New Petitions

PE1221, by Sandy Morrison on behalf of Fossoway and district community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to recognise that the A977 is part of the strategic road network in Central Scotland, that the opening of the new Clackmannanshire bridge will lead to increased traffic on the road and that, as the safety and welfare of the whole community is of paramount importance, the Government should provide funding of £1.5 million for traffic mitigation measures to provide long-term safeguards for the community.The presence at this meeting of so many members from the Aberdeen area confused me about the geography of the A977. I wondered where in Aberdeen it was—thanks for that! Richard Simpson is a regional member for the area that includes the A977 and has expressed an interest in the issue in the past. He will expand on the issues that the petition raises and then we will have questions.

There are certain principles involved in this case, which is why I think the Public Petitions Committee's view on the petition will be important. The Scottish Government decided to create the Clackmannanshire bridge, at a cost of £120 million, and it was brought in on time and on budget. It is now open, which is excellent, even if it did cause the First Minister to get pneumonia at the time.Prior to and after the opening, the Government also funded a bypass for Kincardine and road works to the south of the bridge that allowed various traffic problems to be solved, which was all very well and appropriate. However, the appropriate contention of the petition is that the Government should also be responsible for the consequential effects on local communities of the national decision to build the bridge. The negative effects on communities along the route of the A977, including Forrestmill, Blairingone, Powmill, Rumbling Bridge, Crook of Devon, Drum and Balado, have not been taken into account fully by the Government.Against the advice of the council at the time, the A977 was de-trunked in 1966, but there is no suggestion that it should now be retrunked. The issue is, therefore, about a local road; it is not a trunk road issue. However, that is where the problem arises and why the Public Petitions Committee's view will be important. The question is whether a national undertaking should also bear the costs of its consequences.Why should that be the case with the A977? All the reports that were received predicted that, following the opening of the new bridge, it was likely that traffic would immediately increase by 40 per cent, with a steady growth in additional traffic on the road over the ensuing five years of up to 100 per cent. However, the communities concerned are sceptical about those figures and consider that they probably underestimate the true position, because the removal of all the traffic blocks for the Kincardine bridge means that traffic levels are likely to increase substantially. Currently, there are some 24,000 crossings a day of the old Kincardine bridge, of which 6,000 are by heavy goods vehicles. HGVs go through the seven communities that I mentioned at the rate of one per minute. On the grounds of safety and of ensuring that the A977 does not become a trunk road and the main road for HGVs, my and the petitioners' view is that the Government must fully fund the required consequential elements.At present, all the traffic on the A977 has a clear and unimpeded run from the Gartarry roundabout through the various villages, and we believe that the safety and welfare of those communities is seriously compromised by the lack of crossing points and the absence of pavements and traffic lights. In particular, there are no roundabouts to slow the traffic down.I turn now to the current situation with accidents. The report by the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership—tactran—and other reports that I have received indicate that there is already a higher than average number of road traffic accidents on the A977. Only two weeks ago, there was an accident when two horses strayed on to the road. There is a perception that the A977 is a preferred route for HGV traffic, which causes major concern to residents. It is also the preferred route to the north-east when there are restrictions or closures on the Forth road bridge. Those will continue when there are high winds and so on; they will not decrease in frequency at least until 2017—and we do not know what will happen beyond that. The closures are in fact likely to increase in frequency, given the increased maintenance work as the bridge nears the end of its life—we now know that the bridge's life is to be extended, but the closures will nevertheless continue. The road appears to be used as the main distribution route for at least one major supermarket, as well as for tankers travelling to and from the Grangemouth refinery.The introduction of roundabouts would primarily be on the ground of safety, as they would slow traffic through the communities concerned, thereby making the route less desirable as a through route for HGVs.Perth and Kinross Council is not seeking to have the road retrunked, which would make it the total responsibility of Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government. The council has fully accepted that, despite the predicted increase in the amount of traffic, it will retain responsibility for what will undoubtedly be increased maintenance costs.It is just over £1 million that is at stake. Remember that that is a one hundred and twentieth of the cost of the Clackmannanshire bridge, and we should also bear in mind the substantial amount of money that was required for the road works on both sides. Only £1 million is required to ensure that the measures that I have discussed are introduced on the A977.The principle has already been partly conceded by Tavish Scott, the former Minister for Transport, who agreed to £250,000 being made available for improvement work. Surely, as for any major project, there should have been agreement beforehand on the effects of the new bridge opening and the necessary works, which should have been funded as part of the Clackmannanshire bridge project. I hope that, as it considers the situation, the committee will examine those issues in relation to the Clackmannanshire bridge and future projects.

I will act as devil's advocate, convener. You are telling the committee, Dr Simpson, that none of the local authorities concerned wishes the A977 to be—this is a terrible word—retrunked. The latest answer from the present Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, which was given on 18 June 2008, was:"We have no current plans to designate the A977 as a trunk road."—Official Report, Written Answers, 18 June 2008; S3W-14058.How do you work through the problem with the £1 million that the local authorities are seeking? How can they justify that request—you are articulating that desire on their behalf—given that such moneys are given only for trunk roads?

The principle has already been conceded with the granting of £250,000 towards it. Retrunking the road would mean that it would be designated as a major route, which HGVs would use. The modifications that have been proposed to help persuade people that it is not the best through route to take, and to provide the communities along it with enhanced safety, would be undermined by retrunking.Retrunking is not at the centre of the argument, however; the centre of the argument is whether, when work on a major structure is undertaken on part of the trunk road network or, following a Government decision, on the transport network as a whole, the Government should bear the consequences and take into account the effects on, and safety of, the local communities concerned.

Indeed. Perth and Kinross Council has agreed to undertake some upgrading in relation to four or five priority mitigation measures in a list of 10 that was agreed with the local community. Those particular elements, which include cycle paths and pavements, will involve smaller amounts of expenditure; however, we need to remember that Perth and Kinross has to bear the road's maintenance costs which, given the fact that the volume of traffic has increased by 100 per cent, can only rise. Moreover, the council has one of the country's more extensive non-trunk and rural road networks, so it already faces some quite major issues.Given that the cost of the bridge was upwards of £130 million or £140 million, £1 million should have been set aside for consequentials. At the outset, there should have been discussion and agreement between the council and the Government on the appropriate allocation of costs. I hope that the Public Petitions Committee will not only seek the establishment of such a principle for future projects, but agree that the issue be revisited to ensure that more of that £1 million is provided.Some of the correspondence that I have seen has suggested that the regional transport partnerships have been given money for this work, but there has been no sign of any contribution, either from them or from Transport Scotland. The various groups involved simply failed to get together before all this started and agree on the projects that were necessary to protect these communities. They should have done so; indeed, the Government should have made available the entire sum for consequentials or, failing that, at least agreed a sum to allow Perth and Kinross to proceed.

Thank you for asking that question—I certainly understand your confusion over the figures. If I remember correctly, when discussions were held in 2004-05, the original costing for the 10 mitigation projects—the list of which I have given to the clerk and can be circulated to members—was £1.048 million. Obviously, that figure will have increased.I am not sure whether the exact figure is £1.5 million now, but the works that are involved are fairly clear, and those works should have been undertaken. The local authority may be responsible for some of them, but it is certainly not responsible for the bulk of them. The three roundabouts, which would be around a quarter of a million pounds each, are the most expensive element, but they will slow down the traffic, which is important. The first six priority items, which include the cycle path, pavements and a crossing, will help considerably and are funded within the current £250,000, but the three roundabouts are important. I appreciate that things are still not absolutely clear, and I am sorry about that, but the usual issue of real-time and original costings arises. That is why the costings are different.

I am not a traffic expert, but from the information that Perth and Kinross Council has given me, the measures that I outlined are thought to be appropriate. As a politician rather than an expert on the matter, I must accept what the council says is the most appropriate way to proceed. I suspect that it may have to find funds over the next few years for some of the work, but it will put in place the most cost-effective and least expensive measures that it can find to protect the communities in question.

I do not think that traffic would go through Dollar, because it would then have to go through another three or four very controlled towns—I am referring to the route along the hillfoots. Going through some of the villages there is very tight; heavy goods vehicles would take an inordinate time to get through them. The main thing that we do not want to happen is traffic diverting from the Forth bridge on to the route. There will be real problems if it is seen as a speed route.I have been shown photographs of an accident that happened in 2000, in which a major vehicle was tipped up in a field. A fuel vehicle has also been involved in a crash not far from a school in the area. That would have been a serious issue if the weather had not been right.Our duty as parliamentarians is to say that there is a joint responsibility to deal with the consequences of major changes such as the new Clackmannanshire bridge. The bridge is undoubtedly welcome, because there have been horrendous traffic jams there, but it should not endanger other communities. In general, a joint responsibility should be negotiated before a change is made, not afterwards. The fact that it will have to be negotiated after the change in the case that we are discussing is due to an earlier failure and is not the current Government's responsibility. Nevertheless, addressing the issue will lay down an appropriate marker for future projects.

We will now consider how we want to take the petition to the next stage. I am open to suggestions from members of the committee.

I tend to agree with my colleague John Wilson about the direction that the committee should take. In writing to the Scottish Government, we could ask whether—to use a phrase that lawyers say does not mean anything, even though they are always using it—without prejudice and in consultation with Perth and Kinross Council, the Government will revisit the A977 and consider whether discretion could be exercised regarding the road given the safety issues involved, or something like that.I do not think that we should let the petition go. It is a difficult one because what Dr Simpson is asking for, on behalf of the community council, is not a retrunking but a negotiation between the Scottish Government and the main council that is involved to determine whether moneys can be made available from whatever source to begin to deal with the issues and effect traffic mitigation measures.

We will pull together those three helpful suggestions and take the petition forward. Obviously, you know the process, Dr Simpson. Perhaps you could indicate it to the community council as well.We will have a brief comfort break before we continue.

I ask members if we can delay consideration of the next petition—PE1224—in order to consider the subsequent petition on the Scottish Police Services Authority. Three parliamentarians from the affected area are present and I am conscious that they have a meeting at 4 o'clock with the chair of the SPSA, so I do not want to act against their interests. I ask that members indulge them by bringing the petition forward, although that will limit the time that we have to consider it.Members indicated agreement.