A recent report in The Scotsman is critical of the process by which objections to the Forth Replacement Crossing are heard. On the 30th of August, Stage 2 Assessor hearings began that would hear any outstanding objections to the new Forth bridge. This has included input from local residents groups, the Queensferry & District Community Council, Environment Pressure groups and other parties, who feel their objections and input have been largely ignored. By this process, a government appointed Assessor – Dr Hugh Begg – makes recommendations following the public hearings with the objectors,to the Forth Crossing Bill Committee. Any proposed amendments would then be debated between the 17th and 24th of November by MSPs following the publication of a report by the Committee. The November edition of the Forth Replacement Crossing newsletter, paints a slightly glossier picture of this process noting that: “The Forth Replacement Crossing’s project team have successfully resolved many of the original objections to the Bill through constructive engagement, discussions and meetings with objectors. These hearings, however, ensured that those with outstanding issues had the opportunity to put their case to the assessor.”
Some amendments have been made to the Forth Replacement Crossing: Code of Construction Practice, following the Phase 2 hearings.
As a ‘minor’ aside, Forth Road bridge bosses revealed that the current Forth Road bridge is no longer being insured. The annual costs was at around £100,000 to cover against terrorism and the costs of damage from impacts from ships and aircrafts. This despite, as The Courier reports, perceived terrorist threats and a number of accidental near-misses over the recent years.
