On 28th of February, during a local presentation of the revised Elgin dualing proposals, I asked SWECO consultants, who are your agents, to explain their changes to the northern and southern routes. For over an hour I tried to elicit concise answers with little success. I assume, as I never received straight answers, that all of the following areas have been altered in accordance with Transport Scotland Scheme Objectives (TSSOs)? Therefore, each of these route alterations requires two answers. Firstly, which TSSOs did the previous route not satisfy and secondly, your detailed reasons why. The routes in question are:
Route B1. The revised route is longer and now decimates Burgie Wood. The sole reply I received that evening was that it had been revised 'due to business interests'. Which TSSO does this answer cover? Moreover, decimating this wood is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy Para 21, as stated in my report, sent to you on 5 August 2017.
Route P3. The revised route now moves further into a SEPA-defined flood plain.
Route P3 Junction. Now moved further east with a longer link road into Elgin. The new link road offers no connectivity to proposed housing to the south of Elgin, therefore which TSSOs are being invoked here and where is the improvement? Relocated P4 junction with new P4 link road to G2 Junction. This revised solution beggars belief. The obvious revision would be to have a raised junction to the south of Lhanbryde, incorporating the functions of A96 intersection; railway bridge and P4 connection.
Costings and Geology surveys. No costings or geology surveys have been carried out for any of these sub-routes to the north and south of Elgin, but SWECO advised me that a final route would be announced by the end of 2018. How can a final route be chosen when costings and geological data are absent?
Pre-August 2017 Initial Routes around Elgin. What TSSOs were used to arbitrarily draw these various sub-routes around Elgin; again when no costings or geology data was available?'