Appendix 1: Summary of Consultation Responses.

Consultee

Date Of Response

Response

British Horse Society

08/04/04 (E-mail)

As the A68 is such a busy road, BHS do not advocate any horses and riders crossing it or riding on it unless in unavoidable circumstances, therefore widening does not need to accommodate horses. On checking with the Borders access officer, BHS are not aware of any rides that cross this particular stretch. Multi-access rights of ways will be indicated to us by the local council.

The road is well used by horse transporters, lorries and trailers travelling locally or further and as the Lothians and the Borders are popular equestrian areas, BHS appreciate frequent availability of lay-bys.

Consulted on 08/06/06 (Letter)
& 23/08/06 (E-mail)

No further response received.

CTC Scotland

25/03/04 (Letter)

It is unusual for any CTC group to ride along the A68, however club rides often use small sections of the A68 and two such sections within this scheme are used frequently (map provided), namely crossing between the Crichton road / Fala Dam road, and between the B6458 / Fala Dam road. Main concerns are therefore crossing of the A68. Opportunities to improve sight-lines at junctions would be welcomed.

Cyclists also tend to use the footpath on the north-east side of the A68 since it is not used by many pedestrians. Suggested that improvements could include a properly designed ‘shared-use’ footpath.

28/06/05 (Letter)

Previous comments remain applicable.

In terms of the options:

Option 12: the B4548 from Tynehead to the new link replacing the U78 would be fine, assuming that a right-turning lane is provided for north-bound traffic turning into the new link and reverse for Fala — Tynehead direction. For the U60 / U77 manoeuvre, it is assumed that the present turning to Fala Dam / Marl Law will be stopped up for traffic but an opening provided for cycles.

Option 14: The U90 / U77 link is fine. Closure of the U78 is more serious since a long detour would be required if road closed off. Cycle access should therefore be maintained at the U78.

Requested clarification of ‘provision for cyclists’ at B6458 junction and suggested that this opportunity be taken to improve the entire Pathhead - Tynehead section for cyclists.

Consulted on 08/06/06 (Letter)

No further response received.

Edinburgh and Lothians Badger Group

30/03/04 (E-mail)

The eastern edge of Midlothian has not been surveyed to date. There have been about four badger and two otter RTA reports for NT4361 (Fala Dam / Blackshiels area).

Forestry Commission

20/04/04 (Telephone)

No information as the site is such a narrow strip of land.

22/07/05 (Letter)

Suggested that the proposed options would not have great impact on local woodlands, but noted that some of the woodland areas near the A68 at Fala Dam are classified as part of the Scottish Semi-Natural Woodland Inventory and part of an AGLV. The woodlands near the A68 at Hope are classified as Long Established (of Plantation Origin) Ancient Woodlands. Provided details of woodlands possibly affected and advised contacting SNH where necessary.

Included constraints check with details of those features in the vicinity to be considered.

Forest Enterprise

20/04/04 (Telephone)

No data or comment.

Forth Fisheries Foundation

22/04/04 (Telephone)

Charge associated with provision of data.

FFF do not hold data for the Salters Burn or Fala Dam Burn (not been surveyed), they only hold data for Humbie Water, some distance away.

20/07/05 (Telephone)

Advised that their technical expert is no longer available to comment on the scheme, however it is considered that previous response still applies and that there is no further comment to make.

Health and Safety Executive

07/04/04 (Letter)

HSE’s principal concerns are the health and safety of people affected by work activities. HSE has no information which would be useful during preparation of an Environmental Statement. An ES should not include measures that conflict with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and its relevant provisions.

The A68 crosses the Transco 2227 pipeline at Hope. Contact should be made with Transco to ascertain what measures need to be taken.

25/07/05 (Letter)

Advised that HSE had no comments to make regarding the environmental statement. Confirmed the absence of any pipelines and hazardous installations within the area of the proposed development.

Historic Scotland

05/05/04 (Letter)

No further information to supply beyond that given during RAP consultations in 1995. If proposed improvement is all on-line (within existing road verge) then consider there to be a negligible effect. If off-line, then attention is drawn to the roman camp boundary which borders the road and which may need consent of Scottish Ministers as it is a scheduled monument.

Advice on archaeological evaluation can be provided on receipt of improvement option details.

01/09/05 (Letter)

Advised that neither scheme option would adversely affect known archaeological sites especially in light of the minimal landtake predicted. Would confirm this when preferred route is known.

02/08/06 (Letter)

Advised that having considered the detail of the preferred route, HS confirm that no archaeological mitigation will be required for the scheme. Accepted that there may be small changes to the detailed design, but that the principles of the scheme will be as presented, and that they are content with such small changes.

Lothian Bat Group

08/03/06 (E-mail)

Daubenton’s bat, Natterers’ bat and the occasional brown long-eared bat and whiskered bat are present in the Hope / Magazine limestone mines during the winter hibernation period. Ringing on bats has been undertaken at the site for a number of years and surveying dates back to 1987.

12/06/06 (E-mail)

No other information to provide regarding bats.

Midlothian Council Planning Unit

23/03/04 (Letter)

Relevant local plan is the Midlothian Local Plan (Dec 2003) and details of relevant policies are enclosed.

19/06/06 (Letter)

Provided a list of previous planning applications in the area since 2003.

Provided locations of a nature conservation site and 2 scheduled ancient monuments in the study area.

Advised that SNH, SWT and Historic Scotland should be contacted.

Midlothian Council Biodiversity Officer

23/03/04 (Letter)

Response from Planning Department on behalf of Biodiversity Officer - Advise that the Lothian Biological Records Centre is contacted which hold records for Midlothian’s notable species and distribution. No data held by the council.

Midlothian Council / East Lothian Council -Archaeologist

25/03/04 (Letter)

Midlothian does not maintain a SMR record as yet. Data search would cost £50.00 per hour.

Suggestion is to allow an archaeological contractor (assigned by HS at Stage 2) to examine and collate the entire documentation for the area. Midlothian Council will be responsible for any borrow pits/site access roads/compounds, other area will be dealt with by HS. Useful to point this out now so that any desk assessment / field walk takes this into consideration at Stage 2.

Contact details provided for the Local Studies Centre at Midlothian Library Headquarters.

30/06/05 (Letter)

As per previous response.

Also advised that a recording exercise has been carried out to the west of the scheme at Hope Farm involving lime kiln examination.

Midlothian Council Environmental Health

29/03/04 (Letter)

No noise monitoring or air quality data. No noise monitoring completed and air quality surveys do not extend to this predominantly rural area.

23/04/04 (Letter)

Contaminated land information is currently being processed and will not be available for some time. It will merely identify any sites requiring more detailed investigation at some future stage.

National Trust for Scotland

16/04/04 (Letter)

The NTS does not own any property in the affected area and is not aware of any other factors that should be taken into consideration.

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland

22/03/04 (Telephone)

A data search would cost £50.00 per hour (approximately 2 hours work). All archaeological and historical information within a 1 km corridor of the road scheme could be provided within a report. Information on scheduled monuments would come from HS and information on designated landscapes from SNH. The Council archaeologist will probably provide the same data since RCAHMS hold the same information.

Royal Fine Arts Commission for Scotland

Consulted on 17/03/04 (Letter)

No response received.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

23/03/04 (Letter)

The RSPB is not aware of and consider it unlikely that any important bird species exist within 1 km of the route, but a data search can be completed at a charge (contact S. McComb).

Other possible contacts could include Scottish Ornithological Club’s local recorder (D Kelly) and ‘The Breeding Bird Atlas of SE Scotland’ (1998) which shows breeding distribution at tetrad level (these records are also held by the SBBRC).

27/06/05 (Letter)

Position is unchanged from previous consultation response. No important sites or bird populations likely to be affected. Provided contact details for RSPB birds database for future reference if required.

Scottish Badgers

09/01/06 (Letter)

Provided data concerning recorded badger road kills for the length of the A68 in question, and also recommended that a badger survey be carried out to ascertain presence/absence, any effects of the scheme on foraging resources and fragmentation of territories.

26/06/06 (Letter)

Provided updated information on recorded badger road kills.

16/05/07 (E-mail)

Additional road kill data / confirmation.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

22/03/04 (Letter)

The Salters Burn is not monitored, however it joins Keith Water which is biologically classified as A1 quality. It is reasonable to presume similar quality in Salters Burn. Excellent quality should be retained.

There is no information on groundwater quality and SEPA are not aware of any flooding issues within the corridor.

SEPA will require infiltration drains along the sides of the carriageway draining to either detention basins or wetlands similar to the A1 dualling works.

There are some local aquifers, further information can be provided by Peter Conroy (Edinburgh office).

12/07/05 (Letter)

Advised that it is unlikely that proposals would affect earlier comments made by SEPA. Suggested viewing website for water quality classifications.

Confirmed the classification of the Fala Dam Burn and Keith Water as part of the Water Framework Directive — also confirmed that Salters Burn has not been classified.

Provided details on WFD.

02/11/05 (E-mail)

Advised that SEPA will require engineering plans prior to construction to decide on appropriate authorisation.

Provided flow estimates for Salters Burn and Cakemuir Burn at the existing A68 crossing.

04/11/05 (E-mail)

Provided classification details for East Water and Keith Water along with classification explanation.

09/05/06 (Letter)

Advised that SEPA has no objection in principle to the proposals as Sustainable Drainage Systems are being followed. Advised that activities taking place after 1 October 2006 will require to be licensed under CAR. Advised that the entire scheme would be deemed necessary for a complex licence. Any GBR level activities would be constructed under general binding rules — only registration activities would be incorporated in a complex licence.

20/06/06 (Letter)

SEPA have no objections in principle to the proposed drainage design. Licence issues (could be complex, simple or registrations) have already been discussed with SBC. SEPA recommends box section culverts with bottom section below the watercourse bed top allow as natural bed as possible to be retained. Culvert should also include ledges to allow mammalian passage.

Advised that there are moderately sensitive aquifers below some of the carriageway corridor but it is unknown how people use these as the licensing regime under CAR is at an early stage.

30/05/06 (Meeting)

Ad hoc meeting held to describe proposed culvert alterations and watercourses. Requirement for licences and Sustainable Drainage Systems discussed in detail.

Scottish Executive Development Department

18/03/04 (Letter)

Acknowledgement of Stage 1 consultation request and confirmation of circulation to relevant SE departments.

25/03/04 (Letter)

Environment Group - No comments regarding water supply, water protection, sewerage, flood prevention, coastal protection, waste disposal and air quality except that the impact on the water environment should be taken into account, particularly at river crossings.

30/03/04 (Letter)

Identification of wildlife legislation and guidance should be made, namely Habitat and Birds Directives and Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation Regulations 1994 and the Scottish Executive Interim Guidance on European Protected Species. Species present on site (including birds and protected species) and their distribution must be established prior to planning consent. Survey work should be detailed enough to determine the level of threat to these species. Licences may be required during surveying or construction and disturbance should be minimised. Close liaison between the developer, local authority and SNH is strongly recommended.

Content that SNH will supply information regarding designated sites.

04/07/05 (Letter)

Acknowledgement of Stage 2 consultation request and confirmation of circulation to relevant SE departments.

11/07/05 (Letter)

Environment Group — Advised that developers should ensure that there is no impact on the water environment during and after construction. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems should also be adopted.

13/06/06

Acknowledgement of Stage 3 consultation request and confirmation of circulation to relevant SE departments.

29/06/06 (Letter)

Environment Group — No comments regarding water supply, water protection, sewerage, flood prevention, coastal protection, waste disposal, air quality and countryside and natural heritage.

Scottish Natural Heritage

21/04/04 (Letter)

Crichton Glen SSSI and Fala Moor SSSI lie several kilometres outwith the scheme area. Information on non-designated sites can be obtained from Geoff Mather, Midlothian Council and Bob Saville, Lothian Biological Records Centre. Some long-established woodland is present nearby including one area that abuts the southbound A68 near to Hope. Information on TPO’s should be obtained from Midlothian Council.

There is a significant badger population in Midlothian. A full badger survey of the area including territories is recommended. Contacts are Dr Chris Sydes (Edinburgh and Lothians Badger Group), Helen Dunlop (Biodiversity Officer, Midlothian Council) and Bob Saville.

13/07/05 (Letter)

No further comment on two road improvement options. No further information available on natural heritage features in the vicinity.

03/05/06 (Letter)

Provided advice re: culvert alterations. Advised that such activities should be carried so as to avoid contamination of watercourses with silt, material or debris and to the satisfaction of SEPA.

Any area of long established and semi-natural woodland adjacent to the proposed road improvement scheme should be protected. If such areas require removal compensatory planting should be explored and that this should use native species.

Advised that the Salters’ Burn may provide resting and/or breeding sites for otter (provided information on their protection). SNH therefore ask that watercourses in the vicinity of the proposals be surveyed.

Advised that Midlothian supports a significant badger population and SNH ask that the area be surveyed for badger.

22/06/06 (Letter)

Advised that SNH has no further comment to make re: the preferred scheme. Provided details of the legal position and licensing requirements for European Protected Species. Also advised that attention should be paid to the presence of water vole and appropriate action taken to safeguard their burrows. Recommended that a water vole survey be undertaken.

Scottish Wildlife Trust

19/04/04 (E-mail)

SWT Wildlife site located next to the A68 referred to as Hope Quarry Wildlife Site.

Consulted on 23/06/05 (Letter)

No further response received.

Southern Uplands Partnership

Consulted on 17/04/04 (Letter)

SUP has indicated in the past that they do not intend to respond to consultation letters and a response was not subsequently received.

SUSTRANS

25/03/04 (Letter)

Unaware of any specific cycling proposals in the area. However recommend incorporation of 1m strips to assist cyclists on the trunk road in accordance with ‘Cycling by Design’.

Consider measures to assist cyclists/pedestrians/equestrians crossing the A68 and making links between the unclassified roads to Crichton and Whitburgh Mains as well as the B6458 and unclassified road to Fala Dam.

06/07/05 (E-mail)

Recommended safe crossing measures and verge linking paths be incorporated into road improvements.

27/06/06 (E-mail)

No further comments to make and happy with the proposals outlined.

The Coal Authority

22/04/04 (Telephone)

A mining report could be prepared for each site at a charge of £45.00 per 500m of road corridor. The report will provide information on past, present and future underground mining and open cast mining together with information on subsidence, shafts and adits.