A council proposal to remove a crossing point over the A9 south of Luncarty as part of its wider plans to construct the controversial £118 million Cross Tay Link Road came under intense scrutiny during a virtual hearing held this week.
The local authority notified the public last April it was about to submit a formal order to Scottish Ministers to stop up core path LUNC/124 short of where it currently crosses the A9 east of Redgorton House and west of Denmarkfield.
It wants to take away the crossing so it can realign the A9 and form a new grade separated junction between Perth and Luncarty linking to the planned CTLR and has argued anyone still wishing to cross the road on foot will still be able to at another at grade crossing nearer Redgorton.
However a number of individuals and organisations raised representations to the order being approved arguing the crossing closer to Redgorton is dangerous and recommending the council provide a safer crossing instead such as a bridge or an underpass.
An independent reporter working for the Scottish Government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) has now been tasked to consider both sides of the argument and decide whether the order ought to be denied, approved as is or approved with modifications.
At this week’s hearing session reporter Martin Seddon said he had already undertaken an unaccompanied site visit to familiarise himself with the location and invited objectors to quiz council workers and their consultants over particular aspects of the proposal.
John Andrews of the Perth and Kinross Outdoor Access Forum started off by stating he believed there was no justification for the order as as the council had not demonstrated it had no alternative but to block off the crossing and create the diversion to proceed with the overall scheme.
“In my view the council has by various things it has said or done demonstrated ... that there are alternatives to this particular diversion,” he said. But PKC solicitor Colin Elliot argued the stopping up of the path was necessary for the proposed realignment of the A9 to be carried out by contractors.
“It’s not an absolute neccessity but it is necessary in the circumstances,” he said.
Mr Andrews countered that response by pointing out the council previously produced a detailed design for a bridge over the A9 to replace the existing crossing including costings.
“Surely by those very actions [PKC] has identified an alternative to this particular diversion,” he said.
Mr Elliot replied that the council had deemed the proposed diversion the “most appropriate” alternative.
Later in the hearing local man Landel Johnston pointed out the diversion would require people who currently use the crossing to walk an extra 1.3 kilometres to get to the same point they would reach by merely walking over the road at the moment.
“It’s not really a comparative route,” he said. “The issue is really all about the fact you are stopping the ability to get from A to B, which is a very short distance, by diverting 1.3 kilometres.”
Mr Andrews then quoted a statement made by the council in relation to its proposed realignment of the A9 where it said it was working to a strategy being used elsewhere on the A9 dualling project to try to keep the use of at grade crossings such as the one nearer Redgorton to a minimum.
He went on to ask why PKC was seeking to divert people to the Redgorton crossing and not supplying a bridge or underpass to replace the existing crossing if they were working to that strategy.
Denise Ritchie, a technical consultant working for SWECO, replied on behalf of the council that it had to take into account other factors when considering its options including “budgetary constraints”.
“The high cost of a bridge or an underpass is a consideration,” she said.
Mr Andrews then drew attention to another council statement where it had said it would be unable to provide new traffic lights at the Redgorton crossing for pedestrians to use to stop vehicles because of the “high speeds” of approaching traffic.
“Does that not mean that pedestrians are at risk?” he asked.
This point was taken up again later by another objector, Keith Robertson, a wheelchair user, who said he felt the council had discounted the idea of providing a bridge over the A9 too early in the process of coming up with the overall CTLR scheme.
“The most recent figure for a bridge was £2.5 million which, taken in isolation, I accept is a lot of money,” he said.
“However, if you take it as a percentage of the overall scheme, it is a tiny percentage. It is a little over two per cent of the entire scheme. Are we really saying money comes before safety?” he asked.
Mr Seddon said at the conclusion of the hearing on Wednesday he will now prepare a report setting out his findings of fact and making recommendations aimed at resolving the dispute.
According to its website the DPEA is hoping to have made a decision on the case by May 11.
