Freedom of Information request FOI/19/01927
In reference to the above FOI can you provide clarification on the following statement:
"As confirmed at the May 2019 public engagement events held on the East of Huntly to Aberdeen scheme https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/exhibition-materials-may-2019-east-of-huntly-to-aberdeen-a96-dualling/ improvements to the existing A96 dual carriageway (from Kintore to Craibstone) and its junctions will be considered further as part of future design development work. As and when DMRB Stage 2 assessment work on the existing A96 between Kintore and Craibstone is taken forward, further public engagement events will be held as part of our rolling programme of engagement.”
1. I have followed the hyperlink contained in the above statement, and reviewed the presentation material, and can find no reference to, or explanation of, the decision to sub-divide East of Huntly to Aberdeen route section in to separate sub-sections with the consequence that “improvements to the existing A96 dual carriageway (from Kintore to Craibstone) and its junctions will be considered further as part of future design development work”. Can you please clarify where this statement is made?
2. Under what formal process has the A96 Dualling - East of Huntly to Aberdeen project been further sub-divided in to two separate route sub-sections with now separate and disconnected design development stages and timetables?
3. Please provide all documentation to substantiate this decision to sub-divide the route part way through the DMRB design development process? This should include not only the concluding appraisal or reports, but all relevant working documents, meeting minutes and correspondence.
4. And in sub-dividing the route, what is now the timetable for progressing the design development (through DMRB stages) for the new Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section? Or
5. Can you confirm there is now no design development timetable for the new Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section?
6. Are Amey-Arup still contracted for the design development for the entirety of the A96 Dualling East of Huntly to Aberdeen route section?
7. If there are, as it appears, no established timetable for progression of the new Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section, what implications does this have on Amey-Arup contractual obligations with respect to time limitations?
8. If Amey-Arup workscope no longer encapsulates the Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section then has there been a proportionate reduction in the value of the contract award?”
As all of 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.
Please find attached a response to requests for information you made in your email.
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
- File type
- 4 page PDF
- File size
- 296.2 kB
Please quote the FOI reference
Central Enquiry Unit
Phone: 0300 244 4000
The Scottish Government
St Andrews House
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback