Community Council Objection to Babcock HRO Applications by Suze Anderson

Objections from Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council Proposed Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order and Proposed River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order 201[x]

Rev 002:

16 March 2011

Original Release: 04 March 2011

Contact details: Email: clpcc.email@gmail.com

Proposed Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order and Proposed River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order 201[x] - Objection Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council

Contents 1

Objection Statement and Process ............................................................................................... 4 1.1

Inclusion of a proposed container terminal in NPF2 ............................................................................... 4

1.2

Harbour Revision Order used to circumvent democratic planning process ............................................ 5

1.3

Quality and Extent of consultation as experienced by this Community Council ...................................... 5

1.4

Submission of Pre-Application Response............................................................................................... 7

1.5

The Press and Public Relations Hype .................................................................................................... 8

1.6

Quality of documentation ........................................................................................................................ 8

Critical Examination of Babcockâ&#x20AC;&#x;s Case (and major issues not addressed in submission) . 9 2.1

Alternative more appropriate uses for the site have not been addressed ............................................... 9

2.2

Grangemouth is not mentioned .............................................................................................................. 9

2.3

Trends in container traffic ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.4

Dredging and Approach Channel ......................................................................................................... 10

2.5

Deep Water Access for Shipping Claim................................................................................................ 10

2.6

Excess HGV mileage incurred in journeys from Rosyth as opposed to Grangemouth ......................... 11

2.7

Multi-modal claim.................................................................................................................................. 12

2.8

Port Operator ........................................................................................................................................ 12

2.9

Potential Employment........................................................................................................................... 13

Examination of the Business Case for a new container port at Rosyth ................................ 14 3.1

Examination of Economic Demand for a New Container Port .............................................................. 14

3.2

Cash Flow Modelling and Potential Employment ................................................................................. 16

3.3

Business Case Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 16

Conservation and Environmental issues .................................................................................. 17 4.1

Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2

Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA) ........................................................................................ 17

4.3

Adverse Impacts on Habitats of Qualifying Species ............................................................................. 17

4.4

Comments on Survey Work .................................................................................................................. 18

4.5

Impacts and their Mitigation .................................................................................................................. 19

4.6

River Teith SAC .................................................................................................................................... 21

4.7

Use of Secondary Research Data ........................................................................................................ 21

4.8

Terrestrial Ecology................................................................................................................................ 21

4.9

Cetaceans and Pinnipeds..................................................................................................................... 21

4.10

Current Health of the Special Protection Area ...................................................................................... 21

4.11

Effect of HRO on the designated site ................................................................................................... 22

Local Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 23 5.1

Visual Impact ........................................................................................................................................ 23

5.2

Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 24

5.3

Soils, Geology and Contamination ....................................................................................................... 25

5.4

RD57 experience .................................................................................................................................. 26

5.5

Modelling of Sediments ........................................................................................................................ 26

Page 2 of 34

5.6

Road Traffic .......................................................................................................................................... 27

5.7

Licensed Nuclear site ........................................................................................................................... 28

5.8

Threat to Ferry Service to Europe ........................................................................................................ 29

5.9

Impact on Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 29

Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 32

Carbon Balance Assessment ..................................................................................................... 33

Extent to which NPF2 Criteria are fulfilled ................................................................................ 34

Page 3 of 34

1 Objection Statement and Process Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council hereby objects to the application by Port Babcock Rosyth Limited for the above-named Harbour Revision Order including the extension to the port limits. Charlestown, Limekilns and Pattiesmuir Community Council represents some 2000 residents of the villages which lie immediately to the west of the proposed site for a container terminal. This community is the only residential community which would suffer direct adverse effects if a container terminal were to be built. Community Councils are one of the principal mechanisms of public participation in Scottish Local Government. They exist to give local people a voice in the decisions taken by local authorities and other public bodies. This response has been prepared in the „spare‟ time of the volunteers working as a subgroup of the Community Council. The 42 days consultation period has limited our ability to carry out all necessary research, and we therefore respectfully request that additional material relating to the topics listed may be submitted at a later stage. We are fortunate to have available in our villages, professionals with expertise in the fields of marine biology, marine chemistry, oceanography, biology, technical writing, marine engineering, civil engineering, medicine, road haulage, business strategy, port and shipping and the container industry. We are therefore able to carry out informed constructive debate on this proposal and exercise professional judgement on all aspects of the construction and operation.

1.1 Inclusion of a proposed container terminal in NPF2 There is no material in the public domain to indicate that the Rosyth proposal has the “overriding imperative reasons of public importance” which are required for inclusion in the National Planning Framework. NPF2 is the mechanism for “establishing the need for strategic developments in Scotland‟s national interest”. While other projects listed in NPF2 have clear evidenced-based rationale for their inclusion, the Babcock proposal is being promoted by a single commercial organisation, and the one document that is deemed to provide justification for it is classified as ”commercially confidential.” There is no information in the public domain which demonstrates the economic case for any need for this terminal, let alone a national need. Furthermore, NPF2 states a need for “additional container freight capacity on the Forth”. It does not specify that this should be at Rosyth. Nevertheless, association with NPF2 seems to give the proposals some sort of magic status that is not to be questioned. This has eased the proposed container terminal into the Fife Structure Plan and the Draft Dunfermline and West Fife Local plan with little apparent challenge.

Page 4 of 34

1.2 Harbour Revision Order used to circumvent democratic planning process Our reading of Schedule 2 of the Harbours Act 1964 suggests that an HRO is an inappropriate mechanism to apply for permission for a proposal such as this, which is largely a land-based operation. It seems to us that application for an HRO is actually aimed at securing permitted development rights and thereby avoiding the democratic planning regime. The planning process provides a clear mechanism for public participation in a consultation process. Furthermore, the local authority can impose conditions upon a developer which ensure that undertakings made in an application are adhered to. Ultimately, if necessary, the local authority has powers of enforcement to ensure that the developer complies with conditions. A Harbour Revision Order, once granted would seem to give a developer the freedom to do whatever they wished, without reference to what was proposed at the application phase. Furthermore, it gives the freedom to do anything at all, however damaging to the environment, within the designated area, as long as the applicant deems that they have carried out an Appropriate Assessment however flawed that assessment may be.

1.3 Quality and Extent of consultation as experienced by this Community Council The Communities of Charlestown and Limekilns, which would be subject to the greatest impact from the proposals, felt marginalised and frustrated by the lack of recognition of their interests during the consultation period. In the Inventory of Application Materials, item 1.9.1, Statement on Stakeholder Consultation, details are given of Babcock‟s perspective on the extent to which consultation has been carried out. The community‟s perspective is provided below: 1. In October 2007, Babcock made a big show of consulting this Community Council on their pending application for a Harbour Empowerment Order (HEO). They came to a Community Council meeting and, despite being asked repeatedly why they required the HEO, and what operations they would do when they had it, the word „container‟ was never mentioned, let alone the words „container terminal‟. 2. We now read, in the Environmental Statement published in January 2011 and submitted as part of the HRO application, that “the design process commenced in December 2004 when a preliminary feasibility and cost study examined a number of potential container terminal layouts for the site”. It was, to say the least, disingenuous that Babcock chose not to mention this fact when they sought the Community Council‟s support for their HEO in 2007. 3. The Community Council was neither sent a copy of, nor notified of the existence of, the Scoping Report when it was published in January 2010 and we were therefore excluded from this stage of the consultation. It was by chance that the Community Council found out about it in May 2010. 4. In February and March 2010, at the time of the consultation for the Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan, the Community Council had neither seen, nor been made aware of the existence of the Scoping Opinion. We therefore could not comment on them in our submission to the Plan. Page 5 of 34

5. Since May 2010, the Community Council has kept a verbatim record of all communications with Babcock, Jacobs, and Fife Council on the subject of the Container Terminal. A copy can be provided if required. 6. On 17th May 2010, a Pre-application consultation notice (PAN) was published. The publication of this notice signified the start of the Pre-application Consultation period. The Community Council was not sent a copy of it, despite being listed on the notice as one of the addressees to whom a copy had been sent. Indeed, we found that none of the addressees had been sent a copy, including statutory consultees. 7. Notices of the public information event to be held in Rosyth published in the Dunfermline Press on 10th and 17th June, did not comply with the requirements for PAN notices. The notice carried no Babcock logo, no address and no telephone number; just an invitation to email rict@babcock.co.uk for more information. 8. Babcock repeatedly refused requests by the Community Council to mount their public consultation exhibition in Limekilns. 9. Babcock repeatedly refused invitations to attend a Community Council meeting to explain their plans and to address the concerns that were being raised. 10. In late July 2010, Babcock invited the Community Council to a meeting at their offices in Rosyth. Babcock insisted that the venue was at their offices in Rosyth and that Community Council members be given a guided tour of the site. The Community Council members, many of whom were very familiar with the site in question, suggested that the site visit was unnecessary and that the time would be better spent in discussion. To this end, the Community Council submitted detailed questions to be resolved during the meeting. Babcock ignored the suggestions and the meeting took place to their unamended agenda. 11. The Community Council had been told that, at this meeting, a road map to a meeting in the villages could be „sketched out‟. It never was. 12. Notes of the meeting in Babcock‟s offices were taken by Helen Adamson. The Community Council was given no opportunity to confirm that these represented a true record of the meeting before they were published in the HRO application package in January 2011. 13. Notes of the meeting were also taken by the Secretary of the Community Council. Three significant questions and answers (or absence of answers) have been omitted from the Babcock version: Question: Would they monitor the various effects after the works had been carried out, and where would liability lie if they found that damage had been done. Answer: SNH would be responsible for monitoring. There was no answer about who would be held liable for damage done. Question: What mitigation have you in mind for the inevitable loss of intertidal sediment and foreshore with the consequent undermining of sea walls in the Limekilns/Charlestown area? Answer: We weren‟t aware of this as an issue. Thank you for raising it. (See 15 below) Page 6 of 34

Question: Can you give us an example from anywhere in the world where two container terminals operating in the same market work successfully alongside each other as Rosyth and Grangemouth would do if this proposal goes ahead? Answer: We will not be operating in competition with Grangemouth. Question: Will you come to a meeting in the villages? Answer: No. If we came to your village, then other communities might demand similar visits. We have given you an hour and twenty minutes of our time. 14. No-one from Babcock has accepted an invitation by residents to pay a reciprocal visit to the homes which will be severely affected by these proposals. A Jacobs‟ employee did visit our locality. 15. Despite being acknowledged at the meeting, the very serious issue of the potential effect of dredging on the stability of our piers and sea walls, and the liability for any damage caused does not appear to have been addressed in the Environmental Statement published as part of the Harbour Revision Order. 16. Babcock did eventually, at the end of September 2010, mount their exhibition in Charlestown, but only after they had decided that they would bypass the due process of the planning system by applying to Scottish Ministers for a Harbour Revision Order. 17. There was, at this exhibition, no-one from Babcock who was willing or able to discuss any issues concerning the economic justification for the project. “I‟m just an engineer” was a typical response. 18. In early January 2011, some residents received, in the post, a document entitled “Frequently Asked Questions”. The answers which were provided to the selected questions raised more questions than they answered. The Community Council was not sent a copy of this mailing. Answers sent out were a standardised summary. Individual responses to specific questions were not provided. 19. On 20th January 2011, a notice of the Harbour Revision Order application was published in the Dunfermline Press. It was printed in a font so small (15 characters to the centimetre) as to render it virtually unreadable. 20. This Community Council would contend that the account of consultation, which Babcock depicts in 1.9.1, does not reflect the poor standard of communication we have experienced.

1.4 Submission of Pre-Application Response As part of the planning process, this Community Council submitted a detailed Pre Application Consultation (PAC) response to Fife Council in August 2010. We expressed our concern over various environmental issues that would impact on both local residents, the natural history of the adjacent (SSSI/SPA/Ramsar/Natura 2000) designated areas and the integrity of the shoreline and sea walls. We also considered socio-economic factors such as transport infrastructure, economic feasibility and viability of the scheme, cumulative impacts, impact on residents through loss of amenity, noise and visual impact. Our

Page 7 of 34

concerns and observations have not been satisfactorily addressed in this ES. In fact, they have largely been ignored.

1.5 The Press and Public Relations Hype The project has, with little credible justification, been promoted as bringing jobs to the area during both the construction and the operational phase. Whilst the prospect of jobs and increased economic activity is, of course, to be welcomed, we do not believe that this application will deliver either on a sustainable basis. The level of employment has been exaggerated by Babcock. This has led articles in the local Press which may have given the residents of Rosyth and elsewhere a misleading impression of the numbers of jobs which might be created. Our detailed analysis is contained in the section 3.2. Container port operation is a low margin, highly competitive economic activity. The economic viability of Babcock‟s proposed container terminal could only be likely to be achieved by taking market share from Grangemouth. Promises of job creation at Babcock are therefore likely to be offset by job reductions at Grangemouth – a zero sum game as the employment pool is essentially the same.

1.6 Quality of documentation As lay persons, we have been dismayed by some aspects of the quality of the submission documents. The ES document itself is very disappointing. There has been considerable cost-cutting in its production. It draws on the work done previously by Jacobs for the Forth Replacement Crossing (FRC). Frugality is commendable but in this case it means that the end document is not appropriate for its intended use. There are serious omissions, inappropriate data has been used, there is irrelevant “padding” which will deter the less persistent reader and, in our opinion, essential surveys and data have been omitted. Some of the FRC evaluation is hardly relevant for the purposes of compiling a comprehensive ES appropriate for this proposal. There has been extrapolation of FRC predictions to this site which is upstream by about 1.5 kilometres, with different features of construction and dredging regimes, different geological formations and hydrology and therefore a fresh impact evaluation involving a modelling exercise is essential. At a basic level there are many errors such as mistakes on the figures, and spelling mistakes in place names. The appearance of obvious inaccuracies in text and on figures leads us to wonder what other inaccuracies have slipped through in more esoteric text and statements.

Page 8 of 34

2 Critical Examination of Babcockâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Case (and major issues not addressed in submission) 2.1 Alternative more appropriate uses for the site have not been addressed The local community considers that the RD57 site, which was constructed to a high specification at public expense, should be used productively, rather than for the unsustainable service industry proposed. The site should be used for a purpose which would generate wealth, much more employment than is likely to be generated by this proposed use, and would contribute some manufacturing capability; perhaps complementing the embryonic renewable energy industry in Fife. We have been told that Rosyth is a location being considered for the dismantling nuclear powered submarines. The dry dock at RD57 was specifically constructed to the stringent standards required to deal with nuclear submarines. This could provide a dry dock location for the dismantling work, which would be likely to provide more long-term and skilled jobs than an under-functioning container terminal.

2.2 Grangemouth is not mentioned Apart from a brief mention in the Cumulative impacts section, there is no mention of the existing and viable Grangemouth container operation. We do not believe that the Babcock application can be considered in isolation from the fact that a multi-modal container port already exists at Grangemouth ten miles away on the same river. We understand that it has the capacity to double its throughput without further infrastructure development. We would challenge Babcock/Scottish Ministers to provide evidence from anywhere in the UK, or indeed in the world, of two economically viable container ports of similar size and capacity operating in such close proximity. This is not a regional/Scottish competition issue as container flows in the UK are determined by the hub and feeder service networks of the major global shipping lines and indeed compete within the wider freight logistics market. If NPF2 is genuinely concerned with Scotland's national interest, then Ministers should fully consider whether two viable container ports could ever co-exist on the Forth. Two economically non-viable ports is a potential (and more likely) outcome.

2.3 Trends in container traffic General trends in the container traffic are towards bigger and bigger ships. Rosyth is entirely inappropriate for the berthing of such ships. If, indeed, it transpired that Grangemouth was unable to provide sufficient capacity on the Forth, Rosyth is just about the last location that the container industry would select for additional capacity. Trends in the container industry are for bigger and bigger ships which can load on and off at terminals with easy access to the open sea. With Scotlandâ&#x20AC;&#x;s small population and its modest economy and economic hinterland, it is unlikely ever to become a chosen point of call for the biggest ships.

Page 9 of 34

Container traffic to and from Scotland will continue to be trans-shipments from the massive hubs at the likes of Rotterdam. Ships calling at a proposed Rosyth terminal will be no larger than those currently calling at Grangemouth.

2.4 Dredging and Approach Channel Vital information is missing, or inaccurate, concerning the dredging area and methodology statements. The Order gives Babcock the right to dredge and take other necessary steps to form a turning area and channel 150 metres wide. Although the channel is clearly shown on the attached plans, the turning circle is not. This is a material error as Babcock has failed to provide the required geographical information regarding the location of the turning circle. As a result, it cannot be determined if any dredging is required to form the circle. Furthermore, the diameter of the circle is not indicated and it may well be that some part of such a turning circle falls outside the area delineated as being under their control. Babcock has always stated during consultations that the amount of spoil to be removed would be in the region of 600,000m3. We consider that, based on the information available, the dredged volume is likely to be in excess of the figure of 600,000m 3. Babcock stated that all the spoil will be used for infill for the new terminal. However, as it appears that no sampling has taken place, it may well be that the dredged spoil, which could be soft silt, is totally unsuitable for infill in a project of this nature where containers are to be stacked 5 high, straddle carriers are to be used and, accordingly, ground loadings are likely to be substantial. Furthermore, if the spoil is not suitable for infill, the company do not provide any alternative strategy for its disposal. This matter should be resolved prior to any further consideration being given to the HRO. The report accompanying the application goes on to say that the spoil will be brought to the infill site by bottom dumping hoppers. As this type of craft, by its very nature, dumps spoil by opening bottom doors, it is difficult to understand how the material can then make its way to a reclamation site. We believe that the details of the amount of dredging which will be required, exactly where it will take place (i.e. will there be dredging required for the turning circle?) and how the spoil will be disposed of are all totally inadequate and, as such, cast doubt on the accuracy of the whole application. It is stated in 3.7.5 of the ES that maintenance dredging will be required every two to five years. In Table 3-6 the figure given for this is an estimate of 3 to 4 years, while elsewhere in the documents 2 to 3 years is quoted several times. From experience available from other locations, where deep channels have been dredged through banks and across strong tidal streams, it is known that siltation is constant and rapid. Once again, the lack of proper sampling and modelling makes the statements regarding maintenance dredging completely invalid.

2.5 Deep Water Access for Shipping Claim It is stated throughout the supporting documentation that ships will be able to access the container terminal at all states of the tide .This will not be possible. The new approach channel is to be dredged at right angles (or in some cases, almost right angles) to both the ebb and flow streams. Figures from Admiralty Chart No 737 indicate that Page 10 of 34

the spring flood stream runs at velocities of 2.0kts, 2.6kts and 1.7kts from 4 hours before High Water to 1 hour before High Water. The spring ebb runs at similar velocities. The neap rates during the same periods are in the region of 1kt. The layout of the approach channel and the berths will require all vessels to proceed up the channel stern first. During the mid period of both the flood and ebb streams it will be impossible for ships to carry out this manoeuvre due to the strong cross currents which they would experience. Even smaller vessels attempting this manoeuvre would, as a result of the transverse thrust of their propeller, find themselves across the channel. A bow thruster of the type fitted to these vessels would be unable to counteract this effect. Whilst tugs may assist the smaller vessels, the cost of using them would put the economic viability of using the proposed terminal in jeopardy. Larger vessels could only attempt both arrival and departure with tug assistance at High and Low Water slack (1 to 1.5 hour window on each occasion) The foregoing clearly illustrates that the 24 hour shipping access which the proposed terminal hopes to achieve will not be possible. As this is one of the primary reasons given for building the terminal in this location, doubt must be cast on its viability.

2.6 Excess HGV mileage incurred in journeys from Rosyth as opposed to Grangemouth No account has been taken of the additional costs associated with a road trip from Rosyth to Central Scotland destinations, compared with a road trip from Grangemouth. 60% of containers landing at Rosyth will be destined for the Glasgow area. So each truck will have to travel an additional 14 miles (A985) or 17 miles (M8) on top of a journey they would otherwise have made from Grangemouth. This is equivalent to a 50% increase in the length of each single journey. The fuel consumption of a loaded lorry will be around 7.5 mpg of diesel at, say, £4 a gallon. The additional fuel cost alone would be of the order of £8 per single journey. Fuel is generally estimated to be around one third of the total cost of running a HGV. On top of that, there are the costs of the driver‟s wage and the costs of routine maintenance and depreciation of the vehicle. So the additional cost of travel from Rosyth, compared with Grangemouth is approximately £24 per one-way trip. Conservatively, this would be £40 for a round trip. In terms of sustainability, there is also the matter of wear and tear on the public highway, (an externality as far as the operator is concerned, but a cost to be borne by taxpayers). It is instructive to compare this with the cost of the container being carried as far as Grangemouth by ship. A loaded container vessel may be carrying 300 containers. The additional sea passage to Grangemouth is about 10 miles. The additional fuel consumption would be about 1 tonne @ 470 dollars per tonne or £300. This would mean a cost of just £1 for each container travelling on by sea to Grangemouth rather than being offloaded at Rosyth. The additional haulage cost of some £24 incurred by landing it at Rosyth for onward transport by road makes no economic sense. In general, a shipping agent will look for sea shipping to the closest possible landfall to the customer, and thereafter the shortest possible road haulage. Page 11 of 34

2.7 Multi-modal claim Claims that the container terminal may offer comparative advantage over other ports in terms of multi-modal transport linkages are misleading and factually incorrect. Multi-modal refers to rail freight. Our very serious doubts as to whether rail freight was ever a realistic option are now clearly confirmed by the Environmental Assessment and Traffic Assessment. There is a single track railway line that runs from Inverkeithing station. However, as the connection at Inverkeithing is north facing, any freight trains accessing the proposed terminal from the south would somehow have to change direction north of Inverkeithing. Furthermore the number and frequency of passenger trains passing through Inverkeithing station would severely limit access to and from the Rosyth branch by freight trains. It is now clear that a suggested realignment of the Charlestown junction to provide a south-facing junction will not be realised in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, freight capacity over the Forth Rail Bridge is severely limited by the frequency of passenger trains, so onward southerly movement of freight trains would be severely limited, even if they could be turned round to face in the right direction. The inadequacy of the rail connection with the Dockyard and proposed terminal is further emphasised in Section 8 of the Transport Assessment and 13.4.7 of the ES where it states: a) That the low radius curve under the A90 ultimately limits the speed that can be achieved. b) The existing structures along the route as well as the track itself may ultimately need to be replaced. c) Loading gauge constraints may require infrastructure enhancements to permit containers to be carried. It is patently misleading to suggest that the proposed freight terminal would be multimodal. Furthermore, it is a generally recognised that for transport of containers by rail to be viable, there needs to be a long haul distance and, generally, a manufacturer or consumer of freight goods which requires delivery/collection of multiple numbers of containers at any one time. Rail freight is not sufficiently responsive to the requirements of individual containers.

2.8 Port Operator Babcock has stated that they will not operate the port. In addition, Babcock will outsource the design and build function and are therefore unlikely to have a say in where a construction workforce is recruited. Contractors generally prefer to bring their own workforce employees with them, so local jobs will not be generated to the extent suggested. Moreover, Babcock have said they will not operate the port themselves and would therefore have no say in deeming which routes should be taken by HGV drivers. We have no indication of who the operator of the port is likely to be, or how they will be regulated. Granting a Harbour Revision Order would remove many of the environmental and human impact safeguards in this area.

Page 12 of 34

2.9 Potential Employment Claims for numbers of operational jobs to be created have been seriously exaggerated. This is explored in Section 3.2.

Page 13 of 34

3 Examination of the Business Case for a new container port at Rosyth Babcock make two key unsubstantiated claims, that need examination: 1. There is an economic demand for a new container port at Rosyth. 2. 450 jobs would be created (ref 17th June, Dunfermline Press Headline: “250 construction jobs and 200 permanent jobs”). The first claim was tested by modelling future demand, based on existing Scottish container traffic volumes, and a range of values for growth rates in GDP for the UK and for Scotland. The second claim was tested by making cash flow forecasts and net present value (NPV) calculations, based on Babcock‟s published figures. Estimates of costs, such as dredging and stevedoring, are derived from other sources in the public domain. We conclude overall that there is neither a viable economic demand scenario nor a viable business case to justify the development of a new container port at Rosyth with 200 permanent jobs.

3.1 Examination of Economic Demand for a New Container Port We have examined the economic trends and believe there is already sufficient potential for expansion in Scotland. Building of any new facility is not required for 20 years. There was considerable growth in UK and Scottish container traffic throughout the 1990s as containerisation replaced traditional methods of carriage. However, that growth has now levelled off, and further growth is expected to be related to the macroeconomic (GDP) growth rate. To forecast the future demand for container traffic, we have used a range of projected GDP growth rates as the basis for estimating traffic growth. Although future traffic may not exactly correlate with changes in GDP, it does give a rational basis for estimating future demand. Total Scottish container volume in 2011 is taken as 400,000 TEU. We have envisaged three scenarios to reflect different macroeconomic conditions:

Page 14 of 34

SCENARIO 1 - This is a cautious but realistic assumption. Assumes a zero growth rate for 2011 and 2012 as the recession continues, and a 2% per annum growth rate thereafter. After 15 years, Scenario 1 predicts an additional throughput of 128,000 additional TEU per annum. The increased demand is easily met by existing container ports in Scotland. There would be no requirement to build any extra port capacity for the next 20 years.

SCENARIO 2 - This is a fairly optimistic assumption. Assumes a growth of container traffic equal to growth in Scottish GDP. Volume of container traffic assumed to increase at same rate as growth rate of Scottish economy. Scottish economic growth rate is 2.5%. After 15 years, Scenario 2 predicts an additional throughput of 193,802 additional TEU per annum. As this capacity already exists on the Forth, there is still no justification at national level for constructing a new container port at Rosyth.

SCENARIO 3 - This is a highly optimistic assumption. Assumes a growth of container traffic of 5% per annum. In this scenario, we model the demand that would be required to generate the traffic flow that Babcock has used for its own case. We use a growth rate of 5% per annum, year on year, for 15 years in succession. After 15 years, Scenario 3 predicts an additional throughput of 473,150 additional TEU per annum. It uses the highly unlikely assumption that demand for container handling in Scotland will grow by 5% every year in the next 15 years. Even if growth rates reached these levels, there would be no need to start the construction of any new port capacity until after 2021.

Page 15 of 34

3.2 Cash Flow Modelling and Potential Employment We also made a cash flow model using the Babcock figures for costs of initial construction, dredging volumes, container throughput and number of jobs. We find that the initial construction and machines, based on an investment of ÂŁ85M could well employ between 200 and 250 full time equivalents, but that the number of individual jobs would vary according to the stage of construction. However, modelling the operational phase is a very different matter. When we use the number of jobs and traffic levels from the Babcock data, with some reasonable assumptions about industry price level, intensity of competition, cost of capital and labour cost, the overall project NPV is negative over a ten year period. We then tested our model in an attempt to discover what data would result in positive NPV. This reveals that unrealistic factors would be required to produce a viable business plan. So that this finding could be cross checked, we decided to do some industry benchmarking about labour productivity. We discover that modern container ports handling the volume that Babcock envisages would not require nearly as much labour as stated in the Babcock presentation. New entrants to this industry would be using automated container handling and require perhaps only 20 people to operate at Babcockâ&#x20AC;&#x;s proposed throughput. Moreover, the number of jobs would not increase proportionately with scale. We conclude that Babcock figures for employment are much larger than would be needed for competitive operation. In addition, the traffic volume implied by Babcock seems over optimistic and greater than the present volume for the whole of Scotland. This alone casts considerable doubt on the validity of the Babcock business plan, which may have had more credibility if it had disclosed some general information about any new business opportunities and the associated risks.

3.3 Business Case Conclusions Any increase in demand for increased container handling can be met easily by existing ports and freight terminals in Scotland. Building a new container port at Rosyth would merely create over capacity in the industry for the foreseeable future. Even if demand existed, the Babcock proposal appears to have a negative net present value (NPV) and is not a viable commercial investment project. Apart from the construction phase, the number of operational jobs created by the proposal is likely to be nearer 20 rather than the 200 or so claimed by Babcock. We conclude overall that there is neither a viable economic scenario nor a viable business case to justify the development of a container terminal at Rosyth. What is perhaps even more significant is that there are no imperative reasons of overriding public importance, because there are alternative sites elsewhere in Scotland that could easily meet the demand arising from several economic scenarios. We do not see how this project can contribute in any way to the Scottish Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x;s stated aims in NPF2. Page 16 of 34

4 Conservation and Environmental issues We consider below the implications for designated Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

4.1 Introduction In this section the specific implications for the biota of the designated sites from the construction and operation of the proposed container terminal are examined. It concludes that there will be significant impacts which the proposed mitigation strategies do not address. There is not sufficient evidence (in several places) of an adequate survey to ensure baseline data can be used reliably in residual impact assessment after any mitigation and for future monitoring of the habitat and site integrity.

4.2 Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA) The Firth of Forth SPA and Ramsar site is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is covered by international and national legislation. The features of this designated site are specified in the Environmental Statement (ES) and will not be reiterated here. There are associated legal obligations on the local authorities with shores along the estuary in their responsibilities towards the conservation of this designated site. In this section the part of the Firth of Forth immediately to the west of the Scheme is considered as it is the part of the SPA most likely to suffer adverse impact. Fife Council is the competent authority for this part of the SPA. It is surprising therefore that in their HRO application Babcock intend to incorporate a large area of this site into their management. Thus Babcock would become the competent authority for this part of the SPA, and would need to employ an ecology manager and other qualified staff to achieve the defined conservation objectives and ensure the maintenance of its conservation status. This zone to the west of the site has the densest qualifying species concentration and population densities in the vicinity as indicated in the Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (RIAA), presumably because of the presently low level of human presence and noise, so it is very important in the overall status of the SPA.

4.3 Adverse Impacts on Habitats of Qualifying Species The construction and operational activities implied in the Scheme will result in deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species because the integrity of the site will not be maintained. There will be significant disturbance of the qualifying species, and the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species will be lost. As a result, the Conservation Objectives for the SPA will be compromised to the detriment of the qualifying species and conservation status of the site. Scottish Office Circular 6/1995 [2000 revision, Annex E, Appendix A] defines site integrity as â&#x20AC;&#x153; the integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or levels of populations of the species for which it was classifiedâ&#x20AC;?.

Page 17 of 34

The qualifying species for which the site is designated include a range of wildfowl, seabirds and migrants. They will be impacted during both construction and operational phases by a variety of anthropogenic activities. These will adversely affect the efficiency and viability of their feeding, roosting, loafing, rearing of young and migratory behaviours. The adverse effects are of two main types: Disturbance. Habitat modification. During both the construction and operational phases disturbance will be caused by: Noise and vibration due to dredging, piling activities and rock blasting. Increased lighting regimes. Increased human presence and activity, especially traffic and crane movements. During both the operational and construction phases habitat modifications will result from: The massive alterations caused by the capital and frequent ongoing essential maintenance dredging. The permanent increased light regime especially at elevation. A high level of operational noise which will greatly exceed the current background level. We totally refute the two phrases in the RIAA at 7.2.12. Jacobs needs to account for its evidence which led to these sweeping assertions. In 9.2.3 we are not satisfied that the two assertions here and the extrapolation made in the last phrase have been justified in the RIAA.

4.4 Comments on Survey Work Jacobs has carried out the bird count surveys described in the RIAA. However, we consider that insufficient surveys have been done in the Windylaw area. It is stated that parts of the immediate coastline were difficult to access, although the precise locations are not given. It is suspected (from inspection on 21/02/2011) that this was along the part of the shore between Rosyth Church and close to the western edge of RD57, where there are large accumulations of bird species. Jacobs draws on its survey work completed for the Forth Replacement Crossing (FRC) in earlier years; however, this bay and that at Brucehaven were only lightly surveyed for that purpose, and are some distance upstream of the proposed FRC location. In addition, in their communication of 21 January 2010 (Dr A. Challis) the RSPB recommended more frequent surveys at regular daily intervals over the full tidal cycle October to March, rather than the survey regime proposed in the Scoping Report (January 2010) which would not provide adequate data. This advice has not been adhered to; therefore we feel that the Jacobs survey does not have validity for its purpose. Jacobs has not taken an ecosystem approach to their biological assessment work. Consequently, for example, they have not fully considered the importance of the benthic invertebrates in the bays in the Brucehaven and Windylaw localities. The biomass of the intertidal muds is a vital component of the food web in the whole area. Without these Page 18 of 34

transitional water invertebrates the avian life, for which the designations have been allocated, would not survive. Birds feed throughout the intertidal zone, and many waders for example, have adaptations related to the specific organisms and the part of the shore on which they feed. In this context, the extent of invertebrate sampling at Brucehaven Bay and Windylaw Bay is inadequate. Sampling and the associated analysis are of course, expensive and lengthy activities. However, the process has to be done accurately and adequately; otherwise it is of little value for evaluation and establishing precise baselines for subsequent impact and comparative analysis. Line transects should have been carried out, extending from the top of the intertidal zone to the low water mark. At the very least, there should have been 2 transect lines in Brucehaven Bay and 3 or 4 in Windylaw Bay. Walkover surveys were done and the results are expressed in Tables C2 (p69) and C5 (p74) but these lack the precision of transect work with consistent quadrant use (although this terminology has been used). Only a limited period was allowed by Jacobs for this work from 21 to 23 April 2009. Intertidal invertebrate surveys would have to be taken several times seasonally to give a fuller picture of the available food species and their biomass which vary throughout the year.

4.5 Impacts and their Mitigation We do not agree with Jacob‟s assessments of the impacts of noise and vibration, light and dredging activities. The impacts are seriously understated and the suggested mitigation measures will be inadequate. There is too much reliance on bird habituation to noise, and the case is made by Jacobs that specific mitigation is therefore not required. Birds will not habituate to some of the main noise sources they will be subjected to especially that arising from the loud clanking caused by lowering of containers onto trucks, the high frequency bleeping during vehicle manoeuvres, and piling operations. In the RIAA at 7.2.9 it states “...birds are more affected by startle than by long term high noise levels” and “If activities associated with the construction of the Scheme result in regular increases in ambient noise or more then there is the potential for adverse impacts”. The issues are recognised, yet there is no mitigation proposed. In 7.2.11 of the RIAA it is stated that the existing industrial activity within the site causes noise which the local bird populations have habituated to. However, this Scheme will cause higher amplitudes and higher frequencies of noise, and also introduce a different range of noises including shrill, very intermittent and extremely loud ones. Different bird species react in various ways to noise, for example, sounds indicative of predator presence will elicit extreme responses. Also in this paragraph it is stated that “it is not anticipated that bird habitat to the east of the site would be affected …”, but consideration of the bird populations to the west is specifically not mentioned and yet this is where the most abundant bird life is found. Bird behaviour and seasonal activities are influenced by photoperiods. The light regime initiates breeding and migratory behaviour. Unusually high ambient light levels cause adverse impacts. The Scheme proposes using high light levels mounted at elevation; in the RIAA it states that these will be at 45 metres, elsewhere in the HRO etc documentation the figure given is 25 metres. A suggested mitigation measure is to use downwardly directed lights, which could also be shielded to direct light beams onto the site. However, this will Page 19 of 34

continue to cause light pollution and migratory birds rely on celestial navigation. There needs to be further consideration of light impacts and mitigation methods to achieve light reduction. In the ES at 9.2.6, light is even omitted from the list of areas of concern! The capital dredging for the access channel and the turning circle will be on a massive scale and this will result in considerable disruption of habitat. There will be no restoration of habitat over a period of time as there will be an ongoing need for frequent maintenance dredging. Habitat disruption will not be confined to the shipping route into the port however, as there will be impacts for sediment stability in the adjoining Brucehaven and Windylaw Bays. The consequences of dredging activities in the vicinity of these bays should have been assessed as part of a hydrodynamic modelling exercise. This would have identified coastal processes and given silting predictions which would have informed assessment of impacts on invertebrates. It is insufficient to suggest confining dredging activities to the ebb tide. The very fine sediments, which cause most damage to invertebrates, will not settle quickly during a tidal cycle but would continue to be suspended for some time and returned on the flood tide. If adopted, this would need to be a Condition of working which must be monitored, with enforcement measures in place. The invertebrates are largely bottom feeders, such as the various predatory Nereis species, or filter feeders. Sedimentation which would result from dredging would cause gills and other respiratory organs to become clogged resulting in suffocation. Delicate feeding filters would become clogged with debris, and food supplies of the many scavengers would become covered with sediments. In addition the organisms would become covered with deposits and they would become inaccessible to the many predatory and scavenging birds. The whole food web would be disrupted. This evaluation of the impact of silting on the avian food sources is an omission from the ES. Due to the very high concentrations of bird life a full dredging impact consideration should be completed for this local area which is the specific habitat most at risk from this proposal. Additionally, burrowing invertebrates are affected by vibration and yet this also has not been considered. This lack of a full impact evaluation of noise, vibration and silting together with the development of realistic practical mitigation strategies is a major omission. The importance of the easy availability and richness of the food of the intertidal zones of Brucehaven and Windylaw Bays cannot be over-emphasised. Migrating birds in particular and those that inhabit cold regions require a rich high energy diet to maintain their reserves. Feeding time lost due to disturbances that cause movement away from the feeding area and then necessitating a resettling phase should be avoided. There are of course some rarer species in this locality, for example Lumbriconereis latreilli has been found here (1985, and identification was confirmed via personal communication with C. Taylor). Jacobs seem to be relying for mitigation on their opinion that during construction many organisms will â&#x20AC;&#x153;move awayâ&#x20AC;?. This is not acceptable, and in any case most of the biomass including much invertebrate fauna and the flora are sessile, sedentary or live in burrows. It is acknowledged that dredging maintenance work will cause regular subsequent disruption but Jacobs has not identified any mitigation measures; understandable as no effective measures can be carried out.

Page 20 of 34

Throughout the ES there are underestimates of the damage that will be caused to the biota as a result of the activities involved in the execution of the proposed development. These were outlined in our PAC response. The ES does not address these satisfactorily. Throughout the ES, including Section 9 Marine Ecology, the magnitude of changes, impact significance and residual impacts are consistently underestimated. We suggest that this is a strategy designed to reduce the recognised need for mitigation and requirement to address it. There are many unsubstantiated assessments and the resulting outcomes will be significantly worse than is generally claimed in the ES.

4.6 River Teith SAC As far as maintaining the migration channels for lampreys and salmon between the outer transitional water and the River Teith SAC is concerned, it is optimistic to believe that the mitigation measures proposed and assurances given in the ES and RIAA will be effective. Thorough monitoring would need to be put in place and a recovery plan specified. It would be essential to have a written agreement to this before any Harbour Revision Order was to receive consent from Scottish Ministers.

4.7 Use of Secondary Research Data It is evident throughout the ES and the RIAA that secondary data have been widely used from the earlier surveys conducted by Jacobs for the FRC. While there may be some merit in reusing generic findings, it is not acceptable to merely transfer assertions made in the ES and RIAA for the FRC to this scheme, where different areas of habitat, different impacts, different construction and operational noise regimes and levels are involved. There is an outstanding need for further primary research in the locations we have discussed above before this ES and the RIAA can be considered to be complete.

4.8 Terrestrial Ecology In section 10 of the RIAA, there are points that we would dispute and contradict. However, we believe other organisations are preparing responses in this area so we have not done so here.

4.9 Cetaceans and Pinnipeds We are not commenting on issues concerning these populations as we believe other organisations, with more expertise in marine mammals than ourselves, may be making submissions.

4.10 Current Health of the Special Protection Area The current good conservation status is confirmed by the richness of the avian and benthic populations and the occurrence of Zostera, a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species. In response to para 1, page 41 of the ES Technical Summary it should be pointed out that if Zostera had been sampled in the summer months after the spring bloom, much denser mats would have been encountered. Also in the ES Technical Summary (para 3, page 19, marine Baseline Ecology surveys, 4.3 Intertidal Biotope Classification) there is reference to the red seaweeds (Rhodophyta) at Windylaw Bay. It should be noted that these are indicators of good water quality and this illustrates further the current high conservation Page 21 of 34

status of the habitat in this part of the SPA. This has been achieved by the efforts of local authorities and SEPA officers and their good work should be preserved.

4.11 Effect of HRO on the designated site If an HRO were to be granted, Babcock's area of operation would be extended by some 60hectares INTO the designated site. Under the conditions of the HRO this would enable Babcock (or any successors) to reclaim land along this western edge, leading to further ingress and degradation of the conservation areas.

Page 22 of 34

5 Local Impacts As previously stated there are several homes within 1 km of the proposed site. We understand that the building of new houses would not be permitted in this proximity of a container terminal. It seems bizarre that a container terminal could be built this close to existing houses.

5.1 Visual Impact The visual impact on the properties most affected is seriously underestimated in the Environmental Statement. It is stated that “impacts assessed as being of moderate or greater significance are considered to represent big changes in views of receptors and mitigation would generally be required to reduce these where practicable”. It is our concern that visual impact has been seriously underestimated for a small number of „receptors‟. For one property, the scheme will dominate the view and fundamentally change its character. There are two other properties, (3 and 4 Charles Court which are omitted as receptors in the ES), whose views to the east, although not from the front elevation, are a significant aspect of the properties‟ amenity which would be seriously diminished by the proposed development. As stated in the Environmental Statement, the existing view is already an industrial one. However, the view is further away and generally one of grey and muted colours. Any movement occurring is slow and gradual, with the occasional variation in the scene depending on work currently underway. Moreover, it is very unusual that visible movement is associated with a particular noise. The proposed container terminal, on the other hand, would be close up, brightly coloured, and with movements of ships, tugs, HGVs and tall cranes a constant feature. Colourful boxes are deemed to be a significant visual element. However, mention is made, only in passing, of the size and scale of the massive cranes that would be required to handle containers onto and off ships. These would also become a dominant feature from more distant locations, and would be significantly intrusive in the views from locations in Limekilns and Charlestown. Great significance is placed upon the small strip of trees that were planted to provide some screening from the RD57 project when it was planned. It is suggested that these will grow and provide screening to reduce the impact of the scheme over time. The fact that these are all deciduous trees means there is no screening at all in winter, and the fact that they are a mixture of birch, hazel and wild cherry and similar species means that they will never reach a sufficient height to provide adequate screening from the upper floors (the living accommodation) of these dwellings. Apart from the very serious omission of 3 and 4 Charles Court as receptors, there is a clear error in Receptor 3 (6-7 Charles Way). As these properties are bungalows, there is little chance that there will be views over trees from their upper levels. It is interesting to note that the main visual impact for houses at Brucehaven and Hilton will be impact of traffic. This is surprising since the Traffic Assessment states that only 5% of HGV movements in a westward direction will be along the A985. This is hardly going to have a huge visual impact unless their HGV figures are incorrect. Page 23 of 34

5.2 Noise The Noise section of the Environmental Statement (ES) is unsatisfactory. It contains numerous false statements and errors, identifies work which should have been done, but has not been done, and seeks to avoid disclosing the truth. Noises such as the clanking of empty containers and the sirens on moving vehicles and cranes will be particularly harsh and distressing to residents. These extremely serious shortcomings must be corrected before the application can be determined. Increased noise can adversely affect human and animal populations. The proposed container terminal site abuts (and the HRO area includes) important SPA intertidal area, and is within 1km of a presently quiet residential area which has direct line of sight to the proposed development. The ES does confirm that piling during construction, due to last for 8-12 months, will be the greatest noise source. The ES confirms the worst fears of local residents about the increase in daytime noise levels arising from the development. The ES says that at two of their test locations in Limekilns, the extra daytime noise will exceed 15dB at façade level, and that an increase of only 10dB for residential areas is regarded as severe (Table 12-4), of major significance (Table 12-6) and „likely to give rise to complaint‟ (paras 12.2.16 - 12.2.18). This unacceptable level of noise increase should not be permitted. The ES disregards this noise increase which is demonstrably unacceptable by UK standards (BS4142:1997) by clinging to an assumed alternative daytime threshold of 65 dB (which is not quite reached on their figures) which totally fails to take account of the currently low levels of background noise in Limekilns. Noise increase (and nature/variability) is at least as important as the absolute level of noise, but the ES fails to recognise this, although the British Standards to which the ES refers, do emphasise the importance of this. The leading statement made in the ES „Non Technical Summary‟ that “The total construction noise levels resulting from the Scheme will not exceed daytime levels standards set to assess whether noise levels are likely to give rise to noise complaints” is clearly contradicted by their own assessment and must be corrected. This development would be very noisy and would severely affect residents. The data given for night-time operational noise is inadequate. It is insufficient to enable quantitative and qualitative conclusions about the increase and nature of night-time noise to be determined. The ES also fails to quantify the likely impact of night-time dredging on sleep disturbance, the ES does however acknowledge this failure, and proposes “further consideration” of this aspect. This „consideration‟ must be completed before the application is determined in order that the full impacts of the scheme on local residents can be determined and assessed. Para 12.5.16 of the ES recognises that “background noise levels in the area can be quite low, especially at night and based on the criteria in BS4142:1997, operational activities do have the potential to cause complaint.” This acknowledgement is alarming to residents who currently sleep soundly. On vibration, the ES presents information about magnitudes likely to give rise to structural damage, but no assessment of likely levels at Limekilns has been made. The ES merely says “The levels detailed in the tables above will be used to determine whether there is likely to be perceptible vibration in sensitive buildings and whether damage to properties is likely”. This should be done before the application is determined. Page 24 of 34

Other unsatisfactory aspects of the ES need to be corrected or justified to present a true picture, thus: Two monitoring locations are wrongly labelled in Fig 12.1. The noise assessment in para 12.5.15 assumes noise abatement measures to be in place, but no guarantee is given that the assumed measures will be employed. The number of properties with direct line of sight of the proposed development (and hence most likely to be subject to noise disturbance) is understated in Fig 7.3a which purports to show this aspect. The extent of adverse impact of noise on the wildlife of the immediately adjacent SPA, shown in numerous of the figures in Appendix C to be a locally important „loafing‟ and roosting area for both waders and wildfowl, needs to better recognised.

5.3 Soils, Geology and Contamination The conclusions drawn in the „overview‟ paragraphs of Section 11 of the Environmental Statement (ES), and repeated in the „Non Technical Summary‟ of the ES are misleading and need to be rewritten in order to present a fair picture, before the application is determined. In particular, these summaries make no mention of the asbestos and carcinogenic benzo(a)pyrene and other Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) found at hazardous concentrations in the site. It is well known that the West Tip area of the proposed RICT site contains large amounts of asbestos and other waste materials from historic ship-breaking activities. At the time of the RD57 development, assurance was given that this material would stay buried and permanently capped. This is entirely reasonable, and is currently the accepted best method of long-term disposal. Questioned about the West Tip at the public exhibition of the scheme, assurance was given by the Babtie representatives that this area would remain undisturbed and capped. That would be fine. On the plan at Sheet 1 „Port Limits‟ there is an irregular pentagon of land marked by points 39 – 43. This is apparently excluded for the HRO application. We have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation of why Babcock does not appear to want jurisdiction over this particular piece of land. We are left guessing. It is therefore alarming to read in para 11.11.12 of the ES about the proposed excavation of this asbestos and other hazardous and carcinogenic pollutants. No information about the extent of excavation or destination of the excavated hazardous waste is provided. This information must be provided in order that a proper assessment of the likely hazard to site workers and nearby residents can be made. Because of the very substantial threat posed to human health by asbestos and carcinogenic PAH, their movement would have to be licensed by SEPA, and this licensing would require certain conditions to be met. The ES must describe how these conditions will be met if there is to be any disturbance and movement of this waste. Table 15-7 of the ES also must be updated to recognise this statutory SEPA licensing requirement. The main text of the ES recognises the serious shortcomings of the work which has so far been done (para 11.10.1). One of the items it points out is the essential need for further site investigations to ascertain the extent of the legacy of the former licensed radioactive discharge from the health physics laundry. Surely an adequate ES needs to quantify the Page 25 of 34

extent of radioactive contamination of the site so that, if needed, appropriate remediation measures can be planned? There is also no mention in the â&#x20AC;&#x17E;Non Technical Summaryâ&#x20AC;&#x; of the need, repeated several times in the main text, for an unexploded ordnance threat assessment. When will this be carried out?

5.4 RD57 experience Loss of beach and potential damage to sea walls. During the construction of the RD57 facility there were fairly extensive dredging operations, but not on anything like as large a scale as the proposal under current consideration. Soon after the construction period it was noticed that the level of the foreshore had dropped. Soon thereafter, during the first stormy weather that coincided with high tides, significant damage occurred to an extensive section of sea wall south of Charles Way. With each high tide more sea wall collapsed and changes could be seen very clearly and alarmingly on a daily basis. On this occasion, the wall was very promptly repaired and substantially strengthened with gabions. Had this prompt action not been taken, then the coastal path would have been eroded and thereafter potentially also gardens (and bungalows) on the south side of Charles Way would have collapsed into the Forth. A year or so after cessation of the RD57 dredging, the sand level on the local beaches returned to its former level. Residents continue to monitor the sand depth along the gabions, and although there is natural fluctuation of the sand level, there have been no further problems here. Since RD57 was a MoD project, there was no formal planning application and there was no survey work done prior to construction. Hence the collapse cannot be definitely attributed to the dredging work done at the time, but the circumstantial evidence and the absence of problems since then, point very strongly to this. It is the view of engineers, oceanographers and shipping / naval people in our community that the dredging was responsible. It would be anticipated that the greater level and frequency of dredging involved in construction and maintenance of the proposed container terminal would be likely to cause more damage. Prior to construction of RD57 a number of houses in Charles Way were surveyed due to concerns of possible vibration damage. We would expect similar surveys to be carried out, both of properties and of retaining walls, if a container terminal were to be built. The Forth Cruising Club will also be concerned regarding the proposed dredging and its effect upon the harbour at Capernaum, where most of the club boats are moored, and on the integrity of both Capernaum and Limekilns Piers.

5.5 Modelling of Sediments No hydrogeological modelling exercise has been carried out for the area around the proposed development, despite the fact that an assurance was given (on 30th September 2010 at the Elgin Hotel Exhibition) that this would be done. Failure to deliver on this most basic, yet essential evaluation is unacceptable. Mitigation measures will be required. To quantify potential damage, high quality complex modelling of sediment movements, and local coastal processes, especially in the intertidal areas will be required to:

Page 26 of 34

model the likely impact scenario of the construction dredging, particularly on adjacent intertidal areas and calculate the frequency and amount of maintenance dredging that will be required to keep this artificial deep water channel open and determine mitigation measures including remediation. identify and quantify residual impacts. Marine Scotland will be responsible for licensing the disposal sites for both construction and maintenance dredge spoil, and will, presumably, receive input from SNH and SEPA in determining the conditions they impose. The Forth is now short of good dredge spoil disposal sites. In the modelling exercise, account must also be taken of the cumulative impact of the construction of the new Forth Bridge, which will involve additional dredging activity. This is an issue where very explicit statements of liability are essential. There must be no doubt where responsibility lies, should damage be caused to property as a consequence of construction and operational activities. The repercussions of negligence by the developers in this respect need to be very clearly specified.

5.6 Road Traffic The likely increase in HGV traffic on the A985 has been seriously underestimated for a number of reasons which are described in this section. Two aims of the National Transport Strategy are quoted in Section 2.2.2 of the Traffic Assessment: reduce emissions to tackle climate change, and improve local air quality‟ In respect to reducing emissions to tackle climate change, analysis elsewhere in this response shows that, far from reducing carbon emissions, the construction of the proposed terminal would increase carbon emissions and hinder progress towards the achievement of Scottish Government targets. A significant proportion of the increase in emissions is the additional road haulage distance incurred in transport to destinations in the west if they were to be initiated at Rosyth, rather than at Grangemouth as now. In respect to improving local air quality, the estimated 900 daily HGV movements would cause significant deterioration in the local air quality around the terminal and the A985. There seem to be suggestions from Fife Council, that there is a plan (involving a proportionate financial contribution from Babcock) to „deliver‟ the ROS21 link road mentioned in the Draft Dunfermline and West Fife Local Plan. If this road were built and the exit to the east improved, we question how drivers of HGVs can be persuaded to add 10 minutes and 3 miles to their journey west by taking a route south over the Forth Bridge, rather than taking a direct exit via Caledonia Way to the A985.

Page 27 of 34

The predicted directions that HGV traffic will take are: 17% north up M90 5% west along A985 52% west via the Forth Road Bridge 26% south via FRB Thus 52% of drivers will have to be persuaded to take a route other than the most direct. If, as Babcock states, the terminal is to be operated by someone other than themselves, assurances given that Babcock will write into the contract the route that vehicles must take (stated by a Babcock at meeting with the Community Council) are meaningless. “Caledonia Way provides access to the A985 to the west of Rosyth. The route is likely to be used by a small proportion of vehicles travelling towards the central belt of Scotland.” 5% has been the number indicated in the Scoping Report. It is stated that rather than being spread over a 24 hour period, “The majority of HGV trips are expected to occur between 7am and 7pm”. This is, of course the time when there is already greatest pressure on junctions, and when there will be greatest impact on existing traffic flow. In fact, even with only 5% of HGV traffic using Caledonia Way, the A985 Hilton Road junction is predicted to be over capacity by 2017. In Section 7.3.4 of the Traffic Assessment, it states that the proposed terminal is expected to be operational by 2015 while the new Forth Crossing is programmed to open by 2017. The transport assessment assumes that, until 2017, „some‟ additional HGV trips may utilise the A985 to access destinations to the west. They have made an assumption that up to 40% could be diverted. This would suggest that some 50% of the HGV movements could be diverted through the west gate and onto the A985. In view of the strong likelihood that the majority of HGV traffic heading west will, in fact, take the A985 route, it is a failure of the Environmental Statement not to have included the already hazardous junctions to Limekilns and to Dunfermline in the assessment. It is understood that traffic will not be permitted to drive directly through or even close to the Licensed Nuclear Site. It is therefore likely, that an even greater percentage of traffic movements will be via the A985. This is contrary to the predicted directions given above by Babcock. With reference to the commuter journeys made by operational staff, The Traffic Assessment conflicts with the number of promised operational jobs which will be created by the proposed terminal when it states that “The impact of staff trips to/from the RICT will be minimal due to the low number of staff required and the operation of shift systems”.

5.7 Licensed Nuclear site It is understood that traffic will not be permitted to drive directly through the site. It is therefore likely, that a greater percentage of traffic movements will be via the A985. This is contrary to the predicted directions given above by Babcock.

Page 28 of 34

5.8 Threat to Ferry Service to Europe The DFDS ferry service currently operating from Rosyth is a freight-only roll-on/roll-off operation. While this service continues to operate, there remains the expectation that, at some time in the future, the passenger traffic may also be restored. It is unlikely that this business would be viable alongside a new container terminal at Rosyth, and thus Scotland would lose its only direct sea link to the European mainland.

5.9 Impact on Recreation 5.9.1 Land-based In 2010 in our Pre-application Consultation (PAC) response we said: “A multi-use path which contributes to the Fife Coastal Path, the Sustrans Network and the Fife Core Path Network as paths number 700 and 701, lies to the north and west of the site. Path 701 runs mostly in a north-south direction and is, in two places, within only 56 metres of the site. In addition much of core path 702 looks directly down onto the site. Scotways have recently identified this path, the Windylaw „Coffin Road‟, as one of their newly designated historical Heritage Paths. These paths are widely used by cyclists (including commuters), dog-walkers, recreational walkers, organised walking groups, runners, joggers, tourists, local groups such as the Scouts, primary school and the Carnegie Harriers running club, and very many visitors. The latter include people visiting our villages and using local businesses in addition to those on the long distance routes of the Fife Coastal Path and Scotways / Sustrans routes. The path is extremely well-used by local people; in fact, although precise data does not exist, it must be one of the most popular core paths in Fife. Since implementation of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code in 2004, Fife Councillors have been extremely supportive of this development, recognising the potential contribution of the Core Path Network both to the Healthy Living agenda and to reduction in carbon emissions from motorised transport. The leisure amenity of these paths would deteriorate significantly both during the construction and the operational phases, due to noise, visual impact and deterioration in ambience. Significant mitigation would be required to maintain the integrity of these important routes. We note that there is no suggested mitigation in the Scoping Report.” We note that there is no discussion of the impact on the amenity of these paths in the ES. There is a need to assess the impact of the Scheme on the receptors using this part of the Fife Coastal Path, and the Windylaw path and to devise mitigation. This is an omission from the ES, especially considering that we had flagged it up in our PAC response. It should be noted that the Fife Coastal Path at this point is being increasingly used by cycling commuters and that this is currently therefore contributing to Government aims in reducing our carbon footprint. 5.9.2 Water activities In 2010 in our PAC response we said: “There are several sailing clubs in this part of the Firth of Forth, indicating the popularity of water-based activities. Participation in these sports contributes greatly to the local economy and employment via the tourism and leisure industries. The proposed container terminal is close to the large marina at Port Edgar which is also the base for the Port Edgar Yacht Page 29 of 34

Club, the largest sailing club on the Forth. This club holds races twice a week throughout the season and also on Sundays in the late autumn and winter. Many of their courses are in the area of the approaches to the proposed terminal. The Forth Cruising Club is located at Limekilns and also sails in these waters. Yachting and commercial shipping co-operate throughout the Forth but, unfortunately, neither of these Clubs has been consulted over this proposed development.” In 6.5.40 of the ES there is acknowledgment that increased shipping movements could impact on sailing activities in the Forth; and certainly for the Port Edgar Sailing Club, Blackness sailors, and the Forth Cruising Club there would be further impacts from the turning of container vessels in the middle of the shipping channel to enable them to enter the proposed berths. However, in 6.5.41 there is a suggestion that there would be a need to restrict sailing movements. This would be in conflict with the Land Reform [Scotland] Act 2003 which details the legislation applying to land and water access in Scotland. Construction and operation must not impede access takers from exercising their access rights responsibly on the river. Confusing sentence construction in 6.5.41 could be interpreted to indicate that Babcock intend to impose restrictions to the estuary for sailors. As we understand it, under the Access legislation in part 1 of the 2003 Act, such restriction would have to be applied for in advance and could only be in place for a specified length of time. It certainly would not be granted on a regular basis as this statement in the ES would imply. Through a combination of mutual understanding and respect, leisure sailors and shipping have co-existed on the Forth for many years. The Forth is also widely used by canoeists and kayakers and we note that consideration of their interests and the impacts of the Scheme on them have been totally omitted from the ES. It is essential that a dialogue is opened with the Scottish Canoe Association and local clubs as soon as possible so that they can be included in the consultation process, albeit at this very late stage. If anything, the safety implications for paddlers are greater than those for sailors. The decreased participation or disruption to the various water based activities, as implied in 6.5.42, would be totally unacceptable. This would also conflict the Scottish Government‟s Healthy Living agenda and their aims to increase sporting participation. At 6.5.43 the need for discussions with these access takers in relation to identifying mitigation measures to start immediately is noted. We would comment here that it is very remiss of Babcock and Jacobs not to have initiated this consultation at the scoping opinion request stage in January 2010. This is especially so in relation to the fact that, as we pointed out in our PAC response above, these leisure activities contribute significantly to the local economy and employment. Indeed, although we do not have figures for this, it would be expected that this water based leisure and its associated services employs more people sustainably in the local area of the Firth than the container terminal ever will. 6.5.44 states that “the residual impacts associated with increased vessel movements would be limited to visual amenity for water users. This is assessed to be minor negative”. We consider this to be highly optimistic, and to also seek to dismiss what is a significant issue; the Forth is one of the most popular sailing areas in the east of Scotland. The residual impacts would be considerable. In Section 16 Cumulative Impact of the ES, in Table 16-1, the residual impact on leisure during the construction phase is given as neutral; this should be rated as significant with a Page 30 of 34

moderate to high magnitude. In Table 16-2 the residual impact during the operational phase is given as minor negative; we consider this should be assessed as major negative. In addition it should be born in mind that in their evaluations for these two tables Jacobs have presumably not taken into account the path use outlined above. A major omission from this section is a consideration of Potential Type 2 Impacts on leisure activities (Table 16-3), which would be expected to be significant, especially over the next 8 years or so.

Page 31 of 34

6 Cumulative Impacts In addition to this project, several others may be at various stages of their development and operation during its construction and operational phases. These include the Forth Replacement Crossing, the assembly of the two new aircraft carriers, the Forth Energy Biomass plant and the scrapping of a number of retired nuclear submarines. The first two are either consented or already progressing and are therefore relevant to this proposal. At the time of writing, the Biomass plant is at the application stage and no decision has been made about the submarine dismantling location. These are not included in this assessment as they could be considered not to be “reasonably foreseeable”. A second Biomass plant to be built at Grangemouth has been rejected by Falkirk Council elected members, and we understand that the third one at Leith is still at the planning stage. Cumulative impact assessment takes into account only the residual impacts of any developments upon the defined receptors in the vicinity. Given that we disagree substantially with the level of the residual impacts quoted by Jacobs as summarised in Table 16-1 (except for the chemical spills assessment), then it follows that we are not able to agree with their Cumulative Impact Assessment. In particular, the impacts of the Scheme on residents are underestimated. The capacity of receptors to adapt to additional change has not been fully assessed. It is essential to have accurate baseline conditions on which to base residual impacts and to be able to predict future baseline conditions in combination with other concurrent developments. From the available evidence and previous conversations with Jacobs and Babcock personnel we are not confident that these exercises have been completed sufficiently accurately. Additionally, we were excluded from the scoping stage when many of these issues were first identified and have been effectively “catching up” ever since. We reject all the Impact Significances determined in Table 16-3 Potential Type 2 Cumulative Impacts, except for the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment. We have also considered the Conclusions (16.5) carefully and it is our professional judgement that as expressed here they are invalid and must be rejected. The Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) considers In-combination Assessment. In 9.2.1, only the impact on salmonids is mentioned but no other receptors, so this is inconclusive and cannot be used to extrapolate to the completely different proposal under consideration in this response. At 9.2.2, although we engaged very actively at all stages of the consultation process for the Forth Replacement Crossing, we have not looked at the RIAA for that project and are not able to comment. However, as we are in substantial disagreement with the contents of the proposed container terminal RIAA, also produced by Jacobs, we cannot justify giving any credibility to or accepting the statement “there was no implication for the European sites”. It is the strong view of this Community Council that, if sanctioned, then this Scheme should not be allowed to start the construction phase until the Forth Replacement Crossing is completed, or nearly so.

Page 32 of 34

7 Carbon Balance Assessment The Carbon Balance Assessment has not been yet been submitted. In light of this, we have carried out our own carbon balance assessment and have found there is no case to be made for the proposed terminal. Serious questions might be asked about why such claims have been implied by Babcock and why their carbon balance assessment has not been placed in the public domain before the consultation period closes. A summary of our findings is given below. The public notice of 20 January 2011 states that the Carbon Balance Assessment “will be submitted to the Scottish Ministers”. As far as we can ascertain, this has not been done. It is our belief that the carbon balance assessment is fundamental to determine the sustainability, or otherwise, of any construction project. We have carried out a careful assessment of our own, taking into account construction, operation, decommissioning, dredging, excess HGV movements arising, and switching container traffic from HGV to sea journeys, and have calculated that excess carbon emissions will be some 250,000 tonnes over the lifetime of the project. This clearly fails to support the Scottish Government's overall targets for reduction of carbon emissions. It does not contribute to the Scottish Government‟s HGV modal shift carbon abatement targets for 2010 – 2022, and would not “Make a significant contribution to the achievement of climate change, renewable energy, or waste management targets”, a key objective of NFP2. The implication of these findings is serious: there is simply no case to be made for the proposed terminal on the argument presented by Babcock that the proposed terminal will reduce carbon emissions.

Page 33 of 34

8 Extent to which NPF2 Criteria are fulfilled In the light of the studies and research detailed in this document, we have examined the extent to which this project fulfils all, some, or any of the criteria for inclusion in NPF2 Question: Does it make a significant contribution to Scotland's sustainable economic development? Answer: No on two counts. In Section 3 it has been shown that the Rosyth proposal will not contribute to Scotlandâ&#x20AC;&#x;s economic development; and, as demonstrated in our Carbon Balance Assessment calculation in Section 7 it is not sustainable. Question: Does it strengthen Scotland's links with the rest of the world? Answer: No, it will make no more links than are currently made from Grangemouth. Furthermore, it would jeopardise the survival of Scotlandâ&#x20AC;&#x;s only direct ferry link to the Continent. Question: Does it deliver strategic improvements in internal connectivity? Answer: No. The proposals have highlighted substantial infrastructure deficiencies in road and rail. Moreover, Babcock has made clear its unwillingness to contribute finance for any infrastructure improvements. Question: Does it make a significant contribution to the achievement of targets for climate change, renewable energy, or waste management? Answer: No. The project not only fails to support the Scottish Government's overall targets for reduction of carbon emissions, but makes achievement of those targets less likely. Question: Is the development an essential element of a programme of investment in national infrastructure? Answer: No. We have clearly shown that there is no need for this additional container terminal on the inner Forth, as it can only serve the same purpose and market as is already served by Grangemouth Container Port. Question: Does it raise strategic issues of more than regional importance (projects with impacts on more than one city region for example)? Answer: No it does not. It would only duplicate the Grangemouth facility on the Forth, and potentially detract from the development of a freight hub there, as envisaged in NPF2. Ministers should note that this project fails to fulfil any of the criteria for inclusion in NPF2. Document ends

Page 34 of 34