An
The White House,
Kingswells AB15 8QA
Email:
Web: www.aberdeengreenbelt.org
2 February 2007
Chief Road Engineer
Transport
Trunk Roads: Infrastructure and Professional Services
Buchanan House
Re: The A90 (
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance wishes to lodge objections to the referenced Scheme, as published on 14 December 2006, on the basis that it violates COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/11/EC on the assessment of its effects on the environment, specifically ANNEX IV of said DIRECTIVE. This objection extends to those departures from the Development Plan and Planning Policy, where the ES does not provide evidence that the Scheme’s damage to the Environment is proportional.
2 Scope of Environmental Evidence
2.4 The technical feasibility of
tunnelling
2.5.4 Socio-economics - economy, tourism
and recreation
2.5.6 The Proposed Development and
Construction Procedures
3 Assessment against the Development
Plan
3.2 National Planning Policies
4 Other Material Considerations
4.3 Alignment of the WPR crossing the
river DEE
4.5 Appearance of Proposed Development
and Relationship to its Surroundings
4.6 Compatibility with Existing Uses
4.7 Desirability of Retaining the
Existing Use
4.8 Existence of a Better Alternative
Site
1 Background
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance object to the application. They contend that the
information provided in the Environmental Statement is insufficient and lacks the detail required in COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/11/EC and the Environmental Impact (Sc) Regulations.
The Environmental Statement does not properly and fully identify and assess the
environmental effects arising from the proposal, more importantly it does not consider alternatives in view of creating less environmental damage. Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance observe that the applicants’ stated aim for an ‘efficient and economic transport system’ underlies the Environmental Statement (ES). On this premise the applicants conclude implicitly that the environmental effects arising from the development are acceptable in terms of overriding national or local need and strategic importance to the NE of Scotland. It appears to Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance that such considerations are accorded an undue primacy in identifying (as far as this has been documented in the ES) the effects on the environment, and thereafter these considerations are afforded an undue weight in the assessment of the identified effects on the environment. It is contended by Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance that considerations of efficiency and economy do not of themselves justify (far less do they inform the extent of) the effects on the environment.
This is particularly distressing since the Scheme will
utterly destroy a sway of land that can be classed as one of the most
attractive landscapes in the world, in particular Kingcausie, the
In essence, the ES can be judged to be a perfunctory document, failing to address the environmental issues as required by COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/11/EC and the Environmental Impact (Sc) Regulations.
Environmental legislation, the referenced Directive and Regulations, and The Berne Convention, the Habitats Directive and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, require PROPORTIONALITY, i.e. the damage done to the environment (plants, animals and humans) has to be proportional to the benefit for the population at large AND where less damaging ALTERNATIVES are available (on a proportional e.g. cost-benefit basis) then strictly protected species may not be disturbed.
For the Scottish Ministers and the members of the public to be able to judge whether this proposed Scheme causes damage to the Environment that is proportional, alternatives to the present proposal, including re-routeing and tunnelling of sensitive sections of the Scheme, need to be fully included in the ES and assessed on their environmental merit.
2 Scope of Environmental Evidence
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance contend that within the context of above referenced legislation, the principle of proportionality requires discussion and identification of reasons of the Applicant’s preference for their chosen Scheme IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
The following issues have either been omitted from the EIA or treated in such a perfunctory manner as to be incapable of assisting the Scottish Ministers in the (environmental) decision process:
2.1 Need for the development
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance do not challenge the general principle of some need for improvement in the transport infrastructure of the NorthEast.
However, it remains for the Scottish Ministers to be satisfied that this particular Scheme represents the best strategic option, specifically in terms of environmental proportionality. A substantial EIA discussion is required to satisfy the referenced legislation, since the present EIA admits disturbing and/or killing STRICTLY PROTECTED SPECIES.
Thus, whilst the Scheme requires very substantial departure from the Environmental legal requirements, it follows that a very substantial justification for the need of the Scheme at this particular location is required. Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance contend that no such justification has been provided in the ES (see also Section 4.1).
2.2 Strategic Route Selection
The Environmental Statement fails to demonstrate that there has been proper and detailed consideration of the full range of alternatives and in particular that there is no acceptable alternative route (largely) outwith the Green Belt. The perfunctory description of alternatives, in particular the EASTERN BYPASS tunnelled proposal, which does affect the Green Belt in only a minor way, can not serve as a satisfactory assessment in terms of the law.
2.3 Impacts on the Green Belt
The proposal does compromise the objectives of the Green Belt designation and its overall integrity. The Environmental Statement does not demonstrate that the national, social and economic benefits will clearly outweigh the significant adverse effects upon the Green Belt’s special qualities, and therefore the proposal is contrary to, inter alia, NPPG 14 Natural Heritage and other national and international policy and guidance.
Without prejudice to the position of the ABERDEEN GREENBELT ALLIANCE regarding the principle of the proposed route within the Green Belt, it is the view of Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance that for certain sensitive sections alternative options, including different routeing and tunnelling, have not been sufficiently investigated and reported in the Environmental Statement to allow a meaningful comparative judgement to be made and to allow formal comments by the general public and statutory agencies. Therefore,
objections at this stage have to be lodged, since the environmental impacts as submitted
for sections are significantly adverse. Alternatives may include different routes and tunnelling. Tunnelling particularly sensitive sections of the route as an alternative is not
considered in the Environmental Statement, other than there being a short generalised
overview of the pros and cons of the Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance proposal for an tunnelled EASTERN BYPASS.
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance has provided evidence to
demonstrate that despite the higher cost, underground sections can be
considered by the investment regulator if this is required on planning and
environmental grounds, which it is argued is the case for sections here. In particular, the Eastern Bypass achieves a
41 percent traffic reduction in the City Centre, compared with a 7 percent
reduction for the proposed Scheme (Transport
In the areas of the Western Leg, the Southern Leg and the Fast Link, significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Scheme, in particular in the Shire and City Green Belt, requires the investigation of alternative options to achieve an acceptable overall proposal.
2.4 The technical feasibility of tunnelling
The case has been made by Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance and
their technical advisors, tunnelling experts NORCONSULT AG, that tunnelling of
sections of the Scheme is technically feasible and that the additional cost
would not be to the extent claimed by the applicants. ABERDEEN GREENBELT ALLIANCE commissioned a
study by NORCONSULT AG which examined the technical, economic and environmental
feasibility of a partially tunnelled Eastern bypass. This study was discussed
with and presented to Transport
While acknowledging that tunnelling also has potential
environmental impacts, it is argued that this alternative option requires full
consideration by the applicants, given the significant adverse impacts of the
proposed Scheme in sensitive locations. Full consideration and environmental
assessment should be applied to possible tunnel routes that may differ from
those proposed for the present Scheme and should also include re-optimising the
route for a mixed overhead/underground route, together with the impacts of
construction and best practice mitigation. Should a western route round
2.5 EIA methodology
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance observe that the ES comprises a multitude of unqualified statements pertaining to the effect of the Scheme. These “interpretations” are no more than subjective comment advanced by the applicants and represent a further example of the primacy underlying the Environmental Statement to considerations of efficiency and economy. However these “interpretations” have resulted in there being an insufficient identification and assessment of alternatives.
2.5.1 Landscape and visual
The assessment methodology that is applied is unclear and inconsistent. The
Environmental Statement identifies landscape character areas where the effects of the
proposed route may be expected to be the greatest, and yet these are not followed through in the sensitivity assessment i.e. what would the effect be with re-routeing or tunnelling.
A typical example is quoted:
54.3.112 Substantial
impacts upon the landscape and visual character as a result of the Northern and
Southern Legs have been identified along the
The Environmental Statement systematically understates the value of the landscape within the Green Belt. The assessment of impacts and effect significance is
systematically too low for a designated Green Belt area of great importance.
Where the Environmental Statement identifies changes in landscape character it
underestimates the impact and effect thereon by taking into account the time that may be taken to adjust to such changes. The Environmental Statement does not properly and
fully assess the nature and extent of changes in landscape character. The changes will,
following construction of the proposal, be permanent until dismantled. Any adjustments
to such changes that may arise is a matter that falls to be considered and assessed in
respect of visual impact and is not relevant to the consideration and assessment of
changes to landscape character that would result from the proposal.
There is no cumulative assessment of the combined total of areas whose landscape character would be significantly affected by the proposed Scheme as compared with alternative routes.
The visual impact assessment methodology employed in the Environmental
Statement uses a 3-tier classification of “major”, “moderate” or “minor” effect, with
major or moderate effects being considered as significant in terms of EIA. It is observed
that an alternative methodology used for VIA for wind farm proposals employs a 5-tier
classification, which enables the more significant visual impacts to be identified. The 3-
tier methodology thus “flattens out” the results, with a large number being scored as
moderate impact. There is inconsistency in the application of the methodology with
regard to the identification and assessment of visual impact from viewpoints of high
sensitivity. It is contended that areas with Green Belt type qualities should also be
included as high sensitivity visual receptor areas.
It is a matter of professional judgement informed by a clear, consistent and
comprehensive approach whether the magnitude of visual change to views is classified as low, medium or high. It is the informed judgement of the Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance that it is reasonable to ascribe medium magnitude effects to certain views classified in the ES as low, and high magnitude effects to certain views classified in the ES as medium. This increases the number of viewpoints where the visual impact of the proposed transport line would be significant.
There is no cumulative assessment of the combined total of viewpoints where the
visual impact of the proposed new transport line would be significant. This is
particularly important where sequential views would be experienced travelling along a
road or roads, and where views are obtained from several locations within a settlement.
The Environmental Statement leaves out of account, or at least underestimates, the
cumulative visual effect of the application and other proposed developments within
relevant viewpoints and fails to compare the effects with alternative schemes
The potential impacts on landscape, habitats, species and nationally designated areas (especially the Green Belt) should be assessed against the provisions of
NPPG 14 Natural Heritage and other national guidance, and it is the contention of
ABERDEEN GREENBELT ALLIANCE that the EIA landscape and visual methodology underplays the natural heritage importance of the Green Belt.
2.5.2 Ecology
The Environmental Statement systematically understates the importance of
ecological features within the Green Belt, failing to recognise the importance. The Environmental Statement systematically undervalues the ecological importance of Sites of Special Scientific Importance within the Green Belt. The Environmental Statement does not provide adequate information to permit an appropriate assessment of likely significant effects on such sites.
Adequate consideration has not been given to the protection and enhancement of nature conservation interests in particular sections of the Scheme. The ES does not compare ecological effect with alternative solutions. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to environmental policy.
2.5.3 Traffic and transport
The extensive lengths of construction of the proposed Scheme are to be served by a very few access points. This would result in a high level of heavy traffic on a number of minor roads. Under normal use the minor roads affected are subject to very low levels of heavy traffic and in many cases are known to be weak, are very narrow and have poor
alignment. The applicants have not presented evidence of having undertaken any
engineering investigation of the condition of these roads and their adequacy or otherwise
to sustain the proposed traffic impacts. Indeed the fragility of some routes is such that
alternative access arrangements should be considered. Furthermore no detailed
mitigation works have been proposed to ensure that irreparable damage is not sustained
by the minor roads.
Additionally the Environmental Statement contains conflicting and apparently incomplete information regarding the extent of the roads to be used and does not make any reference to some roads which would appear to be required during the construction phases. Thus, it is not possible to make a full appraisal of the impact of the proposed development on existing roads.
2.5.4 Socio-economics - economy, tourism and recreation
It is considered that the absence of any analysis for socio-economics, tourism and recreation within the Environmental Statement is a serious shortcoming and as a consequence the adverse impact on tourism/economy and recreation, particularly within the Green Belt, is undetermined with the present information. The landscape
and scenic beauty of the area are identified by visitors as being the features of the
Green Belt and the area to the west of
There is no mitigation proposed for adverse impacts on economy/tourism.
The applicants and the Environmental Statement have failed to consider the
potential impact on the existing value of the landscape and scenery, especially in the
Green Belt, for attracting tourism, and the economic contribution this brings to the area in terms of direct income spend and tourism related income thereafter. There is a potential loss of income to the economy through the visual impact of this proposal that must be weighed against this development.
2.5.5 Archaeology
The siting of the WPR (and industrial/retail development) near the
archeologically important Kingswells Consumption Dyke is particularly
insensitive. The practice of realigning roads well away from archaeological
sites is now well understood. It is a dereliction of duty to ignore the
importance of our heritage.
2.5.6 The Proposed Development and Construction Procedures
3.35 The application lacks information on such associated developments as construction
compounds, storage and laydown areas, borrow pits, surplus spoil disposal areas. Information on these matters should be in the public domain.
Currently they cannot be considered as part of the assessment of overall environmental
impacts within this EIA process.
3 Assessment against the Development Plan
The second main issue, next to non-compliance with the EIA requirements (Section 2) is the degree of departure from the Development Plan.
The questions may be posed with respect to Planning: -
1) whether the Scheme is consistent with the relevant provisions of the
Development Plan(s), with regard to inter alia the impact on the human population, wildlife, natural heritage, cultural heritage, landscape, visual amenity and residential and community amenity interests;
2) whether there are any material considerations that would justify a departure from
the Development Plan.
Any assessment of compliance with the Development Plan policies depends in turn
largely on an assessment of the overall environmental impacts. Likewise, Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance note that the effect on the environment is one of the factors to which the Scottish Ministers ought to have regard to in considering the application with respect to the quoted environmental legislation.
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance submit that the proposal does not accord with the respective Development Plans (of Shire and City) and that there are no material considerations indicating why this application should nonetheless be approved.
As compliance with the respective Development Plan policies turns on an assessment of
the overall environmental impacts, and accordingly on a consideration of the
environmental effects, a consideration of the extent to which the proposal accords with
the Development Plans is also relevant.
The Environmental Statement actually does, after a fashion, assess the Scheme in accordance with the various requirements of the relevant Development Plan and the ES actually concludes that the proposed Scheme in many instances departs or very substantially departs from certain Policies of the Development Plan. Without prejudice to the position of Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance with respect to the general question of whether the Development Plan provides any support for the hypothesis in the ES statements that “development [of the AWPR] cannot take place other than within the Greenbelt” (inter alia 34.4.17), Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance concur with the ES conclusions that the Scheme departs in material ways from many of the Development Plan policies.
Frequently,
the ES simply states “The provision of the [AWPR] is integral to Development
Plan policy [on transport], …” or similar
phrases. The ES then goes on to say:
“[the AWPR] can not be accommodated outwith the Green Belt designation.” (inter alia 34.1.4 & 34.4.16). Following
on from this the ES argues that the departure from a Policy (Development Plan
or National Planning Policy (see 3.2 below)) is ‘acceptable [since] there is no
alternative’ (34.4.20).
In
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance’s considered opinion this is an argument from
fallacy: The ES provides no evidence whatsoever that a suitable route outwith
the Green Belt can not be successfully designed. Even more serious, the
promoters of the Scheme display an undue primacy to their stated aim of an
‘efficient and economic transport system’ and this, above all, underlies the
Environmental Statement.
Thus,
the ES contains no discussion in terms of environmental proportionality with
respect to alternative routes, re-routeing and/or tunnelling of the
environmentally most sensitive parts, such as the Southern leg, which in its
present form will have a devastating effect on Kingcausie, the
Thus,
the ES simply does not consider the detailed compliance in planning of the
Development Plan(s). Aberdeen Greenbelt
Alliance contend that the ES, as it stands, does not afford the Scottish
Ministers or the members of the public the opportunity to evaluate the Scheme
in terms of the departure from the Development Plan(s), where this departure is
of a nature that requires substantial discussion in the ES to conform with the
EIA legislation.
3.1 Development Plan Policies
The policies in the Structure Plan (NEST) which require discussion in the ES in terms of environmental damage, comparison with alternative schemes, re-routeing and tunnelling of sensitive sections are inter alia :
NEST POLICY 19: Wildlife, Landscape and Land Resources
NEST POLICY 27: Green Belt
NEST POLICY
28: Development
in the Green Belt
POLICIES of the GREEN Spaces | NEW Places Local Plan:
Policy 27: Green Belt
Policy 28: Green Space Network
Policy 30: Landscape protection
Policy 31: Protecting trees and woodlands
Policy 32: Natural Heritage
The
3.2 National Planning Policies
Similarly to the Development Plan the ES simply does not consider the detailed compliance of National Policies. Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance contend that the ES, as it stands, does not afford the Scottish Ministers or the members of the public the opportunity to evaluate the Scheme in terms of the departure from National Policies, where this departure is of a nature that requires substantial discussion in the ES to conform with the EIA legislation.
Aberdeen Greenbelt Alliance point inter alia at:
NPPG14:NATURAL
HERITAGE Trees and Woodlands
NPPG17:TRANSPORT AND
PLANNING Settlement Strategy and Housing
Scottish Planning Policy 1 The Planning System (SPP1) contains important
statements on Sustainable Development, Environmental Quality, Economic
Competitiveness and Social Justice. The proposal raises issues within all of these
headings and is considered to be contrary to the spirit of SPP1.
4 Other Material Considerations
4.1 Need
Neither the NEST Structure Plan nor the Local Plans offer any supporting evidence, in fact very little is written about the WPR in either Plan, why this four-lane motorway style road would be required. This, of course, is a dereliction of duty of both Councils in Planning terms. It prevents the free