Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Official Report 504KB pdf

---

Forth Road Bridge Bill: Stage 1

The third item on the agenda is stage 1 evidence on the Forth Road Bridge Bill from the City of Edinburgh Council. The council submitted a written statement to the committee on 1 February and supplementary written evidence on 13 February.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their written submission. We have with us Councillor Lesley Hinds, who is the convener of the council’s transport and environment committee; and Ewan Kennedy, who is the transport policy and planning manager.

I invite questions to both witnesses.

Good morning. In your written evidence, you raise concerns that the dissolution of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority would remove councillors from any front-line role in the management of the Forth bridges. What practical implications could that have for cross-Forth transport?

I am sure that you are aware from the evidence that, at the moment, the FETA board has elected members from a number of local authorities. We have a number of elected members who sit on it. Our representation is all-party, but the local elected member also sits on the board. That gives us not only a strategic transport view but a view from the local level.

If a forum is to be set up to replace FETA, it would be beneficial to have directly elected councillors on it. We have two bridges at the moment and are about to have three. They are important to the economy of Edinburgh. As iconic buildings—I do not know whether we want to call them buildings, but their situation is iconic—they are important to tourism, which is obviously extremely important not only to Edinburgh but to the local community in South Queensferry in particular.

I am sure that all parties want fewer quangos with unelected members. We therefore feel that the forum would be an opportunity to have directly elected members representing the community and addressing transport strategy.

What do you think having councillors as members would add overall to the operation that would not be given by the proposed approach?

I mean no disrespect to officers, but we are elected members. I mentioned the local community in South Queensferry, which has had a very good relationship with the FETA board, and there has been good consultation. I believe that having elected members on the forum would give added impetus to community representation. Obviously, officers will provide more of a technical background, but elected members represent the local community and the council as a whole.

Do any changes need to be made to accommodate councillors on the forum? Would those councillors be the local ward councillors, or just councillors in general?

That would be up to recommendations from the committee or the minister. However, in principle, we feel that we should have perhaps one or two elected members on the forum to represent the local community. The City of Edinburgh Council is the most affected authority. The other affected local authorities have not commented on the issue, but we feel strongly that the forum should have at least one elected member. It would be up to the local authority to decide whether it would be appropriate to have the transport convener or a local elected member, for example, on the forum. However, we would like to have at least one elected member from Edinburgh on the forum.

In effect, there would be two elected members on the forum, because there would have to be one from the authority on the other side of the bridge, would there not? Is that what you are suggesting?

A number of elected members, including from West Lothian, are on the FETA board just now. However, the two authorities that are most affected are Fife Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. Edinburgh and Fife councillors have traditionally alternated as FETA’s convener and vice-convener. I am not saying that other local authorities are not important in this context, but the local authorities in Edinburgh and Fife are those that are most directly affected by the bridges, in relation to their economies and so on.

I just want to press you a wee bit further. You think that there should be two elected members on the forum in any case. However, all the associated councils might have elected members on it. That would mean that there would be quite a number of councillors on the forum.

I would not like to suggest what the membership should be, but I suggest that the two most relevant local authorities are Fife Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. If the committee or the minister wanted to recommend that councillors should be on the forum, those two local authorities should be represented.

Okay.

I want to touch on the issue of compensation. The City of Edinburgh Council is concerned about compensation arising from the M9 spur/A90 project. Transport Scotland disagrees with the council’s view and has said that there would be adequate cover from the £600,000 referred to in the financial memorandum. However, the City of Edinburgh Council believes, on the basis of submitted claims, that compensation could be as much as £4.4 million and that when FETA is dissolved the liability would not automatically transfer to Scottish ministers but could rest with the council. Can you say a bit more about your concerns?

I will ask Ewan Kennedy to talk about the more technical aspect, but in principle we as a local authority need some comfort that we will not have financial liabilities when FETA is abolished and we move to the new system. I am sure that you, as an elected member, want us to ensure that we protect council tax payers’ money. If you do not mind, I will ask Ewan Kennedy, who has been more involved in the process, to say a bit more. I understand that we have had further discussions with Transport Scotland that have been reasonably fruitful.

Good morning. I will give the committee a quick indication of the background to the issue, which relates to the construction of the M9 link road. FETA promoted the link road shortly after it came into being in 2002 as a transport authority, which gave it powers not only to maintain the existing bridge, but to introduce or construct measures in and around the bridge.

After considering how best to procure the M9 link road, FETA asked the City of Edinburgh Council to act as its agent and to design, construct and deliver the road, on the understanding that all costs that the council incurred would be reimbursed by FETA. An issue has arisen around where the liabilities sit. The council proceeded and entered into contracts so, in effect, the liabilities sat with the council. Obviously, the road is now built. The particular issue is that the council used its compulsory purchase powers to acquire land, but there are outstanding claims from landowners that could still end up at arbitration. That situation will pertain until October 2013.

In drafting the bill, Transport Scotland considered FETA’s liabilities, but the City of Edinburgh Council’s liabilities were not totally transparent. Before the submission by the council and subsequent conversations with Transport Scotland, Transport Scotland was unaware that the council used its powers to acquire land. On the figures that are in the public domain, the best estimate of the likely level of compensation is £93,000. However, there are 180 claims from former landowners on the table, with a combined sum of £4.4 million. Those could end up being resolved through arbitration by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, so there is no certainty about the outcome. We believe that it is not likely that the figure of £4.4 million will come to pass, but it is perfectly possible that the figure could be higher than £93,000.

The issue is about the council safeguarding its position. The relationship between FETA and the council has been absolutely fine, and all the council’s expenditure thus far has been covered by FETA. However, with FETA being dissolved, we obviously want to ensure that the liabilities are properly taken account of.

I presume that the concern is about the valuation of land that was compulsorily purchased.

Yes.

There are two sorts of compensation—there is compensation for things such as noise and fumes, but there is also compensation for the value of land, over which there is dispute. Will the land remain in the ownership of the City of Edinburgh Council?

No. The road in question is becoming a trunk road. In fact, it is probably a trunk road now, because it became a trunk road by virtue of the bill to construct the new bridge.

I presume that the land that was purchased will transfer to the ownership of Transport Scotland.

That is correct.

The issue is important, given the sums of money that could be involved. Did Transport Scotland make any effort to consult the council as it was drawing up the bill?

The first formal consultation with us was the official consultation in late autumn or early winter. At official level, there have been on-going discussions between the city council and FETA with regard to the outstanding matters relating to the construction of the road. I am not sure how the current situation has arisen. Somehow, the liability that sits with the council has not been transparent and it has not been picked up as, in effect, a FETA liability.

What comfort do you need? Would a declaration on the record by the minister when he comes to see us that the liability is definitely not the City of Edinburgh Council’s be sufficient, or do you require something greater than that?

We would like a statement that all liabilities that are associated with the construction of the M9 link road will pass to the Scottish ministers.

I must say that there have been constructive discussions following the statements that were given to the press. There is now an understanding in Transport Scotland of where the council is coming from and there have been constructive discussions. We feel that we have a bit more comfort now that those discussions are on-going.

When Barry Colford spoke to the committee on 6 February, he said:

“Anyone can put in a claim and I imagine that the council’s figure comes from an accumulation of all those claims. All I can say is that our budgeted cost is £623,000.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 6 February 2013; c 1336.]

That is made up of £190,000 of potential claims and £433,000 of outstanding fees.

You said that the total of £4.4 million is not likely to come to pass. Have any of the 180 claims around the compulsory purchase of land been settled? Has settlement happened outwith those 180 claims?

10:45

Yes. There are 180 claims outstanding, and there has been settlement around other land deals that were part of the construction of the road.

What proportion of all the compulsory purchase deal claims are those 180 claims? Are the vast majority still outstanding or is it only 1 or 2 per cent?

I do not have that detail with me. I could submit it separately if required.

I know that there have been discussions about this, and Keith Brown started to allude to the fact that ministers would be picking up all liabilities relating to the situation. If that was not the case, what effect would it have on the council’s budget, bearing in mind the size of that budget?

I am sure that to the council tax payer, it does not matter whether it is £1,000, £1 million or £1 billion—the fact is that we have not budgeted for the liabilities and therefore if they were not picked up by ministers we would have to find the money from savings or from somewhere else. It would have an effect on the budget because the liabilities are not in the budget.

There would also be savings in the council’s budget because you would no longer be responsible for some of the services that you provide to FETA.

That is not until 2015, and will be planned in our budget, in the same way as we have planned for police and fire services this year. There will be budget planning come 2015 when FETA is no more. We will obviously have to take into account the financial and committee support that we provide. Work is already being done on that for 2015.

I have a couple of questions. One is on the Forth bridges forum and the other is about the public and active travel corridor.

I was interested in the point, which I thought you made rather effectively, that there is a need for directly elected representatives to be on the Forth bridges forum, given that there had been such representatives on the FETA board previously. Are there any other mechanisms that you think would help to facilitate and foster the good working relationship that you want to see between the road operator and local authorities? Clearly, the forum is an important one, but are there others that would be helpful?

There has been a very good relationship involving the bridgemaster and the team that is in place. I know South Queensferry reasonably well and I know that the feeling is that the relationship has been very good. I would not like to speak on the team’s behalf but some of the mechanisms that have been in place, such as regular meetings with the bridgemaster to address any issues that arise, would be helpful. I am sure that, as staff transfer over, the same staff will be dealing with the community. If there was an elected member on the forum, that elected member could ensure that they regularly met the communities in the Edinburgh area that are directly affected, particularly the community in South Queensferry.

So having a local elected member provides a voice and a platform for the local community to raise any concerns and issues that they have about how the bridge is being operated and what impact it is having on surrounding roads.

Yes, particularly where there are problems, as there have been in the past. There is a good relationship between the bridgemaster, their staff and the community council in particular, which is very active. The benefits of that include the fact that there is now a business improvement district in South Queensferry, which links into tourism and so on. It would be helpful if there was a councillor on the forum, even if they were not the locally elected member—I hope that we work on an all-party basis in Edinburgh—to ensure that the community’s voice was heard.

I will now ask about the public and active travel corridor. My colleagues will be aware that I regularly ask questions about active travel, particularly cycling. I have a lot of constituents who cycle to and from work. What is the council doing to ensure that, following the opening of the new bridge, buses, cyclists and pedestrians have as smooth and quick a journey as possible to and from the southern access to the bridge?

Our active travel action plan, which deals with cycling and walking, is viewed throughout the country as being one of the best. It is being reviewed in the next few months, and one of the matters for review will be how we can ensure that provision for active travel is worked out in the context of the construction of the new bridge.

Discussions are taking place with Fife Council, given the number of people who live in Fife and work in Edinburgh or who live in Edinburgh and work in Fife. Funding has been available from the minister, which will improve conditions for active travel, particularly the cycle network from the bridge into Edinburgh, which I think is being constructed at the moment. We welcome that money.

As I say, we will be reviewing the active travel action plan, and one of the key points will be to encourage people to walk and cycle in the area around South Queensferry—and in Fife, at the north end—once the new bridge is open.

You mentioned the iconic status of the bridge, and you have spoken about active travel to and from Fife. Have there been any discussions between the City of Edinburgh Council and Fife Council to ensure that we maximise the benefits of having a cycling corridor between Fife and Edinburgh?

There is a public transport access strategy—

I am asking about what discussions have taken place between the two councils specifically to maximise the benefits of this opportunity.

In terms of cycling?

I am talking about a cycling corridor—an active travel corridor between the two local authority areas.

It is part and parcel of the package that West Lothian Council, Fife Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and the south east of Scotland transport partnership put together, along with Transport Scotland, when the Forth Crossing Bill was being promoted. The output from that included a range of facilities, including park and ride, bus lanes and cycle facilities. We continue to work with Transport Scotland and our partner authorities. A range of measures are provided, covering the short term, medium term and long term. It is all part and parcel of a sustainable transport approach to managing growth in cross-Forth trips. The aim is to have the key parts of that package in place from 2016, when the new bridge opens.

The range of measures in the package include those for active travel and cycling. We made a strong point when the Forth Crossing Bill was going through about the facilities for walking and cycling on the existing bridge, and we went as far as to suggest that there should perhaps be those facilities on the new bridge. That package is the key strategy that is shared between the councils and Transport Scotland.

As an Edinburgh MSP, I am well aware that the City of Edinburgh Council is an exemplar in this area and that it has very good policies in place, but I wanted to give you that opportunity to put those comments on the record.

On that pleasant note, I thank Councillor Hinds and Mr Kennedy for their evidence this morning. As was intimated earlier, we will address the matter with the minister next week.

10:54 Meeting suspended.

11:00 On resuming—