WPR Report December 2002

Western Peripheral Route - Northern Section

Purpose of Report , Background, Progress, Option Assessment , Routes for consultation , Proposals for public consultation, Recommendation

North East Strategic Planning Committee: 9 December 2002

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report informs the committee of the outcomes to date of the detailed appraisal of options for a route from the A96 to the A90 to the north of the city which will form part of the Western Peripheral Route, and seeks approval to go forward to public consultation on a restricted number of these routes.

2. Background

2.1 Reference is made to the minute of the North East Strategic Planning Committee of 7th June 2002 wherein the Committee resolved to approve the potential route options for the Northern section of the Western Peripheral Route, as identified in the appendix to the report, for public consultation and Stage 2 comparative assessment.

2.2 Subsequently both Councils considered updates on the consultation at meetings in late June.

3. Progress

3.1 The previous report on 7th June set out the detailed approach to be taken in assessing / appraising route options. The work has been undertaken within the appropriate Scottish Executive assessment framework i.e. the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridge-works (DMRB). The first stage identified constraints, selected a range of route options for comparative assessment, and set out the context of an initial stage of public consultation. From an initial consideration of over 100 possible routes, this resulted in 18 potential route options for consultation and appraisal.

3.2 Officials from both Councils undertook briefings of a range of local Community Councils within the area through which the 18 route options passed. In addition briefings were given to the Area Committees in Aberdeenshire. Much of the comment received at this stage was relating to a preference of route. All comments received were collated and any which highlighted particular issues relating to possible environmental or engineering constraints were taken into account in the next stage of the assessment.

3.3 To assist in the assessment the team have commissioned reports from a number of consultants (internal and external) to assist in the STAG assessment of the Western Peripheral Route (Northern Leg). These commissions resulted in the following reports:

• A set of objectives to be met and problems to be resolved prepared by the assessment team and approved by NESPC. All routes have been assessed against both the problems and objectives.
• An Environmental assessment (carried out by Mouchel)
• An Engineering assessment (carried out by an in-house design team)
• A Traffic assessment (carried out by an in-house design team with assistance from MVA and Steer Davies Gleave)
• An Economic "Value for Money" assessment (carried out by an in-house design team with assistance from MVA and Steer Davies Gleave)
• An Economic and Locational Impacts assessment (carried out by Steer Davies Gleave)
• A Stage 1 public consultation

3.4 The assessment team, consisting of officials from both Councils, has been closely involved in the work for all of the above reports and has held regular meetings with the specialists in each field. Where appropriate the team has ensured that each report has been informed by other reports to ensure that there is a consistency across all disciplines and suggested changes or amendments have been adopted and considered by all. Meetings have been held to discuss the final reports to ensure the assessment team were fully appraised of the significance of each report and issues within each report.

3.5 As one can imagine the reports have produced a huge volume of information to be assessed. Much of this information is necessary for an assessment and for design purposes and it will be essential in taking the proposal forward. However the assessment team, have, in discussion with the consultants, tried to identify the major issues that will be a factor in determining a route choice.

3.6 In this particular proposal, what has become clear from all the consultancy work carried out, is that there are a number of contradictory findings where one assessment criteria conflicts with another. This is even true within disciplines where one environmental factor may lead one conclusion with another environmental factor leading to another.

3.7 To assist in the route choice decision the team has attempted to present the major issues associated with each route in two ways.

• There are 18 route permutations. A "booklet" of the important information affecting each permutation has been prepared considering each of the reports (this information will be available in draft form at the committee)
• A summary table has been prepared looking at the issues affecting the six major links that make up the route permutations (again this information will be available in draft form at the committee)

3.8 The booklets are useful in being able to consider each route option as a whole. However it is difficult to compare each of the 18 route on this basis. For this reason the summary table has been created.

4. Option Assessment

4.1 Of the options, two links proved to be impractical for engineering reasons. This was evident only after further detailed design had been undertaken. These were Bucksburn B and South A, which meant that thirteen were left consisting of six main variations as listed below.

• North
• Central
• South
• Kirkhill 1
• Kirkhill 2
• Bucksburn

4.2 Of the remaining 13 options a systematic approach of comparative assessment lead to the following:

4.2.1 North, Central, South

Incorporating a small re-alignment near Potterton addresses environmental concerns of visual impact of the Central route. The North option performs least well in terms of removing traffic, economic benefits and integration aspects. It is therefore considered that the Northern option be dropped at this stage.

4.2.2 Kirkhill

If we consider the minor variations in routes at the A96 end of this link, the middle option is considered to be the least intrusive in terms of noise, visual impact etc. Its location to the east of the Marshall trailers junction and proximity to the Chapel Brae, Park and Ride site ensures that the panoramic view of this approach to the city is maintained as far as is possible. Therefore options Kirkhill 1A/1C and 2(Part) are dropped at this stage.

Concerns were expressed by the Environmental consultants about the visual impact of the northern section of Kirkhill 1 viewed from Parkhill/Goval. A minor realignment, which also has the benefit of avoiding potential disruption to the Shell Gas pipeline and thereby reducing the cost of this route, largely mitigates this environmental issue.

The engineering, road safety and impact on the existing land uses in the area, i.e. employment land lead to the Kirkhill 2 option being considered to have a greater impact than the Kirkhill 1 option. Therefore this option could be dropped at this stage.

4.2.3 Bucksburn

Bucksburn is the only route to the south of the airport but it performs well in terms of economic benefits, traffic volumes and land use integration. It is considered that it would be appropriate to include this option in the public consultation at this stage.

5. Routes for consultation

5.1 This process of evaluating advantages and disadvantages leaves three routes for which it would be appropriate to invite public comment on the appraisal and route preferences. These routes are:

• C 3 - Central/ Kirkhill 1/ Kirkhill 1B (refer to as Central)
• SB 3 - South B/ Kirkhill 1/ Kirkhill 1B (refer to as South)
• B A - Bucksburn A (refer to as Bucksburn)

6. Proposals for public consultation

6.1 It is proposed to have a public consultation period from 7 January 2003 to 16 February 2003. This would permit a report to be presented to NESPC to allow it to make a recommendation to both Councils. This would then enable both Councils to approve a preferred route. The proposed form of public consultation is as follows:

7 January 2003 - Press conference AECC

• All correspondents from Stage 1 consultation written to and informed of new Stage 2 consultation
• Leaflet and questionnaire produced and circulated in area's and Bon Accord newspaper
• Exhibitions to be set up in St Nicholas House and Woodhill House and available for public inspection. Staff to be available as necessary.

14 January – 23 January 2003

Roadshows to be held in Bucksburn, Bridge of Don, Dyce, Potterton and Newmachar. These to be held from 4pm – 8pm in each location and attended by staff from both Councils. Leaflets and questionnaires to be distributed at each roadshow. Roadshows to be advertised in local press.

14 February – Public Consultation Closes

6.2 Responses to public consultation to be collated and included in the STAG assessment to be reported to NESPC and both Councils in March.

7. Recommendation

7.1 It is recommended that the Committee

• note the outcomes of the assessment work to date
• approve the three routes Kirkhill 1/Central (Central), Kirkhill 1/South (South) and Bucksburn A (Bucksburn) for public consultation
• approve the proposed public consultation process and future reporting mechanisms