1

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill

Notice of Objection on behalf of CALA Land Investments Limited

On Behalf of our clients CALA Land Investments Limited of Adam House 5 Mid New

Cultins Edinburgh EH11 4DU (“the Objector”) we wish to object to the above-mentioned

Bill being promoted by tie Limited ("the Promoter"). Our objections are set out below.

The Objector, CALA Land Investments Limited, is a wholly owned subsidiary of CALA

Group Limited. CALA Group Limited is one of the UK's leading privately owned residential

and commercial property developers, with its headquarters in Edinburgh. CALA prides itself

in the quality of its developments and the contributions that it makes both to the Scottish

economy and to the built environment.

On 16 March 2006 the Promoter introduced the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill to the

Scottish Parliament (“the Bill”). The Bill, if enacted, would authorise the Promoter to

construct:

• railways linking Edinburgh Airport with the Edinburgh to Glasgow Main Line, the

Dalmeny Chord and the Edinburgh to Fife and North East Railway;

• a new station at Edinburgh Airport; and

• roads and other works necessitated by the railway works.

The Objector has entered into a complex series of agreements with substantial land owners in

the Winchburgh area. In addition, the Objector has made an offer, currently under

consideration by the land owners, to purchase further land covered by the Bill. These

arrangements, outlined briefly below, govern a substantial area of land (the "affected land")

which would be acquired/occupied/altered by the Bill if enacted as currently drafted. The

entirety of the affected land is the subject of the Winchburgh FUTURE Master Plan (the

"master plan").

2

We have seen objection submitted jointly by the Earl of Hopetoun, Aithrie Estates, The

Winchburgh Trust and The Winchburgh Partnership. We support and adopt it as part of our

Objections to the extent that it supplements any information we have provided in this

Objection.

We understand that various individuals have received formal Notifications. By way of

example, Adrian John Charles Hope, Marquess of Linlithgow is in receipt of the following

Notifications:-

• A Notice of Proposal to Acquire Land Compulsorily which impacts on the following

areas including affected land and land adjacent to affected land: plots 2/ 6/ 10/ 11a/

13/ 15/ 19/ 23/ 24/ 25/ 26/ 27/ 28/ 29/ 30/ 32/ 36/ 38/ 39/ 40/ 42/ 44/ 45/ 48/ 49/ 50/

51/ 53/ 55.

• A Notice of Proposal to Acquire Land Compulsorily which impacts on the following

areas including affected land and land adjacent to affected land: plots 17a/ 17b /41.

• A Notice of Proposal to Take Temporary Possession Of Land which impacts on the

following areas including affected land and land adjacent to affected land: plots 4/ 5/

8/ 9a/ 9b/ 11/ 17/ 17c/ 31/ 33/ 34/ 37.

• A Notice of Proposal for Powers to Carry Out Protected Works to Buildings

("Safeguarding") which impacts on the following areas of affected land and land

adjacent to affected land: plots 752/ 755/ 756/ 757/ 758 /760 /761 /763a /767a /768

/769 /770 /771 /772 /773 /774 /775 /776 /777 /778 /780 /781 /782 /784 /785 /787.

The affected land is included in the plot numbers above. It is in the ownership of a number of

different proprietors and is not all in the ownership of the Marquess of Linlithgow. That

being the case, we cannot be satisfied that all notifications have been served in accordance

with the legal requirements.

The Objector does not object to the general principles of the Bill. It would, however, be

adversely affected by the provisions of the Bill. Despite the fact that the Promoter

knew, or ought to have known, of the Objectors interests in the affected land, the

Promoter does not appear to have given adequate consideration to the impact of the Bill

on the Objector.

3

Grounds of Objection

1 Failure to consult or notify the Objector

The Objector submitted an planning application to West Lothian Council in September 2005.

The affected land, which is that covered by the outline planning application and the

Winchburgh master plan, is shown in the attached drawings annexed to this Objection.

The master plan is grounded in the wider context of the Edinburgh and Lothians Structure

plan (the "ELSP"). The Finalised West Lothian Local Plan 2005 (the "FWLLP") is charged

with implementing the ELSP at the local level. It is recognised in the ELSP and the FWLLP

that a railway station requires to be provided in connection with the development. The Bill

does not in any way commit to this proposal. It is insufficient to declare merely that EARL

does not preclude the development of a station at Winchburgh. It is important that the Bill is

amended to take account of this.

The area covered by the master plan currently houses around 2000 people. The master plan

has been designed to establish a community of 10,000 – 12,000 people. It will include

around 3450 new homes, employment space, supporting community facilities and transport

connections set within a robust landscape framework. The master plan was created following

extensive and innovative community consultation. The consultation and planning element of

the project was submitted as an entrant to the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning 2005.

This is a carefully planned sustainable development which is reflected in the proposals

contained in the FWLLP.

The affected land consists of two different types: land which is identified by a binding

contractual agreement to sell the land (which includes plots 26, 27, 32 and 33) and land

which is the subject of an offer currently being considered by the landowner (which includes

plots 17, 17a, 17b, 17c, 24, 25, 29, 30, 34, 41, 44 and 772 to the South of the proposed rail

line and plots 6, 9a, 9b, 36, 37, 42, 768 and 771 to the North of the rail line). All of the

affected land is the subject of the master plan application.

4

Within the affected area, the Objector plans to build housing to the South of the SW-NE rail

line and a commercial development (a business park and park and ride facility) to the North.

The Objectors anticipate that work on site will commence in 2007-2008, subject to the grant

of planning permission and conclusion of development agreements with West Lothian

Council. This mixed development would take 12 years or more to complete (in phases).

Despite the fact that the affected land is being put forward for a high profile mixed use

development and is contained in the FWLLP, the impact of the Bill on the development has

not been considered or been taken into account in any meaningful way in the Bill itself. No

provision has been made for access and construction, and no proper account has been taken

of the development in the Environmental Statement. These matters are discussed in more

detail below.

Having conducted a wide ranging consultation, engaged with local and public stakeholders

and invested significant time, money and effort in the process of development, the Objector is

extremely concerned that the Promoter has failed to notify, meaningfully engage or consult in

any significant way with them.

2 Failure to take environmental impacts on site and development into account in Environmental Statement and assessment

The Objector has engaged Engineering and Environmental experts to assist their

understanding of the detrimental impact that the Bill would have on the development.

As explained above, the Bill fails to take any account of, or offer any mitigation of, potential

adverse impacts of construction or subsequent operation of a rail link on the residential

development planned for a site or sites adjacent to the rail corridors. Given that the proposed

development is allocated as mixed use (housing) within the FWLLP, it is considered that the

development area (i.e. the affected land) should have been assessed as sensitive in the

Environmental Statement in respect of both construction and operational impacts.

The Environmental Statement refers to the master plan but fails to assess the impact of the

following:

5

• Air quality – no assessment for new residential area/mixed use area

• Dust - no assessment for new residential area/mixed use area. No requirement for

buffers has been identified as regards the development.

• Traffic and transportation - no assessment for new residential area/mixed use area

Noise is of particular concern to the Objector. The Environmental Statement identifies that

10,000 construction vehicle movements can be anticipated to arise from these proposals,

including travelling along the B8020 during the construction period however no assessment

of the impact associated with these vehicles is presented. Construction traffic has the

potential to affect both existing and proposed receptors in Winchburgh, with further

cumulative effects possible if construction of the EARL clashes with the Objector's phased

development for construction.

The Environmental Statement identifies a severe operational noise impact at Myre adjacent to

the Winchburgh Junction, as a result of additional railway movements associated with the

EARL. The Environmental Statement states that mitigation measures will need to be

considered at the design stage, although no specific details are provided. Operational noise

impacts have not been assessed for the proposed residential areas of the Objector's

development, in particular as regards development parcels X and Y (as identified in the

master plan), which is likely to experience impacts of a similar magnitude to Myre. It is

considered that the proposed development area should have been assessed as sensitive to

operational noise in the Environmental Statement.

No assessment appears to have been made of the effects that possible rerouting of freight

trains may have on existing and proposed sensitive receptors in Winchburgh. The proposals

contained in the Bill potentially adversely affect development land along the railway corridor

as a consequence of timetabling freight movements at night. This would have a particularly

detrimental impact on future residents in the development.

No requirement for buffers has been identified as regards the development. Whilst the

Environmental Statement identifies that specific mitigation measures will be required to

prevent significant impacts at receptors near the Winchburgh junction, it provides no details

of the types of measures that would be applied or their likely effectiveness.

6

Furthermore, activities associated with the construction compound have the potential to

significantly impact future sensitive receptors in the adjacent development parcel (Y as

identified in the master plan) to the south, in particular with respect to noise and dust.

3 Loss of Development land

If the Bill is passed as currently drafted, the Objector will lose significant areas of land which

is intended for development under the master plan. This could have a serious and potentially

fatal effect on the viability and delivery of the Objector's development.

In particular, the proposed use of plot 17 as the location of the construction compound for the

works at Winchburgh Junction blights/sterilises the land for the duration of the powers which

would be granted under the Bill. This area is designated as mixed use (housing) within the

FWLLP Core Development Area for Winchburgh (development blocks X, Y and Z from the

master plan) and the Objector wishes to construct housing at this location from 2007. The

Bill would prevent this.

The Objector seeks to challenge the land-take (4 Ha) identified as being required for the

construction compound as being excessive.

The Objector would encourage the Promoter to identify a site of an appropriate size outwith

the area identified in the FWLLP as mixed use. Alternatively, the Objector seeks to explore

the possibility of an undertaking from the Promoter to use a smaller site, governed by a local

construction agreement and for a limited period of time. This would include a provision

dealing with removal from plot 17 to an appropriate alternative site should the construction of

EARL over-run.

In addition to plot 17, the acquisition of plots 15 and 27 removes development land from the

FWLLP Mixed Use (Housing) allocation. Development blocks X, S, T, Y and AA as

identified in the master plan would be potentially constrained and adversely affected by high

(night time) noise levels.

7

The land take in the Bill potentially puts at risk the entire scheme as set out in the master

plan.

4 Bridge at Beatlie Road incorrectly described

The Bridge at Beatlie Road B8020 is described in the Bill as to be "re-constructed". This is a

key haul route identified in Fig 2.30 of the Environmental Statement and is likely to be put to

extensive use during any EARL construction phase. In fact, the Objector understands, as a

result of its detailed knowledge of the area covered by/adjacent to the development, that the

Promoter only intends to replace the superstructure of the bridge. This bridge structure is sub-

standard at present and requires to be brought up to an adoptable standard as part of the Bill

to cater for the level of use to which the bridge will be subject and to create an asset that

Network Rail and West Lothian Council require. Therefore the Promoter should be under a

duty to properly reconstruct the bridge.

The Objector understands that officials of West Lothian Council Roads Department agree

that the bridge should allow free flow traffic in two directions. The Bill should be amended to

ensure that the bridge is reconstructed to remove safety issues with the junction now and in

the future when traffic increases as part of the Promoter's off-site disposal strategy for waste.

5 Code of Construction Practice insufficiently detailed

The Code of Construction Practice provided by the Promoter is not detailed/site specific

enough to provide the appropriate comfort that the impact of the works under the Bill will be

minimised at the Winchburgh Development. The Objector requires a Local Construction

Plan to be agreed to deal with specific issues at Winchburgh. Issues such as an identified

strategy for waste removal, heavy traffic management and access issues require to be

addressed on a site specific basis and the Objector is keen to work with tie to put in place a

workable Local Construction Plan.

6 Impact of delay on proposed development

If the Bill's work programme is delayed, the proposed development will be faced with a

constraint as it will be sited adjacent to works or as part of the land taken under the Bill (both

8

temporarily and permanently). The impact of construction and/or the requirement for the

Promoter's appointed contract to have adequate working space could significantly impede,

delay or prevent progress on the proposed development by the Objector. Areas of the site

could be un-developable until the works specified in the Bill are completed. The Promoter's

current construction programme is for 3-3.5 years between 2007 and 2011. The Objector calls

on the Promoter to put forward proposals to deal with any delay to the programme and to

provide a more detailed framework for each phase of the works.

In addition, even if the proposed development is successfully completed, (notwithstanding

the close proximity to the Promoter's works during construction), if the Bill construction

works incur any delay, this will result in residential developments sitting directly adjacent to

heavy construction sites. The impact of the proposed timetable under the Bill slipping on a

completed residential development have not been considered despite the clear availability of

the master plan.

The Objector has been in contact with a view to reaching a suitable agreement however has

received no satisfactory response from the Promoter to proposals which were put to them.

7 Impact on access and services

Neither the Bill nor the accompanying documents take into consideration the cumulative

effects of construction traffic required for the construction of the EARL and the construction

of the development which are planned to take place over the same period (e.g. the re-working

of Niddry Castle Bing).

The primary routes for infrastructure services have yet to be identified. It is not acceptable for

the Objector's development to be prevented from accessing the adopted utilities within/

through the public highway and land that is privately owned but required for the Bill. The

Promoter/Promoter's appointed contractor will control this land. A Third Party Agreement is

required in order to identify the method of gaining all necessary access to infrastructure

services.

9

Access will be required to areas of LOD and LLAU highlighted within the Bill at

Winchburgh. The Bill will have a detrimental effect on primary access, service crossings and

as regards the formation of footpath and cycleways. A method of accommodating these

elements is required in order to avoid ransom issues.

The local roads included in Bill will not be adoptable until 12 months after the conclusion of

the works. The Promoter or its contractor(s) will be in control of access to these roads and the

Objector will require to obtain permission to connect to the existing road network.

8 Impact of Haul Roads

Major Haul Roads for a large section of the works are proposed at Winchburgh. The impact

of these on the residential properties proposed has not been considered. Haul routes will

require access through Town Centre main street, across land outwith the Bill, across the

Union Canal, through the New Town Park, through the new district park and through historic

woodland. Haul routes also go along a proposed route between the existing village and the

proposed town centre and new schools, raising safety issues.

The Environmental Statement argues that because the Promoter's construction and Phase 1

are happening in different places, cumulative noise and air quality and safety issues are

negligible. This is a very optimistic and unsubstantiated view, given the potential overlap of

construction and haulage routes. The Promoter has assessed the impacts of its own

construction and haulage routes in isolation from any other likely development.

Generally the Objector is concerned at the manner in which the haul roads have been

handled: in terms of the lack of survey work carried out; and the presumptions that attach to

their potential existence. The Objector is of the view that the haul roads ought to have been

given greater prominence within the Bill. (The current reference to them is Figure 2.30).

Two of the haul roads will have a major long term impact upon CALA's early phases, the

centre route due South from the junction circle on the plans and the West route, which does

not currently exist and is shown to cross the Union Canal and main line railway before

heading in the direction of the M9, with no indication of whether or how a connection would

10

be made. The Objector suggests that the formation of a new junction on to the M9 at

Duntarvie for the traffic carting away the waste near to the proposed development would

resolve many difficulties.

Our Environmental Consultants, ENVIRON, have identified the fact that two of the haul road

routes would have an effect on badger setts and this has the inevitable implications which do

not appear to have been addressed.

9 Landscaping concerns

The condition of the existing railway corridor in access, land use and landscape terms at the

conclusion of the works authorised by the Bill is an area for concern. The Objector has had

no indication of how the areas which are proposed to be compulsorily purchased would be

remediated on completion of works. Confirmation is sought from the Promoter regarding

this in order to ensure that the existing track bed subsequently is incorporated into the

proposed wider master plan proposals.

10 Cumulative effect of adverse effects on earnings/income

Without going into the detail of potential losses at this stage, the Objector wishes to highlight

that the combined effect of the adverse impacts highlighted in this Objection could:-

• affect the Promoter's ability to sell properties or otherwise obtain the expected return

on the investment in the development;

• reduce the income available from the properties within the Development (either

because less can be built or because of reduced valuations/prices); and

• increase the cost of borrowing due to delays to programme of work under

development.

11

Conclusion

The Objector is willing to enter into discussions with the Promoter to identify whether

agreement can be reached on the various grounds of objection set out in this note. If an

agreement were reached the Objector would be willing to withdraw this objection in whole or

in part.

The Objector would wish to have the opportunity to appear to give evidence at the

Consideration Stage, or at any other time at which oral evidence is taken from objectors to

this Bill.

We should be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this objection.

McGRIGORS Solicitors to the ObjectorPacific House70 Wellington StreetGlasgow G2 6SBFax: 0141 204 135115 May 2006