The Scottish Government

Next »

Listen

WEST EDINBURGH PLANNING FRAMEWORK REVIEW STAKEHOLDER MEETING

Friday 14 ^th May. 2pm. Victoria Quay

This document is also available in pdf format (384k)

Attendees

1. Presentation by Tom Williamson (TW)

See Annex for copies of slides and speaking notes.

2. Questions and Discussion

i) David Bell (Jones Lang LaSalle) : How will the framework relate to the relevant development plan and what alterations may be required?

The Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan Inquiry is scheduled for November and is expected to last approximately 6 months. It may be that the framework will get to a stage by that time that it can be considered a material consideration at the inquiry but it is for CEC to decide how the finalised framework will fit into the development plan.

The Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan is still with Scottish Ministers, however the intention is for an early review in 2006 therefore the framework will be built into the next strategic plan early on.

ii) Tom Hart (Scottish Association of Public Transport) :

- The aim is to create a good quality transport interchange but this is not focused on in the National Planning Framework (NPF). The NPF identifies two main growth opportunity zones, West Edinburgh and the regeneration of the Clyde Gateway / Clyde Waterfront. A lot of attention is being focussed on Edinburgh but not on sustainable transport in Glasgow. What are the timetables for the Glasgow area?

- How do the high growth projections identified in the Aviation White Paper fall in line with meeting targets for reducing air emissions?

- What will be the impact of the growth forecasts? i.e. the impact of high speed rail (up to 186mph) which the NPF gives as 3 hour trip times and the certainty in growth of flights from outwith Scotland in relation to the reduction in domestic flights. Have the appropriate forecast methods been used as the framework seems to look to the big expansion option. [Post meeting note: the NPF does not refer to high speed lines in the context of 3 hour journey times; it refers to bringing more of Scotland within 3 hours of the north of England market.]

TW specialises in the East of Scotland, there was no representative present with detailed knowledge of the Glasgow area but TW said that this area is understood to be subject to local initiatives. Ministers are considering how to take it forward in terms of the NPF statement. .

The forecasts in the UK White Paper originate from the Department for Transport, and Scottish Executive accept them. They have been taken through the processes of the UK government and are therefore UK policy. We are all aware of the environmental arguments but this is not the situation at the moment. It may change and come to the fore in the future but at present we are charged with delivering the policy in the White Paper. The Scottish Executive is not able to undertake a new exercise on new forecasts, its remit is to deliver on the White Paper.

iii) Ann Follin (Edinburgh Airport Ltd) : Comment

Domestic traffic at the airport is growing, just not at the same high rate as international traffic.

The Master Plan exercise will be delivered within the given timescale.

Edinburgh Airport Ltd did make a submission to the White Paper including land requirements and the White Paper indicatively shows more than requested. The final Master Plan will refine what is indicated in the White Paper.

Surface Access Links i.e. road, rail and lightrail are ALL crucial. There is a need for all modes to go into the airport to enable it to be a node for growth.

iv) Bill Cantley (Cockburn Association) : The Cockburn Association have been an advocate for a main rail line link since 1997 and they are very much in favour of West Edinburgh being a major centre for Scotland. In their role as a lobby group they are asking for the boundaries to be pushed even further, for an S-Bahn type network for Edinburgh, similar to that in Zurich. These demonstrate adaptability, they are marketed coherently, they provide independent tracks separate from longer distance services and the grand scale of it is accepted. The aim is to create a Northern European pole therefore there is a need to pull places into the city rail network, such as Dunbar and Berwick.

A Scottish Strategic Rail Study was undertaken that covered central Scotland and some of the areas beyond. This investigated ideas and a short list of feasible and economic options was created. Some of the items on the list are under active consideration: Airdrie / Bathgate line and Waverley Station redevelopment.

v) Margaret Smith (MSP) :

- Welcomed the meeting and the expanded stakeholder group. Margaret noted that she represents people at Lennymuir and welcomes the removal of blight as soon as possible.

- Margaret considered the timetable for the framework to be optimistic, with particular regard to the train and rail link bills. The Waverley Railway Bill, for example, is expected to take up to 18 months to get through parliament so by analogy the framework should look to the end of 2005 at the earliest.

- How often will the stakeholder group meet and in what form?

- The surface road links, including the roads, need to be of a good standard, but there is scepticism over the transport infrastructure provided by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Optimism regarding the timetable is correct. It may be that group would prefer the Bills to be enacted and therefore decisions would be taken at the appropriate time.

The usual process for stakeholder meetings is an initial introductory meeting, such as today, one in the middle where a draft document would be discussed and a final meeting at the end when the process is nearly finished. Producing this document is though, likely to be a long process therefore it is intended the group will meet when sufficient is happening to be discussed. TW put the idea to the group of a newsletter / webpage update to be developed to keep everyone involved and updated. Comments / ideas are welcome. The next full meeting will be before the draft is produced (at the end of 2004 / early 2005) when it is expected there will be an update on the technical work.

With reference to surface access / road links, if the forecasts come to fruition it will not matter what significant mode share is achieved by public transport the amount of road traffic will still be significantly higher than today. A distributor road / direct link to the M8 may be desirable.

In terms of engineering works, the Department for Transport looked at possible options prior to the White Paper. Four different conceptual road lines were suggested by consultants, with questions remaining over the actual engineering. These routes are now being looked into, i.e. in terms of safety. But there should be the desire to get people into good habits i.e. rail / tram before they get into bad habits i.e. cars.

(Ann Follin) Must be careful with the tram and rail focus. Some in the catchment can only get by road, but road does not necessarily mean by private car i.e. high speed bus links. Ann felt strongly that ALL modes are needed to cater for both passengers and workers.

vi) Ray McMaster (TIE / Dundas and Wilson) : Comment to John Inman (CEC) The framework will not just have an impact on the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan but also on the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

There is a lot of uncertainties at present and as CEC approach different stages of the plan decisions will be made at the time. This is the most pragmatic approach. There may be some provisional statements in the draft plan and then further work or alterations may be incorporated at the inquiry stage. Neither CEC nor the Scottish Executive want to see the framework delay the local plan.

vii) Geoff Duke (TIE) : TW had mentioned that the West Edinburgh Planning Framework would follow on from work on the tram and rail links. Could TW elaborate.

The process for the framework would be for the tram and rail link Bills either to be enacted or to achieve sufficient early consensus in the Parliamentary process for the framework to be acceptably firm on their routes and therefore be able to identify land available at some stage for development. Ann Follin suggested the framework come first. However, TW stressed that the framework could not pre-empt the Parliamentary process.

viii) Tom Hart (Scottish Association of Public Transport): raised the issue of through tram running to Newbridge and suggested the consideration of 2 stations in the airport area.

Detail on routes was for consideration in the Parliamentary process. TW confirmed the modelling exercises will take into account the impact of different policies, such as congestion charging. Geoff Duke added that with regards to the routes, due to the policy in the White Paper it has not been sensible to draw a line but to state that the aim is to provide a service to Newbridge with the details yet to be determined.

ix) Rod Patterson (International Business Gateway Scotland) : Noted the key to the frameworks success will be the integration of all transport improvements in the area and this should be stated explicitly in the framework.

x) Ron Oliver (PPCA) : Asked what the timetable was for the heavy rail link and how these would fit into the development plan process for the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

Susan Clark from TIE provided the details on the timetable and John Inman confirmed that once the alignment had been decided it would be included in the process at the appropriate stage, this may take the form of an alteration during the inquiry.

TW then wound up the meeting, inviting both any written thoughts or views, and extending an invitation to parties to seek bilateral meetings via e-mail, phone or letter.

Next »