Official Report 448KB pdf
Prior to the main business of the day, the committee will consider a paper from the promoter on the Balfour Street level-crossing and a proposed amendment to the bill. The committee will hear from Alison Gorlov from John Kennedy & Co, the promoter's parliamentary agent.
Yes, I can confirm that. When I first appeared before the committee, I explained that one could not be certain about the extent of that right without undertaking considerable investigations of the surrounding properties. We have now done that. We have investigated the Registers of Scotland and have found all sorts of rights registered in relation to properties adjoining and quite some distance away from the level-crossing. However, none of those rights bears on the crossing at all. I do not profess to be an expert in Scots property law, but the way in which the various building plots were sold off when the land ceased to be agricultural land indicates to those who know more about this than I do that the rights were considered to be redundant and were not passed on.
Are you 100 per cent satisfied that those two people are the only persons whose interests could be adversely affected?
Yes, I am. I should add that the clerk, Mr Thomson, will find on his table a schedule, containing the report of some further searches. The searches that are referred to in the further memorandum relate to properties to the south of the railway line. I commissioned some further searches, just in case the one or two properties adjoining Whins Road enjoyed some rights. The searches revealed that they do not.
The committee is grateful for that. You are saying that none of the further information that arose from those searches alters your evidence in any way.
It does not alter it at all.
You are 100 per cent satisfied about that.
Yes, I am.
That is a good level of satisfaction, if I may say so.
In appendix 1 to paper SAK/S2/04/4/32, you detail the results of the searches of the registers that you had carried out. In relation to 5 (East) Clackmannan Road, Alloa, page 1 of the appendix states:
I can explain that. I did not undertake those searches; they were undertaken by the land referencers—the people who ascertained the property ownership details all the way along the route. I do not know why there was no return from the registers, although that occasionally happens. I do not think that it indicates that no rights were registered in respect of those properties.
Okay. That was not going to be my next question, but thank you for that anyway.
It means that it is not registered, sir. Not everywhere is.
Of 3 Bruce Street, on page 6, the appendix says:
Mr McKie will correct me if I get this wrong—he is a Scottish solicitor and I am not. The Register of Sasines is an ancient document that contains records of deeds affecting land. I think that I am correct in saying that it is not obligatory to register in that register. It is a difficult register to search. The properties in Bruce Street are relatively new, so there might not be much to register or that anybody bothered to register. Mr McKie will tell me whether that is normal practice. I understand that the land register is a relatively new document that has very little in it because it was established only recently.
I understand the difference between the two. I am just interested to know when the land register became effective for this area. Perhaps somebody can tell us that.
I think that Mr McKie is the person to answer that question.
Regrettably, I am not in a position to answer that at the moment, but I can come back to you in a fairly short timescale, if that is okay.
The committee would be appreciative of that.
Why might some properties not be registered?
Perhaps we could return to that at another time.
I would prefer that. I was not personally responsible for compiling appendix 1. Although I have looked at it, I am not in a position to answer specific points in detail. However, I shall get back to you on that.
Thank you, Mr McKie.
Paragraph 7 of the memorandum states that both Mr Brydie and Mr Anderson
The proposed amendment has not been notified to anybody specifically. The solicitors, Caesar & Howie Ltd, wrote on behalf of Mr Brydie. Perhaps I overstated my understanding of the position. We understand that Mr Anderson and Mr Brydie are business partners. Therefore, we take it that Mr Anderson knows what Mr Brydie knows.
One option that is open to the committee—to which you allude in paragraph 14 of the memorandum—is to agree that the normal 60-day objection period will apply in the first instance but will be reduced if Mr Brydie and Mr Anderson either submit an objection or indicate to the committee that they do not wish to object. I am unclear about your reasoning for not taking that approach. Perhaps you can explain why you do not think that that procedure would be appropriate in the circumstances.
I am not saying that it would not be appropriate to adopt that procedure; I am distinguishing between that and the length of the initial period, which are two distinct issues. Whatever the length of the objection period, it makes sense that, should those two object, the period should stop as soon as they have objected, but that is not the same thing as asking what the length of the objection period should be.
Also in paragraph 14, you appear to suggest that if the landowners were going to object, you would have had a reply to your letter of 12 January to say so. However, is it not fair to say that the objectors might have their own reasons for not responding—to preserve their position, for example—and that that does not necessarily imply that they will not object to the proposed amendment?
I accept that it is not definitive proof that they will not object. This is no criticism of Caesar & Howie, it is simply an observation, but I wrote a letter to Messrs Caesar and Howie and I have had no acknowledgement of it. I know that they got the letter—I believe that it was sent by fax.
Thank you for that reflection.
Should the committee agree to your request to reduce the period to 21 days, my understanding is that the promoter will be required to provide a supplementary memorandum for the Parliament and Alloa library, serve an affected persons notification letter on both Mr Anderson and Mr Brydie, and advertise in the Alloa and Hillfoots Wee County News. Following the second week of the advertisement, the objection period will begin. Is that your understanding of the procedure? If so, can you advise the committee when you would propose to start that procedure—that is, when do you plan to advertise and when do you expect the objection period to commence?
We are in the hands of the committee, but that is the procedure that the committee has indicated it wants. It replicates what was done for the bill. It makes the issue a mini bill, as it were—a bill within a bill. We will publish our notice at the first available date, which depends, I am afraid, on the Alloa and Hillfoots Wee County News rather than ourselves. As I understand it, its copy date is a Monday, so we will have missed it today, and it will have to be next Monday for next Thursday's paper, which will be the start date. That will be the first week. We are looking at 21 days starting the following week.
What impact do you envisage that will have on the overall timetable for the bill?
I do not think that it should prejudice the overall timetable.
Is there anything further that you want to say in relation to this matter?
No, apart from the observation, apropos of your last question, that a period of 21 days might alter the committee's timetable, but not the overall timetable for the bill. I hazard a guess that that would not be the case if we considered a period of 60 days, which would represent a very lengthy delay. If the period of objection ran until the deadline, that would cause an overall delay.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you for appearing before us today and for answering our questions. The committee will consider your paper and the answers that you have given before reaching a decision. If possible, the committee will report its decision this afternoon.