhere for this work addressed. This and an energy industry could possibly co-exist on the site. Such alternatives have not been discussed in the ES.
The Traffic Impact Assessment is included in Section 13 Transport of the ES. There are many concerning issues here. I notice that Jacobs have based their estimates on predicted data provided by Babcock, [13.2.5, 13.3.7, 13.3.8, 13.5.13] yet there is no supporting evidence for these.
There is over reliance on the use of the A985. This is already a congested road for much of the day and is a particular source of anxiety for many commuters who live in our villages. To absorb the indicated increase in traffic, especially the numbers of HGVs, the Dunfermline/Rosyth by-pass, which has been under discussion for a good 30 years should be built first.
The village of Crombie sits directly on the A985. The increases in noise, vibration, dust and emissions caused by HGVs thundering past homes and the primary school on this 40 mph stretch of road throughout construction and operation would be intolerable. The transport of empty containers is particularly noisy.
It is intended that the existing Forth Road Bridge will be used until the new Forth Replacement Crossing [FRC] is constructed. It should be noted that the road bridge is frequently closed to high sided vehicles during bad weather, when the vehicles are directed to use the Kincardine bridge instead. This will exacerbate these problems. Additionally, requiring haulage drivers to access the site from the south as stated in the ES rather than taking a short cut via the A985, is unrealistic and unenforceable. I consider that, if this proposal is successful, no work should be allowed to start on this scheme until the FRC has been built and commissioned.
The proposed container terminal is said to be multi modal, yet there is no existing provision for rail transport between the site and the rail network and this is not envisaged to change. Additionally, the multi modal concept for the FRC has been dropped, so any links would need to be made with the Inverkeithing line and there would be huge problems to resolve before this could be achieved.
On a personal level, I am concerned about the noise levels which will be generated during both construction and operation. My house is 950 metres from the boundary of RD57. In this area, although it is mostly extremely quiet, except when the birds of the SPA are very active [and that is a pleasant noise] we are used to a certain amount of noise coming from the dockyard. The current noise levels are acceptable and although they can be a nuisance we accept that they are of short duration. At the beginning of February 2011 the aircraft carrier Illustrious, currently in dock for refitting, was moved from her berth into the more westerly dock that accommodates the defunct submarines. The increase in noise has been an appreciable nuisance to residents. As far as I know, nobody has complained, due to the fact that we recognise it is time limited and that at least some of us feel that it is essential that this splendid vessel is made ready for action as soon as possible. However, this Scheme will be much noisier than this, both during construction and operation. There is some mitigation suggested during the construction phase, although it cannot be considered to be compliant with the relevant British Standard, [and it should be noted that outside locations such as gardens are included in the definition of Noise Sensitive premises in BS 5228] but there is no realistic mitigation put forward for the operational phase. It is inconceivable that such a development would be allowed to be built so close to an existing residential area, especially given that the nearby Scarborougmuir site has been deemed unsuitable for housing development due to the local noise potential.
Jacobs collected baseline noise measurements from very few sites in our villages, and when this was discussed with them, they were not prepared to increase their sampling.
Excessive noise that causes stress and also disrupts sleeping patterns is a recognised health threat. Indeed, some of us have had many sleepless nights just anticipating this! There is a need in this context to have Conditions in place before the proposal is accepted, and there should be no night-time working that generates any appreciable noise. It should be specified that Babcock will finance triple glazing [and subsequent decor rectification] for all residents affected, and an enforcement process, such as compulsory cessation of work, should be devised.
Recently, at Saline, a wind farm application was refused planning permission because of the noise it would cause and the impact on residents. We would expect Fife Council’s Environmental Health department to be equally robust in looking after the interests of our communities, should this proposed development be allowed. The ES underestimates the noise nuisance that will be encountered by residents and is not accurate in its noise predictions. Additionally, operational noise is not fully described. As one of our local councillors emphasised in the press recently, the noise from this development will be “brutal”.
I am an enthusiastic user of the Fife Coastal Path in our area, especially where it runs close to the scheme site. This scheme will have a major adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of this by residents and visitors.
A major deficiency in the preparatory work for the ES is the failure to complete a full hydrodynamic modelling survey in the vicinity of the site, despite the fact that my husband and I received a verbal assurance that this modelling would be done from the Jacob representative at the September exhibition. This is confirmed at 5.3.1 in the ES. The contents of this paragraph are deplorable. When the capital dredge for RD57 was done, we experienced loss of foreshore sand, essential to protect our sea walls and harbours. Gabions had to be used to increase our defences. Jacobs and Babcock are both aware of all this, but have ignored it. They have merely used the hydrodynamic modelling work done for the FRC, which is completely inappropriate for the situation at Limekilns for a whole range of reasons, to assess a negligible impact on the foreshore. It is essential that this modelling work is done and predictions made together with a full survey of the baseline condition of the seawalls and piers supported by an agreed compensation and rectification plan. It would be preferable that the modelling exercise is carried out and analysed by an independent company. Given that the piling work would be carried out so close to houses and historic buildings these should also be surveyed before any work is started and in the case of the latter, preventative work done at Babcock’s expense. These should be Conditions that are in place to everyone’s satisfaction before work commences. It is in Babcock’s own interests to address these matters.
The quality of the ES and the Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment leaves much to be desired. There are mistakes and omissions and a plethora of unsubstantiated claims, especially relating to levels of impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. At one point, the estuary is even described as a fjord [5.4.7 of the ES] which does not give confidence in Jacob’s levels of expertise and knowledge in the assessment and mitigation of problems in relation to coastal processes. The cumulative impact assessment is inadequate.
The standard of stakeholder consultation has been very poor and mismanaged, in contrast with the descriptions in the press and 1.9.1 of the Inventory of Application Materials. In 1.9.1 the level of public consultation reported is very low and from Appendix 5 and 5a it can be seen that the majority are negative. It has not been conducted in the spirit of SPP, which seeks to encourage inclusive and open consultation with all interested parties, especially local communities. This is designed to identify and address difficulties at an early stage, thereby enabling the planning process to be more transparent and efficient and to reduce the need for costly and time-consuming inquiries.
I have not gone into detail of my concerns about the devastating impacts this scheme will have on the SPA, both during construction and operation, as that is covered in the response from our Community Council.
If this container terminal was built it would represent social and environmental injustice. It is not justified by any imperative reasons of overriding public importance.
I have seen the draft response of the Limekilns, Charlestown and Pattiesmuir Community Council and I fully support it.
Should you wish any further detail of or clarification on the points I have raised in this letter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Objection 72
Objection 73
The Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 Rosyth International Container Terminal – Harbour Revision Order
Thank you for letter dated 20 January 2011 and the accompanying Environmental Statement (ES) requesting comments on the above. For information, this letter covers our comments on the ES for our role as consultees through the Scottish Ministers under the terms of the above Regulations. The comments in this letter relate to our statutory remit for scheduled monuments and their settings, category A listed buildings and their settings, gardens and designed landscapes appearing in the Inventory and designated wreck sites (Protection of Wrecks Act 1973). In this case, our advice also includes matters relating to marine archaeology out-with the scope of the terrestrial planning system.
The Proposed Development I understand this application relates to the following development: • creation of a tidal basin; • construction of quay walls of approximately 18m in height on the N, E and W sides; • two load-on load-off berths; • capital and maintenance dredging works, including the excavation of rock and sediment to clear an access channel; • a container storage area (containers stacked 5 high – approx 13m in height); • 4 x 40m high cranes; • high level lighting stacks (approx 25m masts).
Terrestrial Assets In summary, we are content that there shall be no significant adverse direct or indirect impacts on terrestrial assets within our statutory remit, as a result of the proposed development. We note that the ES predicts the impact on the setting of terrestrial assets within the surrounding area shall be ‘not significant’ or ‘minor’. Having reviewed the submitted information, we are content with these findings.
Marine Assets We are, however, concerned that the ES for this development does not deal adequately with the issue of marine and coastal archaeology. Specifically, marine sites do not appear to have been considered within the cultural heritage chapter and there is no mention of the archaeological potential of the marine environment, with no clear mitigation strategy for dealing with any submerged sites. In addition, the ES appears to have an internal contradiction, showing two recorded SMR sites in figure 8.2 within the marine area of the site boundary but stating in section 8.2.3 that “no known sites were identified within the study area”.
Although the direct and indirect impacts on known sites may indeed be small or non- existent, the focus of human activity on the Forth Estuary over millennia, combined with the potential for good preservation of remains within sediment-rich environments leads us to believe that there is potential for the survival of unrecorded sites in previously undisturbed sediments within the development area. It is acknowledged that earlier dredging within part of the development area (section 3.5.4) may have diminished this potential to an unknown degree. However, without the benefit of more detailed assessment of potential, there must be a risk that significant capital dredging will reveal undiscovered remains. While such eventualities can usually be dealt with through suitable mitigation, it is always advisable to put in place appropriate protocols at an early stage. We would be happy to discuss this matter with the applicant.
Conclusion Overall, we are content with the principle of the development, however, we do not consider the assessment of marine cultural heritage issues within the ES to be adequate. We recommend that appropriate assessment be undertaken of the impact on marine heritage assets and any necessary mitigation measures identified. As part of this, we do not think it is necessary to commission new survey work but we would encourage archaeological analysis of any geotechnical and geophysical survey data already gathered. We are content that the assessment of potential impacts on marine archaeology can be appropriately dealt with by condition, with suggested wording below. On this basis and subject to the recommended condition, we offer no objection.
Suggested Condition Wording ‘Prior to the commencement of development a marine archaeological assessment shall be undertaken and shall be submitted to the responsible authority, in consultation with Historic Scotland. This assessment should: - assess the potential for marine archaeological remains within the development site; - assess the potential for impacts on known and unknown remains as a result of the proposed works and; - identify any potential mitigation measures to be agreed in writing by the responsible authority, in consultation with Historic Scotland. Reason: To avoid potential adverse impacts on known / unknown marine archaeology within the development site’. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter.