Ltr of Objection

FORTH CROSSING BILL OBJECTION 76 – DUNDAS CASTLE ESTATE Introduction This is a joint letter of objection to the FRC by the undernoted parties, all of whom have an interest either in land and property comprising part of Dundas Castle Estate and/or the businesses carried out from Dundas Castle Estate (DCE) including in particular the various businesses carried out from Dundas Castle. The objections are to specific provisions of the Scheme as detailed by reference to Drawing Numbers detailed in the Appendices to this letter setting out the objections. The parties to this letter of objection are each and all of:- • Dundas Castle Limited (DCL) • Sir John Stewart-Clark • The Danzan Trust (otherwise The Danzan Discretionary Settlement) • The Danzan 2003 Trust • Dundas Castle Farms Further details of these parties are set out in Appendix 1 of this letter. The name of the party/parties who have an interest in the relative objection are noted under each objection. The objections are set out in Appendices 2 to 7 attached to this letter. Why Are We Objecting – The Business of DCE and the Amenity of Dundas Castle DCE is a very successful, highly rated and important leisure business. The business run from DCE now generates a turnover in excess of £1,000,000 a year. Dundas Castle is:- • a Visit Scotland 5 Star Unique Venue; • a Unique Venue of Edinburgh; and • a member of Luxury Edinburgh. Over the last few years substantial sums of private money have been invested into DCE and Dundas Castle to establish, secure and grow this business. It is of paramount importance that there is uninterrupted continuity of the businesses of DCE during the construction phase of the Scheme and after completion of the Scheme. The profitability and viability of the business is entirely dependent on the numbers of events held at DCE. Any impact on these numbers as a result of the FRC would have a material impact on the business and indeed its whole viability. The nature of certain of the businesses carried out from DCE and in particular the events run from Dundas Castle by DCL which include weddings, conferences, business meetings, incentive travel group visits, golfing holidays, gala dinners, activity days, launch parties and receptions, is such that uninterrupted continuity of business during the construction phase of the Scheme and after completion of the Scheme is essential to ensure the viability of the business, the employment of employees, contractors, suppliers and tradesmen as well as the future growth and development of the business. DCE employs in excess of 30 people. DCL (which runs the business carried out from the Castle) employs directly about 25 people and indirectly is responsible for the employment of all the downstream trades, which include caterers, florists, pipers, ministers and generally all those who make a living from the various activities run from Dundas Castle and DCE. About 90 weddings and up to 50 other events are held each year at Dundas Castle and in the grounds. It is this business which keeps the fabric of DCE and the Castle in 5 Star condition. Without the financial support which is generated from the businesses run from DCE, the upkeep of DCE, Dundas Castle and other DCE properties would not be possible. The proposed FRC will affect DCE and the businesses run from DCE. Unless specific and agreed protective measures are taken in respect of certain works to be carried out under the Scheme or alternative solutions are adopted, the whole viability of the businesses run from DCE is at risk. Proposals under the Scheme which particularly threaten the viability of DCE’s business are those:- • which interfere with access to and from DCE by the existing main drive; • which compromise the amenity of the main drive to DCE and the entrance of the main drive. Proposals under the Scheme which have this potential include:- • the proposed public transport link; • the proposed acquisition of land adjacent and near to the main drive; and • the proposed acquisition of temporary rights over the main drive and land adjacent to it. Dundas Castle is a unique venue, a beautiful and historic castle built in 1818 by the Scottish architect, William Burn, set within the 1000 acre Dundas Estate. Intrinsic to the businesses run from DCE is the fact that (and as is noted in the FRC Environmental Statement) Dundas Estate is a designated Historic Garden and Designed Landscape. The Statement further notes that:- • in terms of landscape, the sensitivity of the estates around South Queensferry is high and aesthetics are a major consideration in the designed of the FRC; 2 - - • also in terms of landscape, the designed wooded landscape of Dundas Estate will be adversely affected by the significant impact from the proposed Scheme; • visually, the southern road connections of the Scheme will have significant adverse impact on views; and • in terms of cultural heritage, a significant direct impact has been identified on the Dundas Castle Designed Landscape and a significant indirect impact has been identified on the setting of the Dundas Castle Designed Landscape. Save for the proposal referred to in Objection 3 in Appendix 4, all other proposals to which we are objecting (and which are objected to in Objections 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in Appendices 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) all have the potential to affect adversely and materially the business of DCE as set out above in addition to the specific potential effects referred to in each Objection. The effect of the works referred to in Objection 3 is land loss only. Aim/Alternative Solutions Under each objection we have set out the various heads of claim under which compensation will require to be assessed and the parties to whom compensation will be payable. In addition, we have also set out, where appropriate, alternative solutions which have the aim of mitigating any potential loss (and therefore by implication the quantum of the potential compensation claims). In this regard, our clients have attempted to identify solutions which mitigate any potential loss rather than seeking to rely on claims based on compensation for the business which might be lost as a result of FRC. Our clients’ aim in suggesting these alternative solutions is to ensure that the various businesses carried out from DCE can continue to operate without material interruption during the construction of the FRC and after completion of the Scheme. Our clients believe that putting in place alternative solutions not only better addresses the problems which DCE will encounter as a result of the FRC but could also reduce the amount of compensation which would be payable from a potential business property disturbance claim (which might include a claim for extinguishment) or a claim arising from loss of business. Basis of the Objections The objections are made by reference to Drawing Number. The Drawings referred to in this letter of objection are the Drawings which have been produced by Jacobs Arup. Copies of the Drawings referred to in each objection are enclosed for ease of reference. We are concerned that these Drawings will not correspond with the work references etc in the FCB. Sarah Robertson of the Scottish Executive is aware and accepts this potential discrepancy. Per Ms Robertson’s telephone conversation with Mr Collin of this office on 6th January 2010, we have referred only to the Drawings which we and our clients have received to date on the understanding that you will be able to cross reference the Drawings to which we have referred with the definitive 3 - - plans/description of works by reference to the objections made in respect of the works shown on the Drawings to which we have referred. Financial Information regarding Claims It is our understanding that you wish any financial information to be kept as concise as possible at this stage (ref telephone call between Ms Robertson and Mr Collin on 6th January 2010). We further understand that our clients would not be precluded from submitting further information after 26th January 2010 and indeed the Bill Committee may call for further information. We understand that all submitted information will go into the public domain but that there is a facility to submit information to this Committee on a confidential basis where good cause can be shown. Detailed financial information/vouching to support all compensation claims will be submitted as required. However, it should be noted that certain information relating to the businesses operated from DCE is confidential and cannot fall into the public domain due to reasons of commercial business sensitivity and intellectual property restrictions and concerns. In all claims, our clients would propose to make a request for an advance on all compensation payable. Accommodation Works Our clients are concerned that it seems to be being suggested that should they not agree by 29th January 2010 to certain accommodation works and works to be carried out under the Scheme then the right to have these works undertaken will be lost and only compensation paid in lieu (letters from Jacobs Arup of 13th November 2009 and 5th January 2010 refer and copies are attached and comprise Appendix 8). This is unreasonable and appears to evidence a lack of consultation among the interested parties particularly when the accommodation works intimated to date are indicative only. Our clients have, in principle, no objection to certain of the accommodation works being proposed but cannot agree to specific works while objecting to specific parts of the Scheme. The accommodation works are part of the Scheme and must be treated along with the Scheme as a whole and the objections being made to specific parts of it by our clients.

Load more