Committee
Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, 15 Mar 2004
15 Mar 2004 · S2 · Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee
Item of business
Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill: Consideration Stage
Thank you very much for appearing before us.That concludes the evidence for group 8, which is the last group to be considered today. I thank all witnesses and their representatives for their attendance and contributions. The committee will consider all evidence in due course. On next Monday, 22 March, at approximately 11.15 am, we will start to take oral evidence in respect of the next groups.Before closing the meeting, I want to return to an issue that was raised this morning, which concerned a memorandum on the accommodation crossing. The committee has given careful consideration to the further memorandum that was submitted by the promoter—SAK/S2/04/4/32—and to the oral evidence that Alison Gorlov gave this morning in relation to the request to reduce the normal 60-day objection period in respect of the proposed amendment to close the Balfour Street crossing. The committee heard from Mrs Gorlov that she is 100 per cent satisfied that all those persons who may have rights in respect of the crossing have been identified. The committee is reassured by that evidence.Paragraph 5.43 of the "Guidance on Private Bills" provides that the objection period"should … normally be 60 days."However, the guidance also provides that"in circumstances where the Committee is satisfied that potential … objectors will not be hindered in the exercise of their right to object then it may specify an objection period of less than 60 days."The committee has taken into account the evidence that Mrs Gorlov gave this morning that the only potential objectors to the proposed amendment are Mr Brydie and Mr Anderson. The committee is mindful that, according to the promoter's evidence, at least one of the potential objectors—Mr Brydie—is aware of his rights and has been alerted by the promoter, in a letter to his solicitors dated 12 January 2004, of the possibility of the proposed amendment. The committee notes that the other potential objector is the business partner of Mr Brydie, although it is fair to say that we are not quite as optimistic as is Mrs Gorlov that Mr Brydie will have discussed the issue with him.We have taken into account the fact that paragraph 5.43 of the guidance states:"The process of notification and advertisement should be equivalent to the original process undertaken before introduction of the Bill".That will involve publication of the proposed amendment in at least two issues of the Alloa and Hillfoots Wee County News.Having taken into account all the above factors and noted the particular circumstances of the proposed amendment, the committee has taken the view that to reduce the normal 60-day period to 21 days would not hinder any potential objectors in exercising their right to object. Accordingly, it has decided to agree to the promoter's request. However, the committee does not agree to the promoter's suggestion that the period of 21 days should be further reduced if and when the two potential objectors object or confirm that they do not want to object.Finally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I add that the committee has come to its decision on the basis of consideration of the particular facts and circumstances of the issue and that our decision in no way sets any precedent as regards procedure either for this committee or any future private bill committee.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
Agenda item 2 is consideration of evidence in respect of the group 2 objection. We will have a short break while the witnesses change over.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The Convener:
Lab
Ladies and gentlemen, the witnesses for the promoter for group 2 are Stuart Coventry and Alf Maneylaws, who will give evidence on environmental matters; Alis...
Alastair McKie:
Yes, I do. First, I apologise for Miss Whitworth's unavailability this morning. She was taken ill yesterday and is simply not able to attend.Are we dealing w...
The Convener:
Lab
Yes.
Alastair McKie:
I have one question for Mr Coventry. One of the understandable concerns of the objectors, Mr and Mrs Oliver and Mr and Mrs Banks, is noise and vibration. Wit...
Stuart Coventry (Scott Wilson Ltd):
First, I ought to clarify the position on noise and vibration standards. With infrastructure projects, there is no standard within which noise and vibration ...
Alastair McKie:
Certainly.
Stuart Coventry:
Vibration is, unfortunately, not quite as simple an issue as noise. Again, there are no absolute standards; one turns not to a planning advice note, but to a...
The Convener:
Lab
It would be helpful if you could summarise the salient points for the committee.
Stuart Coventry:
British standard BS6472 identifies levels of vibration at which there are a low probability, a possibility and a probability of adverse comments. Those level...
The Convener:
Lab
What would be the levels of vibration and noise at Mr Oliver's property?
Stuart Coventry:
That would depend on the distance from the property to the nearest rail and I do not have that figure.
Charles Oliver:
The distance is 9m.
The Convener:
Lab
Could the information be supplied to the committee?
Stuart Coventry:
Do you mean the distance and the relevant level of vibration?
The Convener:
Lab
I mean the effects of noise and vibration on Mr Oliver's property.
Stuart Coventry:
I can supply that information, on the assumption that the distance would be 11m. I refer you to table 11.5 in the environmental statement. The figures would ...
The Convener:
Lab
I am obliged to you. Do you have any further questions, Mr McKie?
Alastair McKie:
I have no further questions for the witness.
The Convener:
Lab
Good morning, Mr Oliver, and welcome to the committee. Do you have any questions for Mr Coventry or for Mr Maneylaws?
Charles Oliver:
Our concern is really the unknown; we do not know what the vibration will be like and that is a really big concern. We think that it will be quite bad upstai...
The Convener:
Lab
I know that you are outlining your serious concerns, but do you have questions for Mr Coventry or Mr Maneylaws in relation to those concerns?
Charles Oliver:
We wondered whether mitigation measures would be put on that part of the line. We have heard that contractors sometimes scrimp on mitigation measures because...
Stuart Coventry:
I am not in a position to answer questions on the mechanism for mitigation being applied. Mr Reid will be able to take those questions.
Alastair McKie:
That is one of the questions that I will put to Mr Reid when he gives evidence. He will be in a position to offer information on that for Mr Oliver.
The Convener:
Lab
We will come to that in due course. Do you have any more questions at this stage, Mr Oliver?
Charles Oliver:
Our two main concerns are vibration and devaluation of property.
The Convener:
Lab
The committee understands that.Mr Mundell, do you have any questions before we go back to Mr McKie?