NEWS RELEASE - September 8th 1999

A701 road proposal to be decided on by Midlothian: latest score: Council 3 - objectors 700

The report by the Midlothian Council's Director of Community Services, "A701 transport improvements", for Thursday's Regulatory Services Committee meeting, concerns the proposal for a new 2.8 mile long dual-carriageway between the Edinburgh City Bypass and Milton Bridge, north of Penicuik. The road would be funded through the Private Finance Initiative and would cost in the region of £20 million - to be paid for by Midlothian taxpayers.

The road proposal has provoked immense controversy locally, provoking 706 representations, including 436 letters of objection and 266 petitioners objecting to the road. Groups objecting to the proposals include TRANSform Scotland, the Edinburgh Green Belt Trust, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Loanhead Environment & Conservation Group, the RSPB, the Scottish Association for Public Transport, and the local action group 'No Alignment Action Group' (NAAG). Three people have written in support of the proposal.

Colin Howden, Campaign Manager of TRANSform Scotland, said:
"The report shows the depth of opposition to the road from local residents concerned at the destruction of the countryside that would ensue should the road be allowed to go ahead. But crucially, Midlothian Council have yet to convince anyone that this proposal is anything more than an encouragement to speculative developers to build more out-of-town shopping centres and car commuter suburbs for Edinburgh."

The response to the representations from the Project Manager of Midlothian Council's Transportation Unit skims over the issues raised in the many representations:

(1) It attempts to argue that the new road will not lead to increased car trips (sections 5.6-5.7) whilst at the same time acknowledging that the Council is promoting development at Bush Technopole, Straiton and Bilston (e.g. section 6.1), which, in the absence of investment in new mass transit access by the Council or by developers, will inevitably be largely car-dependent. Midlothian Council's suggestion that Green Transport Plans will prevent this (section 5.13) is no more than "greenwash".

(2) It pays lip service to the Labour Government's Transport White Papers and recent national planning policy guidelines. The report's assertion that "local authorities have different transport priorities and different means of pursuing them" (section 5.15) might be appropriate for dealing with transport needs in remote rural areas like Sutherland or Ardmamurchan but just doesn't stand up on a commuter corridor just outside Scotland's second largest city.

(3) The report argues that new wildlife habitats created through the road project will be an improvement on those already in existence (sections 5.52-5.57). This will come as news to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) and the RSPB - who all objected to the damage that would be caused to the ancient woodland at the Site of Special Scientific Interest at Bilston Burn Wood, as well as to important wildlife corridors along the proposed route. SWT questioned the need for the new road "unless the proposal was for a large-scale development corridor, which, in turn, would be an even greater threat to wildlife" (section 3.12).

(4) The road proposal would soak up a large proportion of Midlothian's transport budget for years to come - yet the report doesn't even consider how the road would be financed. Midlothian's own Local Transport Strategy notes that around £4.3 million is required annually in maintaining its transport provision (Midlothian draft LTS, July 1999, p. 37) yet is now proposing to spend £20 million on a new road project.

But once again, the Council has failed to provide any analysis of the proposed PFI financing, and still refuses to make publicly available the Outline Business Case for the proposal.

(5) The report labours under the impression that neighbouring local authorities do not object to the road proposal - this is incorrect. While not having made a formal representation at the time of the consultation period earlier this year, the City of Edinburgh Council's Interim Local Transport Strategy (July 1999) states that it is
"extremely concerned that this new road will threaten its own transport policies by increasing traffic, in particular car commuting, between Penicuik and Edinburgh; by undermining the very good bus services on the corridor; and by further increasing pressure for unsustainable car-based development along the corridor and at it junction with the Bypass. The Council urges Midlothian Council to consider bus priority and low-cost road safety measures as alternatives to this scheme."

Colin Howden of TRANSform Scotland concluded:
"The report to the Committee is no more than an apologia for the fatal errors that underlie this road proposal. This project does not make any sense on transport grounds, in terms of its environmental impact or indeed whether Midlothian can afford such ill-directed expense. Perhaps the Councillors should instead consider why they have over 700 objectors to this proposal - and only 3 supporters? After all, it is these peoples' money they would be squandering."

ENDS

Notes to Editors:
(1) TRANSform Scotland is the national sustainable transport campaign, bringing together 58 organisations - including transport operators, local authorities, national environment and conservation groups, chambers of commerce and local transport groups - interested in transport, the environment and a sustainable Scotland. We can be contacted at 72 Newhaven Road, Edinburgh, EH6 5QG. Tel.: 0131-467-7714; Fax: 0131-554-8656; E-mail: campaigns@transformscotland.org.uk; web: http://www.transformscotland.org.uk

END OF PRESS RELEASE