A90/A937 Laurencekirk Junction correspondence: EIR release

Information requested

Information in relation to the A90/A937 Laurencekirk Junction, specifically:-

“1. Compulsory Purchase Process and Statutory Delays:

• All internal correspondence, legal opinions, and documents (including minutes of meetings) from January 2016 onwards related to the compulsory purchase process and any disputes causing delays under the relevant statutory procedures.
• Please ensure that personal details are anonymised where necessary, particularly in relation to disputes with third parties.

2. Oatyhill Bridge Dispute:

• All emails, written correspondence, reports, and internal communications between Aberdeenshire Council and Transport Scotland from November 2019 to the present regarding this budget dispute.
• A detailed timeline of events outlining the key actions and decisions that contributed to the five-year delay, including meeting minutes and any relevant documentation related to this dispute.

3. Budget Allocation for the Junction Scheme:
The project was allocated £24 million as part of increased funding under the Aberdeen City Region Deal. Please confirm the following:

• Whether the £24 million remains available for use in the A90/A937 Laurencekirk Junction Improvement Scheme.
• A detailed breakdown of how much of this £24 million has been spent or committed to date.
• Any information on plans to reallocate or withdraw part of this funding.

4. Financial Constraints:

• All documentation, reports, or internal correspondence discussing any financial constraints or challenges impacting the timing of the Laurencekirk Junction Improvement Scheme.
• Any current or projected financial shortfalls that could influence the delivery of this project.

5. Statutory Process vs. Financial Constraints:

• Any internal communications, reports, or discussions indicating whether statutory procedures or financial constraints are the primary cause of the delay in implementing the junction improvement project.
• Any correspondence from Scottish Government or Aberdeenshire Council employees regarding the potential influence of financial considerations on the timing of the project, as opposed to statutory requirements.

In your clarification of 4 October 2024 you confirmed “disputes” to mean:- “…any disagreements, conflicts, or unresolved issues that have arisen during the planning and execution of the Laurencekirk Junction Improvement Scheme, particularly those that have contributed to delays. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Disputes or conflicts between public bodies, such as Aberdeenshire Council and Transport Scotland, regarding the Oatyhill Bridge objection which has a “Heads of Terms Agreement” specifically detailing a cost sharing arrangement.

2. Legal disputes or objections involving land acquisition or compulsory purchase orders.

3. Internal disagreements or conflicting opinions within the Scottish Government or relevant agencies regarding the project’s progress, budget allocation, or prioritisation of resources.”

Response

As previously explained, given the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

Response to your request

Please find enclosed attached Annexes A,B,C,D,E & F consisting of representations received by way of objections, including that of Aberdeenshire Council, as received following publication of draft orders in December of 2019, along with correspondence leading to the subsequent resolution of the objections; extracts from the progress meetings between Transport Scotland and its design consultants, Amey, along with extracts from the Partnership meeting minutes between Transport Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council, Angus Council and Nestrans.

An exception under regulation 11(2) of the EIRs (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998. This exception is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception.

The information withheld in the disclosed documents are personal details, addresses, signatures and any documents such as plans/maps which would reveal the location of a person or individual.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance an exception under regulation 10(4)(d) of the EIRs (unfinished or incomplete information) also applies to some of the information you have requested.

This exception applies to material which was in the course of completion, such as documents under review or held in draft state at that time.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open, transparent and accountable government however, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that unfinished or incomplete information which is still being worked on or is under active consideration is not disclosed when it might misinform the public or give a misleading impression of the Government’s view or position on the matter to which the information relates.

An exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs (internal communications) applies to some of the information you have requested because it is internal legal advice and disclosure would breach legal professional privilege.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other public or private organisation.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. Therefore we are refusing those elements of your request under the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs.

Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested because there is no “detailed timeline of events outlining the key actions and decisions that contributed to the five-year delay” nor are there “internal communications, reports, or discussions indicating whether statutory procedures or financial constraints are the primary cause of the delay in implementing the junction improvement project” or “correspondence from Scottish Government or Aberdeenshire Council employees regarding the potential influence of financial considerations on the timing of the project, as opposed to statutory requirements” or “Internal disagreements or conflicting opinions within the Scottish Government or relevant agencies regarding the project’s progress, budget allocation, or prioritisation of resources.”

This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information in your request as described above, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.

In answer to point 3 of your initial request in relation to budget allocation for the Junction Scheme and whether the £24 million remains available for use in the A90/A937 Laurencekirk Junction Improvement Scheme, the £24 million commitment to take forward the design and construction of a grade separated junction on the A90 at Laurencekirk was announced by the Scottish Government as a package of additional funding alongside the Aberdeen City Region Deal in 2016, as such it does not form part of the City Deal funding nor its governance processes. Budget for the scheme has, and continues to be, outlined on a year-by-year basis as part of the annual Budget setting process, as we progress essential design work and move towards completion of the statutory processes.

To date, approximately £3.9m has been spent on progressing the scheme. This figure includes costs to progress essential design and statutory process work; traffic surveys; intrusive and non-intrusive ground investigation works; geotechnical checking services; landowner compensation; valuation services; legal services; and press and publicity costs associated with public notices and public information exhibitions.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

EIR 202400434750 - Information Released - Annex

File type

PDF

File size

14.5 MB