HOLYROOD INQUIRY

Wednesday 12 November 2003 (Afternoon Session)

 

Hearing resumed at 2.00 pm.

 

1.      Mr Campbell QC:  The Inquiry’s first witness this afternoon is Mr Tom Aitchison, the Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council, to be followed by Mr Andrew Holmes.  It is not easy to predict how long this evidence will take Sir, but I shall endeavour not to cover ground covered already. 

 

2.      Mr Aitchison, good afternoon, and thank you very much for coming to the Inquiry.  Can you confirm that you are Tom Aitchison; you are the Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council — a post you have held since1995?

 

3.      Mt Aitchison:  I can confirm all of that, yes.

 

4.      Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you very much.  I am grateful to you for coming, Mr Aitchison.  I would like to discuss with you the city’s and city officials’ involvement  in the site selection process for Holyrood, and subsequent to that, if I may, but not taking the matter much beyond the middle to the third quarter of 1998.  Prior to the election of May 1997, did the city have some involvement in, or some activity in, thinking about a prospective site for a Parliament if the election result in May 1997 should turn out in favour of Labour?

 

5.      Mr Aitchison:  Well, there were some instructions to me from one of our committees  — the Policy and Resources Committee, I think in February of 1997, to begin to prepare for the possibility of a Parliament after the General Election that year.  That was mainly couched, if I recollect correctly, in terms of the economic impact on the city, the broad transportation issues, property issues, things of that nature as opposed to a particular site at that point in time.

 

6.      Mr Campbell QC:  What did you do when you started to think about that?  How did you structure the thinking?

 

7.      Mr Aitchison:   I established a group of officers from, I think it was three of the Council’s departments to begin to think our way through that problem.  That led to a report via our Economic Development Committee, as was then, then on to a Policy and Resources Committee, I think, in June of that year.  And it concluded, for example, with the benefit jobswise of about 5,000 to 6,000 jobs coming to the city from the Parliament being located here in Edinburgh.  We saw a growth in media interest in the Parliament.  We saw a growth in consular activity — issues of that type.  That was reported formally in, I think, June of that particular year. 

 

8.      Mr Campbell QC:  Was that the Committee that reported to members, or was it the Committee that was —

 

9.      Mr Aitchison:  There was a working group of officers who reported via me to the members’ Committee. 

 

10.  Mr Campbell QC:  OK. Now, after the election then, did that structure which you had set up, did it become more streamlined?

 

11.  Mr Aitchison:  Things started to change and started to move really, I guess, quite quickly.  There were instructions, following the Secretary of State’s announcement, I think, from the middle of July of that year, that he was intent upon holding a competition to secure a Parliament building fit for the country.  There were, again, further instructions to me to make sure that we provided all possible co-operation to our civil servant colleagues, and also to make sure that any information we had, as Council Officers — technical information on site conditions, access possibilities, all of that — was drawn to the attention of our Civil Service colleagues. 

 

12.  Mr Campbell QC:  And before the site was selected, I think it is right to say — to try to summarise the minutes without taking them at unnecessary length — the city did not come out strongly for one site or the other, although there were, I think, occasional motions endorsing the values of Calton Hill first, and then of Leith.  Is that right?

 

13.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.  I mean, both outwith the formality of the Council structures, individual members of the Council expressed individual views.  I think you heard the former Lord Provost this morning, who was strongly in favour of Leith, Councillors Keith Geddes and Donald Anderson were strongly in favour of Calton Hill.  Councillor Steve Cardownie was strongly in favour of Leith.  So, a lot of views were being expressed, but the Council took two decisions: one in late July, and, from memory, one in September, formally — in the full Council itself.  In September, the argument was in favour of a city-centre site, but did not rule out the possibility of other sites being selected, and again pledged through me full co-operation to ensure that the technical evaluation was properly conducted and seen through. 

 

14.  Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  And did the Council take a formal decision to that effect in September 1997?

 

15.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes. September 25, I think it was.

 

16.  Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.  Could we look at EC/1/011, please?  Is that a minute of your Policy and Resources Committee? 

 

17.  Mr Aitchison:  That is the one, yes.

 

18.  Mr Campbell QC:  “Location of the future Scottish Parliament should be in the city centre, and this view would be communicated to the Secretary of State.”

 

19.  Through what channels would a formal decision of that kind — presumably after debate —be communicated to the Secretary of State?

 

20.  Mr Aitchison:  The formal channel would be a letter from our Council Secretary to the appropriate civil servant; either in the Secretary of State’s office, or through administrative contacts.  I was in close contact, at that time, with the Civil Service as well, so that I would also reinforce that message from the Council to colleagues in the Civil Service. 

 

21.  Mr Campbell QC:  What led to a motion by Councillor Mrs Daphne Sleigh, and a decision or a discussion around whether or not the site should be in the city centre? 

 

22.  Mr Aitchison:  Well, this is dated 25 September, so certainly during the month of August, there were various presentations, I think, to the Secretary of State by our own arm’s-length company, EDI.  There was a plan by Forth Ports Authority.  We, as Council officials working with colleagues in the Civil Service and identified three; the site at Haymarket, the sites — plural — at Calton Hill, the site at Leith.  So, all that was in the public domain.  But you asked me, in a sense, to suggest what was in Councillor Daphne Sleigh’s mind, which is difficult to say, but I think basically the Conservative group were strongly of the view that it should be a city-centre location.  They would try and persuade the City of Edinburgh Council to that point of view, and Councillor Keith Geddes, who I think had a hand in this particular motion as well, formulated the words that are on the screen at the present point in time.

 

23.  Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  So, there was not a million miles between the opposing political wings at that time?

 

24.  Mr Aitchison:  It did keep the Council’s options open.  There was an attempt, I think, to recognise the difference of view current within the then Labour group, by clearly stating a preference for the city centre, but recognising it was a decision for the Secretary of State to take, and if he chose a different site, they would continue to work with his colleagues and his staff to ensure it worked properly.

 

25.  Mr Campbell QC:  Did you get any kind of reaction from the Forth Ports Authority, as it then was?

 

26.  Mr Aitchison:  Again, from memory, Forth Ports did write.  I think they copied a letter to all members of the Council before that decision was taken, I think trying to persuade the Council to not rush at a decision, to keep their options open, and to make sure that full and proper consideration was given to their proposal for the Leith venue. 

 

27.  Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  Now, at the request of Scottish Office officials, did your own officials in the, I guess, the Property or the City Development Department, do some work on a long list of sites for the Scottish Office’s benefit?

 

28.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes, we, I think, pulled together a list, probably of round about the 20-site mark early in the process.  I have got minuted papers in the office which show that the desire was to reduce that quite quickly down to approximately six sites, and out of that six we quite quickly came down to the three that you are familiar with.

 

29.  Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Would you look at document SE/2/726 please?  Do you recognise that?

 

30.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes, I do.

 

31.  Mr Campbell QC:  What is it? 

 

32.  Mr Aitchison:  Could I just go back slightly?  I think that is our internal City Development Department working paper on, as it says there, the site search — all the various considerations that were pertinent to a decision at that time.

 

33.  Mr Campbell QC:  So, does that answer mean that it would remain within the City Council until refined further before it was sent to members?

 

34.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes. This was being shared mainly at professional officer level, in keeping with the spirit of the decision, to me, to work with the Scottish Office. So I do not recall that particular report being shared with members in the form you see there.

 

35.  Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  But it would be shared with officials in the Scottish Office?

 

36.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

37.  Mr Campbell QC:  Even in draft?

 

38.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

39.  Mr Campbell QC:  And what does this document seek to achieve?

 

40.  Mr Aitchison:  As can you see for yourself, it is trying to take the criteria as they were then set, about the size of the building required for the Parliament, the setting for the building, the transportation and public transport access issues.  All of that was pertinent to a decision in due course on the site.

 

41.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

42.  Mr Campbell QC:  And see the site selection criteria, which you have been asked to apply.  Then we have costs, I think, and then on the next page (SE/2/727) access and transport, and then physical surroundings, and paging down, environmental impact, economic impact, impact on the Scottish Office, and security is on page (SE/2/730). 

 

43.  What I would like to know, Mr Aitchison, please, is where did you get information about the criteria which should be applied to the site selection process?

 

44.  Mr Aitchison:  That came to us from civil servants.

 

45.  Mr Campbell QC:  From the Scottish Office?

 

46.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

47.  Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  I think this document also contains some drawings showing the location of the existing buildings, which I will not trouble you with, but could you turn to page SE/2/733 please?  What is that?

 

48.  Mr Aitchison:  That is the long list of sites that we went through to see which might meet the criteria set for the exercise. 

 

49.  Mr Campbell QC:  This is the long list?

 

50.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

51.  Mr Campbell QC:  And can we see the fourth one on the long list is called Holyrood Abbey Brewery?  Is that a reference to the site that we now know as the Scottish Parliament site?

 

52.  Mr Aitchison:  More or less.  Again, my recollection would be that was a potentially smaller site than the one that was eventually donated for the project by Scottish & Newcastle Brewers.  And I do not recall from that long list there being much discussion at all, if any, at the time about the possibility of it being potentially a shortlisted site.  It did not really get through the first sift at all.

 

53.  Lord Fraser:  The site that is now occupied by that exhibition project known as Dynamic Earth — was that ever included within a potential site for the Parliament? 

 

54.  Mr Aitchison:  No.  I think Dynamic Earth was contractually committed round about late 1998, early 1999, so I think most of the work had been done for that site.  I think the discussion was whether you could go further west, up towards the Canongate into the back of the site where there might be more land and buildings available there that had not been committed at that point in time. 

 

55.  Lord Fraser:  I think we have had evidence, have we not, Mr Campbell, that although Queensberry House and its ground had been taken into the ownership of Scottish & Newcastle at an earlier date, this did not seem to be widely known.  But what I was not clear about was that at one time there was the prospect of what was now Dynamic Earth being included in a site, but there was an issue about an application, or possible application, for lottery funding or something to allow that exhibition — millennium funding or something — to go ahead.

 

56.  Mr Aitchison:  Certainly Dynamic Earth was a project heavily dependent upon lottery funds, so that was all going through round about 1997, 1998, 1999.  There was a fairly extensive master plan for the whole of the Holyrood area before. Leave the Parliament to one side for one moment, there was former gas board land, which I think is where ‘The Scotsman’ building and Dynamic Earth now are.  That was donated for Dynamic Earth purposes.  And at the south side, which is going towards the town side, there were various sites there that the brewery had, by that time, already vacated prior to vacating their full headquarters building, and I think it is that area there where there might have been some opportunity to enlarge what is on the screen as the Holyrood Abbey Brewery site to make the site larger. If that is not clear, my colleague, Mr Holmes, can help us either now or later to get that sorted out.

 

57.  Lord Fraser:  He is on notice.

 

58.  Mr Campbell QC:  Can we look at page SE/2/734 please?  This is a statement of, I guess, projected costs for Leith and Haymarket.  We have examined  the page that relates to Calton Hill this morning, so we need not be concerned with it.  What I would like to know is just, if you can tell me, where these figures came from.

 

59.  Mr Aitchison:  These figures came primarily from our then Department of Property Services.

 

60.  Mr Campbell QC:  So these were not figures derived from developers, prospective developers, or indeed from the Scottish Office?

 

61.  Mr Aitchison:  Not to my knowledge, no.

 

62.  Mr Campbell QC:  As part of your advice to the Scottish Office, did you involve your planning and transportation colleagues in assessing what difficulties there may be, if any, around any of the sites?

 

63.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes, we were watching this very much as a corporate exercise that the Council, led by myself with colleagues Andrew Holmes — who is here to give evidence later today — who was then the Deputy Director of City Development; colleagues in property; colleagues in economic development; colleagues in planning — it was truly trying to pull the whole thing together to make sure that all possible aspects and all possible information was brought into the one document. 

 

2.15 pm

 

64.  Mr Campbell QC:  Did you learn, Mr Aitchison, some time in the third quarter of 1997 that the Holyrood brewery site was once again a candidate?

 

65.  Mr Aitchison:  In preparing for today, I found a note on a file dated 16 October, recording a phone call from Alistair Brown from the Scottish Office to me intimating that the Holyrood brewery site had been identified and drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State and that more work was required on that particular site. 

 

66.  Mr Campbell QC:  16 October? 

 

67.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

68.  Mr Campbell QC:  And you would have had previous contact with Mr Brown — you would have known him well by then?

 

69.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

70.  Mr Campbell QC:  Did he give you any indication as to any level of enthusiasm for the Holyrood site? 

 

71.  Mr Aitchison:  I will just check that for you — I have got it here.  I recorded this in fairly, I suppose, bureaucratic terms.  He had been approached by agents representing Scottish & Newcastle to the Scottish Office indicating the site opposite the Palace could be available, and according to Alistair Brown as saying:

 

72.    “it would be necessary to carry out an evaluation of the site and we would like Council input, in particular in planning transportation matters…”.

 

73.  I recorded that via Andrew Holmes to make sure information was compiled to that effect.

 

74.  Mr Campbell QC:  Was it subject to a time limit?

 

75.  Mr Aitchison:  Not at that stage, because obviously we had gone beyond, by then, the 1 October deadline that had originally been set by the Secretary of State.  But I mean I was aware that obviously there was a lot of pressure on the time to try and get this work done as quickly as possible to enable a decision to be made by the Secretary of State. 

 

76.  Mr Campbell QC:  Say that again.  Why was there pressure on time?

 

77.  Mr Aitchison:  By this stage they had gone beyond the 1 October deadline originally set for the exercise, so when I had a fourth candidate site on the table, I think at that time as well the Scottish Office were employing firms of architects to give, if you like, a kind of second opinion of various aspects of the projects all with the view to ensuring that the Secretary of State had as much information as possible to enable a decision to be taken. 

 

78.  Mr Campbell QC:  Was information given to you by Mr Brown in confidence?

 

79.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes, though I did not record that in a file note per se.  Having gone through information we have in the office files, this was kept really confidential to a few reasonably senior officers in the City of Edinburgh Council, and to my knowledge did not enter the public domain until the Secretary of State placed it there.

 

80.  Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Do you know why it was to be kept in confidence?  Were you told that? 

 

81.  Mr Aitchison:  Well, obviously I read the evidence given recently, but my recollection was because of commercial sensitivities surrounding the site and involving Scottish & Newcastle brewers. 

 

82.  Mr Campbell QC:  Could you look at EC/1/227, please?  On reflection, I have made a mistake — I think Mr Holmes is the author of this document, so I will just ask him about it rather than ask you. 

 

83.  Mr Aitchison:  Are you sure?  I recognise this; I know what it is.

 

84.  Mr Campbell QC:  Did you take part in compiling it?

 

85.  Mr Aitchison:  I do not recollect that per se, no.  This project was, as I said earlier on, a corporate project by the Council.  I think this was submitted to our colleagues in lateish December 1997, so it would have gone with my full support and full authority.

 

86.  Mr Campbell QC:  The date on the last page of this document is 12 December 1997, so it is some time after your phone call from Mr Brown.  Was this an internal document compiled for the working group of officers that you had or for members?

 

87.  Mr Aitchison:  For officers rather than members. 

 

88.  Mr Campbell QC:  And what was the purpose in putting it together?

 

89.  Mr Aitchison:  This really was a response to the request all the way through from July/August time for City of Edinburgh Council to comment on what then became the shortlisted sites, plus the Holyrood site, and I think we knew by about December time the Secretary of State was hoping to make a decision early in the New Year — early 1998.  In a sense that this document, I think, was meant to be an overall summary of our deliberations over that preceding 2 or 3 month period.

 

90.  Mr Campbell QC:  Are we looking at here an early draft, which might result in something that you would put to members for a formal decision?

 

91.  Mr Aitchison:  No, not per se.  I mean, I felt I had all the necessary authorisation from members.  That was clear to favour (a) the Parliament’s coming to Edinburgh; (b) they wanted to favour the city centre; and (c) did not rule out any site.  They instructed me to make sure, with the maximum co-operation of the Scottish Office, they were kept informed, which I did from time to time via correspondence and meetings with the individual group leaders within the Council.

 

92.  Mr Campbell QC:  But you say that this document, as it were, synthesises the considerations of your officials, perhaps over the previous 3 month period, and we can see as we page through it, can we not?  If we go to page 2 (EC/1/228), it starts with Haymarket; moves onto Leith on page 3 (EC/1/229); and then onto St Andrew’s House on page 4 (EC/1/230); and onto Holyrood on page 5 (EC/1/231).  Now, I intend no impertinence by this question Mr Aitchison, but this does seem to me to be a very terse summary of the potential for four sites.  Was that deliberate?

 

93.  Mr Aitchison:  No, I am not aware of any attempt to be terse for the sake of being terse.  I think, all the way through, the Council in my view was doing all it possibly could to provide assistance here.  The Council was very pleased about the fact the Parliament was coming to Edinburgh and saw opportunities associated with that, and you saw from an earlier item you had on the screen about costs and so on that we did provide as much technical information as possible.  So this in a sense sits on top of a lot of other information that was exchanged back and forward over that, 3 or 4 month period.

 

94.  Mr Campbell QC:  If I might draw an analogy or a contrast; one has seen reports by for example, Edinburgh’s Head of Planning to the Planning Committee or indeed by Mr Holmes himself to the Policy and Resources Committees of much greater length and in much greater detail.  Is this not just a little bit brief and a little bit neat for a project of this importance?

 

95.  Mr Aitchison:  No, I think I still believe that lots of information was being exchanged, and you have got to see this particular document in the context of all the documentation that preceded it.  In terms of your own analogy, when you come on later in your Inquiry, I presume, to look at the details of post-Holyrood selection, you will find lots of highly detailed reports from our planning officials on aspects of planning at this point in time, and everybody knew by then we were down to the four sites.  We had our view, and the Council were trying to recognise the respective merits and otherwise of the individual sites.  So if you see this on top of what came before it, I do not think it is necessarily a terse statement.

 

96.  Mr Campbell QC:  Shall we just look at this as, if you like, the culmination of the exchange between you? 

 

97.  Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

98.  Mr Campbell QC:  Did you have any sense by the date of this document — 12 December — that a decision had been made?

 

99.  Mr Aitchison:  No, not then.  I do have a note, if I can just find it for you, which records me on 21 November.  Again I note a call from Alistair Brown to myself confirming that the Secretary of State hoped to take a decision around the turn of the year, pointing out that Leith was perhaps looking less likely given the political reaction and the public reaction, but certainly did not rule Leith out.  Some comments on Calton Hill as perhaps looking to be expensive, and perhaps a reluctance on the part of EDI to acknowledge the high costs involved; a comment along the lines that Haymarket was still in the frame but perhaps lacked the kind of presence required for a parliamentary setting; and all I recorded myself at the time, Mr Campbell, was that the Scottish & Newcastle site and was still in the frame, was still being worked on.

 

100.          Mr Campbell QC:  What was the comment about EDI in that circumstance?

 

101.          Mr Aitchison:  I recorded that as a file note to myself at the time as:  “EDI reluctant to acknowledge high costs”. 

 

102.          Mr Campbell QC:  We know that EDI had presented a costed proposal to the Scottish Executive.  I know that in your ordinary work you are not concerned with the day-to-day management of EDI, although obviously your authority is its owner.  According to Mr Wall, it was not a high-cost option; it was an attainable option in terms of the information that he had gathered and submitted to the Secretary of State.  What is the origin of your comment made there?

 

103.          Mr Aitchison:  The origin of the comment is that I have recorded a view expressed to me by Alistair Brown, so I am not in a position to, in a sense, say where the respective merits of that argument lay.  I do remember there was some confusion over where the cost, for example, of refurbishing St Andrew’s House would lie.  I think the argument was that these costs were going to be have to be met anyway irrespective of whether the Parliament went into that particular building or not.  So that was, you know, causing some kind of fuzziness in the background.

 

104.          Also, I think from memory, Mr Campbell, EDI were arguing that there was what they would call “betterment value” from a plan embracing the whole of the east end of Edinburgh — offices down in what is now the New Street bus garage and so on.  I think it was an imaginative plan that they had, I am not really trying to diminish their plan; I was just recording what I wrote down at that time.  There must have been a view within the Civil Service, therefore, that they had some uncertainty about the cost of the Calton Hill project as presented to them by EDI.

 

105.          Mr Campbell QC:  Well, no doubt we can ask Mr Brown about that in due course. 

 

106.          Mr Aitchison:  Sorry, you asked me a question about when did I find out about the Secretary of State’s view on Holyrood?

 

107.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Well, actually the way I put it to you was:  did you have any sense of a decision being taken as early as 12 December, which is the date of this document?

 

108.          Mr Aitchison:  No.  I do have a note on file here — I was on holiday on 30 December that year — from my business manager who received a call from Mr Holmes saying it looked like the Secretary of State’s preference was for Holyrood; that was what 9 or 10 days before the formal announcement itself.

 

109.          Mr Campbell QC:  You do not know how he came to that view, do you?

 

110.          Mr Aitchison:  I would not want to speculate on that I do not think, no.

 

111.          Mr Campbell QC:  I do not mean how the Secretary of State came to that view; how the information came to Mr McCall, your business manager. 

 

112.          Mr Aitchison:  There was a telephone call from Andrew Holmes to my business manager, so you can ask Andrew that in due course, but Andrew in turn must have been presumably in receipt of information from civil servants. 

 

113.          Mr Campbell QC:  If we move then past the date of the decision, Mr Aitchison, to the early months of 1998, how did the City shape its posture in its way of dealing with the Holyrood decision?

 

114.          Mr Aitchison:  Well, certainly post the decision being taken we are then into the more regular contact between — I do not like to call them Parliament developers; it sounds terribly cheap to say that — we had the contact between ourselves as Planning and Transportation Authority and the Parliament.  The Parliament, I think could have gone ahead using Crown immunity to press the plans through, but I think to their great credit they did intimate to us they wanted to follow through as best they could on the planning process — there is a standard process in useage for that. 

 

115.          So early thereafter a whole lot of things began to happen.  There was a particular property called Reid’s Close — I think it was two or three houses that the city was able to buy out to help the site to be enlarged.  We then started to work on the issue of Queensberry House, which you may come to either today or some other time.  There was a view, I think, expressed — I do not know whether it was on behalf of the Secretary of State or by the Secretary of the State — about the possibility of the parliamentary site being in a sense surrounded by traffic on three sides, so there was discussion about what would happen to Holyrood Road, to Horse Wynd in the future; all that was being debated and discussed.  You will then find — I am not trying to suggest otherwise, but Mr Holmes knows the details on this better than I do — there were a whole lot of reports going through the Council on various planning aspects of the project.

 

116.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is it fair to summarise it this way:  that through Mr Holmes, instructions were given to the various Executive Departments — Planning and Transportation, Property and so on — to implement what was necessary to achieve the fullest possible support with the civil servants?

 

117.          Mr Aitchison:  Well, bearing in mind we do have various strict rules within the Council about what we call our planning protocols, so we do actually try to ensure the integrity of the planning process, so that responsibility is that of Mr Holmes currently — and at that time as well — so we make sure that we go through that in quite a meticulous way.

 

118.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can I just look with you at a couple of documents for completeness again — EC/1/021, please?  Is that a minute of the Transportation Committee of 9 February, and can we see further down, please, the motion is to instruct the:

 

119. “Director of City Development to prepare an early report on the transport implications”.

 

120.          And that was no doubt done in due course? 

 

121.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes, that is the correct record. 

 

122.          Mr Campbell QC:  If we could look at EC/1/024, please.  Is that a report which deals with the acquisition of the houses in Reid’s Close?

 

123.          Mr Aitchison:  That is correct, yes.

 

2.30 pm

 

124.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Can we look at EC/1/029?  Is this a report from the City Development Department in relation to an application for outline planning consent from the Secretary of State for Scotland?

 

125.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes, it is.

 

126.          Mr Campbell QC:  Certain conditions are proposed there.  There is a site description; there is a record of some consultations; there is some setting of the planning environment, in terms of the structure plan and the local plan; and a recommendation not to object at that stage.

 

127.          Mr Aitchison:  All that is correct; yes.

 

128.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes; that is reported to members in number EC/1/037.  Quite a short minute; but we can see there the extent of consultation at the early stages of this outline application — transportation; environmental services; archaeological officer; Historic Scotland, and so on?

 

129.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

130.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  So this was following a regular pattern for a planning application, albeit, one of exceptional size and importance.  Is that right?

 

131.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes; that is correct.

 

132.          Mr Campbell QC:  If we look at EC/1/107 in this sequence: is that a report, again by the Director of City Development, in respect of the application for approval of reserved matters, under the outline consent —

 

133.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

134.          Mr Campbell QC:  — which runs on for a considerable number of pages?

 

135.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

136.          Mr Campbell QC:  We see the recommendation there in capital letters and then a series of conditions, which it was sought to impose?

 

137.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes; and I can confirm all of that.

 

138.          Mr Campbell QC:  And ultimately, I think, an indication — if not a planning consent — an indication was given that there would be no planning objection to the proposals, as they had been placed before the city?

 

139.          Mr Aitchison:  That is correct.

 

140.          Mr Campbell QC:  It would be fair to say, would it not, that that resulted from designs which were not complete?

 

141.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes; although I think you did say this was the outline planning stage.

 

142.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  I think I put it to you that the document that I showed you was an application for approval of reserved matters, but it may come later. 

 

143.          Yes, here it is EC/1/127.  You are quite right. As we can see  it is dated May 2000.  The planning issues continued, did they, right through to May 2000?

 

144.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes.

 

145.          Mr Campbell QC:  This document is an amendment to an approval already given?

 

146.          Mr Aitchison:  I think that is correct, yes.

 

147.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is that because additional designs came in? 

 

148.          Mr Aitchison:  I make that presumption, yes.  More information was coming through to enable the detailed aspects to be considered by the Council.

 

149.          Mr Campbell QC:  As far as you are concerned, though, Mr Aitchison, did the Scottish Office and subsequently the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body follow through the planning process in a regular fashion?

 

150.          Mr Aitchison:  Yes; I think so.

 

151.          Mr Campbell QC:  I would like to ask you a matter of detail; and if you cannot deal with it, then could I ask Mr Holmes?

 

152.          In relation to the Canongate: it is recorded somewhere that at the time of the Holyrood site selection, that the City of Edinburgh had firm plans to pedestrianise the Canongate.  Do you know if that is the case?

 

153.          Mr Aitchison:  I certainly do recall the first phase.  You can see further up the High Street we had a plan at that stage to try and renovate the whole of the Royal Mile, from the Castle to the Palace.  That bears the point I made earlier, I think, about the view of the Scottish Office, that they were concerned with the problem of being surrounded by traffic on three sides.  There was a lot of discussion about that, and I think, eventually we agreed that Holyrood Road would be closed.  Obviously, Horse Wynd was closed during the construction phase.  I think there is still concern about whether or not, in due course, Horse Wynd could be closed.  I will leave my technical colleagues, perhaps, to deal with that, if that is all right with Lord Fraser.

 

154.          Mr Campbell QC:  In the result, Holyrood Road has been closed, but Horse Wynd is not to be closed; is that the position?

 

155.          Mr Aitchison:  That is the current position, yes.

 

156.          Mr Campbell QC:  As far as the Canongate is concerned, are you saying that it was more than just an idea to pedestrianise the whole of the Royal Mile, or have you got further?

 

157.          Mr Aitchison:  My recollection was it was more about trying to refurbish the Royal Mile to deal with the standard of the road settings and the urban landscape, as opposed to pedestrianising the street at that particular point in its location.

 

158.          Mr Campbell QC:  So it is not perhaps right to talk about firm plans for pedestrianising the Canongate?

 

159.          Mr Aitchison:  It is not ringing major bells with me that we had a plan to pedestrianise the bottom part of the Canongate.

 

160.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you very much.

 

161.          Mr Aitchison, did you ever constitute any sort of formal joint arrangements with the Scottish Office for the evolution of the Parliament building?

 

162.          Mr Aitchison:  Post the decision of Holyrood, or before?

 

163.          Mr Campbell QC:  After the decision to select Holyrood.

 

164.          Mr Aitchison:  I did not personally do that, but I think there was a lot of contact between planning officials and those who were promoting the planning application via the parliamentary body.

 

165.          Mr Campbell QC:  I read somewhere about a joint Scottish Office/City of Edinburgh Council working group in relation to traffic management.  Do you know about that?

 

166.          Mr Aitchison:  That has been confirmed; we did have such a group, yes.

 

167.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  But you do not know if that was just for traffic or for all aspects of the development?

 

168.          Mr Aitchison:  It was primarily for traffic, I think.

 

169.          We are all kind of reading the signs wrong here.  Just to explain: I took a personal lead in the work within the Council from round about May 1997 through until a decision was taken by the Secretary of State to endorse Holyrood.  I clearly took a keen interest thereafter; but I moved from a phase where I was heavily involved as Chief Executive to much of that work being done in a technical sense.  Mr Holmes and others kept me informed from time to time on that, but a lot of the working groups were established under the auspices of Director of City Development, as opposed to my role as Council Chief Executive.

 

170.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK, I have nothing else, for the moment.  Thank you very much, Mr Aitchison.

 

171.          Mr Aitchison:  Thank you.

 

172.          Lord Fraser:  Thank you very much.  I think most of the questions, you appreciate, I would like to ask you can probably be answered by Mr Holmes, so I might ask him.

 

173.          Mr Aitchison:  We will swap seats and I can always come back if anything is still outstanding.

 

174.          Lord Fraser:  OK.

 

175.          Mr Campbell QC:  Sir, are you content that I should just go on?

 

176.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.

 

177.          Mr Campbell QC:  Good afternoon, Mr Holmes.  Thank you, also, for coming to the Inquiry; I am grateful. 

 

178.          You are Andrew Holmes; you were, I think, in 1995, Head of Corporate in the Department of City Development; and in 1999 became the Director of City Development?

 

179.          Mr Andrew:  Yes, though the first date should be 1996 — with the inception of the City Council.

 

180.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you very much for that correction.  Now, you have heard what Mr Aitchison had to say.  I do not want to take you through any of that, as it were, overview again, but I wonder if you can tell me what arrangements were put in place after the selection of Holyrood as a site for the Parliament?

 

181.          Mr Holmes:   I am not quite sure of the actual date; it may perhaps have sort of overlapped with the selection process, but we certainly formalised what had been a series of less formal relationships, and established a Holyrood Liaison Group — at which the City Council side was led by myself, the other principal member being Ian Spence, one of the senior planning managers within the Department.  That met until actually quite recently, when it stood down for a very detailed implementation role around hard engineering issues and the like.

 

182.          Mr Campbell QC:  What did the Liaison Group set out to achieve?

 

183.          Mr Holmes:  Its principal task, I think, was to recognise that for a major project of this nature, located where it was, with the various statutory processes — not just planning, but the land acquisition issues, traffic regulation issues — that we needed a regular forum between those Scottish Office, subsequently, Scottish Executive, officials, and Scottish Parliament officials now, concerned with the project, and ourselves to ensure that there were no slip-ups.

 

184.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did it just meet to consider policy issues, or did it meet to consider implementation issues?

 

185.          Mr Holmes:  Oh no, it was very much implementation-orientated: looking at, obviously, things like the timescales for acquisition of odd properties in Reid’s Close; the timescale for the stopping up of Holyrood Road; the timescales for dealing with both the core planning application and the reserved matter — all were fairly critical math issues, and it was important to keep the flow of understanding between the two parties.

 

186.          Mr Campbell QC:  Apart from yourself and Mr Spence, how many people on the City Council side have worked on this Liaison Group?

 

187.          Mr Holmes:  In terms of the liaison group, it was almost entirely confined to Mr Spence and myself, though obviously, various staff and colleagues from elsewhere within the Department and occasionally from the wider Council were consulted or might even have been occasionally involved in actual meetings.

 

188.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were the activities of this group reported back to members?

 

189.          Mr Holmes:  I think, from recollection, it may have been referred to.  But it was, essentially, a technical liaison group.  Obviously, if the group came to the conclusion, as it did, for example, that a piece of property acquisition, or a traffic regulation order was required, then that would be reported back to the appropriate decision-making body of the Council — as were, obviously, the statutory planning issues. 

 

190.          I should perhaps make one point in this, that a lot of what has gone in this is not entirely different from the approach that we would take with any major development proposal.  Holyrood, the Parliament, is a very large development proposal.  It is by no means the largest that we have had through the books in the last two or three years even.  We have had similar arrangements with other developments — perhaps not quite as formalised as this, and, obviously, not as controversial in the end product — where we felt it necessary to assist a particular development to take shape and be delivered.

 

191.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can you put that in context?  Can you give me one or two examples?

 

192.          Mr Holmes:  The development of the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters at Gogar, which is actually a larger building.  There have been similar obvious working relationships: the establishment of the new Royal Infirmary.  At a slightly different level, and perhaps less formalised, a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over the current stages of the proposals for redevelopment of the former Royal Infirmary, and in major development areas, like Leith Western Harbour and the Granton Waterfront.  There are a whole series of formal and less formal arrangements, which deal with issues of this nature.

 

193.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Well, that is helpful to just set it in context, thank you.

 

194.          Concerning the Parliament, can you outline for the Inquiry, the approach to the regular planning system which has been followed by, first the Secretary of State, then the Scottish Executive and the Parliamentary Corporate Body?

 

195.          Mr Holmes:  My understanding — and I am not a planning expert, per se — is that the notice of intention to develop procedure has been followed.  But it was equally made quite clear, I think, in our liaison meetings from the very start that the Scottish Office, and then the Executive, wanted to treat the proposal as closely as possible to a normal planning application and did not wish to be seen to be in any way taking short cuts in what was such a sensitive building in such a sensitive area.

 

196.          Mr Campbell QC:  Why do you think that was?

 

197.          Mr Holmes:  I think they recognised the importance of the building; the fact that it was located within a world heritage site; and there would obviously be considerable public interest over issues which would normally fall within the province of the Council’s Planning Committee.

 

198.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  In the main, has the request for either outline consent or approval of reserved matters, or, subsequently, amendment of approvals followed, as far as you are able to see, a regular path?

 

2.45 pm.

 

199.          Mr Holmes:  As regular a path as other developments of this size and sensitivity, yes.  Nothing, as you will perhaps be aware, will be plain sailing on a development of this size, and in a sensitive location.  But I am not aware— in fact, I can confidently state — of anything untoward, and Planning Committee at various times had concerns over features.  Features were addressed, amendments were made, similar sorts of issues were raised directly by Historic Scotland.

 

200.          Mr Campbell QC:  Has there ever been, as far as you know, an issue in relation to the planning of the Parliament site which has produced an impasse between the City and the Scottish Office/Executive?

 

201.          Mr Holmes:  Not to my knowledge.  My own planners, who have considerable experience, obviously, in dealing with sensitive sites and also things like the Queensberry House issues, together with Historic Scotland, dealing with issues around historic buildings, I think have had their differences from time to time, but they have all been resolved.  Now, I was not, and would not expect to be, personally and directly involved over the issues around Queensberry House, for example; nevertheless, a solution emerged.

 

202.          Mr Campbell QC:  And were you, in fact, involved in issues around Queensberry House?

 

203.          Mr Holmes:  No.  Planning is part of my department, along with property issues, transport and economic development.  Mr Aitchison referred to a protocol which exists, which effectively ensures that the professional integrity of the planning process is not influenced by, for example, the Council’s property considerations, and part of that protocol ensures that it is primarily the professional planners — in fact, it is entirely the professional planners — who handle individual planning applications or quasi-applications, and part of that protocol is that reports to the Planning Committee are generally signed by the Council’s Head of Planning who reports to me, rather than by myself.

 

204.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could you look at EC/1/227 please?  Can you tell me what this document is?

 

205.          Mr Holmes:  That, from memory, is what it says on the top, our own summary observations on the four sites, prepared as the views of the officers, principally myself and Ian Spence, synthesising a series of views on the four sites.

 

206.          Mr Campbell QC:  And subsequently shared with Scottish Office officials?

 

207.          Mr Holmes:  And subsequently shared with Scottish Office officials.

 

208.          Mr Campbell QC:  But not with your Members at that time?

 

209.          Mr Holmes:  No, and I think it falls into what I said earlier in terms of the way in which the professional officers of the Council involved in development and planning issues work. It is not uncommon for developments of all natures to be approached well before the submission of a planning application, sometimes even again at the site search side, and asked for private and confidential observations as to the technicalities, the fits with policy et cetera, of different development options, and these take place entirely on the basis of professional confidentiality, and I think that is understood within the statutory planning process.  That is not an uncommon attitude in local authorities.  And I think our observations on Holyrood should be seen on that basis.  They are fair, professional opinions.  It would not be normal, in terms of offering those technical observations on somebody else’s proposal, to necessarily share them with Members.

 

210.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK. Thank you.  Can we see that paragraph 2 tells us that three sites were selected, and the fourth subsequently added?  The team in the Scottish Office arranged for the work prepared by the commissioned architects and environmental consultants to be shown to you and Ian Spence to obtain preliminary comment: 

 

211. “The interchange is confidential, and these notes are for the benefit of the Scottish Office.”

 

212.          You then go on to say that, as far as you are concerned, in terms of planning and transportation, all four sites are suitable; and then, turning the page (EC/1/228), you take each site in turn.

 

213.          Would it be fair to say this is the first time we have really seen the City of Edinburgh Council, in either its official guise or its Members’ guise, expressing a view about each of the sites?

 

214.          Mr Holmes:  I think in a document, yes, it is, what you referred to before with Mr Aitchison, in terms of the three, boiled down from the 20, this is probably the first time that you have put a formal observation together in one document.  I would also say that obviously this did not come out of the blue; there would be constant dialogue and verbal observations and the like, flying backwards and forwards between the Council and the Scottish Office.  So there would be nothing which came as any surprise in terms of any of the individual observations.

 

215.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  You would have seen, I dare say, the work of the Forth Ports Authority, as it then was, and also EDI group in relation to, respectively, Leith and Calton Hill?

 

216.          Mr Holmes:  Yes.

 

217.          Mr Campbell QC:  And were you kept involved as those proposals were worked up?

 

218.          Mr Holmes:  Yes, both myself and others within the department, principally again Mr Spence, were, I think, constantly aware of the different proposals.

 

219.          Mr Campbell QC:  Given that there were proposals extant for Leith, by the Forth Ports Authority, for Calton Hill by EDI, and for Haymarket by Kantel MacDonald Orr, can you comment at all on the utility of instructing independent feasibility studies by different architects for these three sites?  Do you think that was a useful exercise?

 

220.          Mr Holmes:  I would not obviously know what would be in the minds of the Scottish Office.  I suppose it is one way of ensuring, first of all, that no individual practice is overloaded and, secondly, that you are getting a reasonable range of views, but I would not like to comment beyond that.

 

221.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Could we turn to page EC/1/231?  This is the page on Holyrood.  You say:

 

222. “Although less time has been available to date, both for the preparation of this proposal and reaction to it, initial observations lead to the conclusion that it is certainly a viable site.”

 

223.          We know from other evidence that you were informed about the inclusion of Holyrood on 16 October.  What had the City of Edinburgh Council done to assess it in the slightly less than two months since then?

 

224.          Mr Holmes:  My recollection — I think I’d have to qualify it by that, because I do not have a comprehensive file or record of every step and, as I said, it was an iterative process with the Scottish Office — is that both ourselves and, perhaps in more technical detail, the Scottish Office’s own consultants looked at some of the traffic issues.  We certainly looked at the footprint which had been developed for the Haymarket site, which was the nearest comparator, to give ourselves reasonable satisfaction that that could be accommodated on the Holyrood site, and I think that is meant to reflect the studies established that the site can comfortably accommodate the Parliament building.  We obviously looked at some of the issues in terms of townscape, views, the rest of it, and we looked at, I think, what was seen as being an important one which, for want of a better word, is establishing the suitable presence of a national Parliament site.

 

225.          Lord Fraser:  You see at the end of this first paragraph for Holyrood the last sentence is:

 

226. “Perhaps securing the site to the west of this, presently earmarked for a housing development, may be important to secure a successful overall composition of the buildings”

 

227.          Is this the Reid’s Close houses that was being talked about?

 

228.          Mr Holmes:  This is the site which, I think, was referred to at the time as the Teague Homes site, which is the development which now exists on the other side of Reid’s Close from the Parliament site.

 

229.          Lord Fraser:  So it wasn’t acquired then?

 

230.          Mr Campbell QC:  Never acquired?

 

231.          Mr Holmes:  It was not — our view was that acquiring it would have, as it says there, allowed a successful overall composition of buildings, giving you a better chance for presence.  As an observation, given the way in which the project has expanded since the start, it might have given a bit of elbow room.          

 

232.          Lord Fraser:  Sorry — I know where the Teague Homes development is.  Where is the Reid’s Close one relative to it?

 

233.          Mr Holmes:  Reid’s Close is the close which lies between the Parliament site and the Teague Homes.  The properties in Reid’s Close which Mr Aitchison referred to, and which are part of the Council minutes, were a small number of privately owned — in fact, privately owned ex-Council houses — at the northern end of Reid’s Close, which were acquired to facilitate the current site.

 

234.          Lord Fraser:  So when you wrote this paragraph, whoever wrote this paragraph, were you envisaging that those houses would fall within the greater Holyrood site or not?

 

235.          Mr Holmes:  I think at that stage there was an acceptance that those houses would probably fall within.  I could not be precise as to what point, if you like, they fell into the proposal.

 

236.          Mr Campbell QC:  I think these were flatted properties — flying freeholds, were they not?

 

237.          Mr Holmes:  I do not think they were.  I think they were a 1960s system-built linked terraced villas, from memory.

 

238.          Mr Campbell QC:  I am confusing it with something else.  You say in the third paragraph — or the author says in the third paragraph — forgive me, your name is on it so I have to ask you about it:

 

239. “Transport issues will require some consideration, but it is highly probable that the immediate street network… could be successfully adjusted if necessary.”

 

240.          Did you have the Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (SWK) traffic impact assessment by the time you wrote this?

 

241.          Mr Holmes:  I honestly cannot remember.  Again, SWK’s involvement was a constant dialogue.  I cannot recall at this point at the time that that was written whether we had it or not.  Nevertheless, whether I had or not, that would have been my assessment.

 

242.          Mr Campbell QC:  And then we see in the last paragraph that you have two basic issues:  poor location for public transport, and the need for a robust connection to Waverley and links to the airport.  So both transport issues, as far as you are concerned.

 

243.          Mr Holmes:  Both of those are part of the transport issues.

 

244.          Mr Campbell QC:  And this report does not attempt, does it, to deal with any difficult issues like historical concept, or integrity of existing listed buildings, or proximity to the Palace, or anything of that sort?

 

245.          Mr Holmes:  No.  I think if you go back to the first points that are in there, I think the planning sieve that had been applied had, I think, satisfied itself.  As it says:

 

246. “The studies can establish the site could comfortably accommodate the Parliament building and further design development can lead to a site-sensitive form… in creating the possibility for the areas round about to become a major environmental asset … appropriate setting.”

 

247.          That is, in your own words, I suppose a rather terse synthesisation of the fact that we collectively felt a solution could be found which addressed the points you have just made.

 

248.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can I take it, Mr Holmes, that in writing this on 12 December you did not have the benefit of a sight of the RMJM feasibility study of Holyrood?

 

249.          Mr Holmes:  I would be surprised if one of those involved in the process in the Council had not seen it.  I do not think there was any question throughout the process of the Scottish Office or its technical consultants keeping anything back from us that would have assisted in our own deliberations, but I cannot honestly remember.

 

250.          Mr Campbell QC:  You cannot remember.  It is a slightly unfair question, because we have learned that it was formally instructed on 11 December, which is the day before the minute, although there clearly were conversations before that.  Can I just show you, to see if it jogs your memory — this is not scanned, this document — that feasibility study?  If you do not recall it, then perhaps you would just tell me that.

 

251.          Mr Holmes:  I cannot honestly recall having seen it.

 

252.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.  Would it be fair to suppose that the bulk of the work reflected in this document was carried out by Mr Spence, or fed in to Mr Spence first?

 

253.          Mr Holmes:  Anything to do with the planning sensitivities of the site would have been run past Mr Spence.  We decided at a very early stage that he was the key planning — and has remained the key planning — management contact within the City Council.

 

254.          Mr Campbell QC:  Have you remained involved with such executive responsibilities as are necessary to assist with the implementation of the building?  Up to now?

 

255.          Mr Holmes:  Within the Council, yes.

 

256.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you so much; I am much obliged to you.

 

257.          Lord Fraser:  From your sort of body language when I was asking questions earlier, I think you might be able to help me about this, Mr Holmes, more than Mr Aitchison was able to. 

 

258.          My understanding of the progress of this was:  very early on, when you were pursuing your Members’ objective, that your officials should offer every possible support to Scottish Office officials about a selection of a site in Edinburgh, because having the Parliament in Edinburgh was their top priority.  That you looked at what was described in the document as “Holyrood Brewery”, is that right?

 

259.          Mr Holmes:  Yes.

 

3.00 pm.

 

260.          Lord Fraser: Now, my understanding is your first look at that led you, and then in turn Scottish Office officials, to reject that because it was too confined.

 

261.          Mr Holmes:  The site, which was referred to as “the brewery” at that time was a confined site. From memory it certainly did not include Queensberry House, and it may even have assumed that at that time some of the office buildings fronting Horse Wynd may not be available.

 

262.          Lord Fraser:  I cannot point you to it but I am fairly confident that at one point what happened was there was a suggestion from some quarter — I am not necessarily saying it was the City of Edinburgh Council — that there might be a question mark over Dynamic Earth access to the funding that it required, and if the Dynamic Earth area was added to the Holyrood Brewery that might be sufficient, but pursuit of that stopped because Dynamic Earth did indeed get its funding, and so the question of that bit of the site being added to the Holyrood Brewery was a non-runner.

 

263.          Mr Holmes:  I do not honestly remember there being any serious discussion around that as an issue. The master plan for the wider Holyrood area pre-dated this particular period by some time. There had been a lot of work undertaken in planning, and there may well have been a discussion around this. I do not recall it as being any significant part of the evaluation of alternative sites.

 

264.          Lord Fraser:  And as I understand it, while it would appear that in fact Scottish & Newcastle as a company had probably acquired Queensberry House and its garden prior to the time that first examination of the Holyrood Brewery site was undertaken, that was a fact unknown to those who were looking at the Holyrood Brewery site as a potential site.

 

265.          Mr Holmes:  That is my understanding.

 

266.          Lord Fraser:  And it is only subsequently, sometime in October — when you get advised that what is being proposed to us is not just the Holyrood Brewery site, as you would have described it, but the addition of Queensberry House and its garden — that for the first time you see a site of sufficient size to make it viable?

 

267.          Mr Holmes:  Yes. I think what was presented to us in due course was also something that made it absolutely clear that Scottish & Newcastle, as it then was, would have been vacating the site in its entirety. So you had the entire site from Horse Wynd to Reid’s Close including Queensberry House as an option, and I think it also became clear at a fairly early stage that the aspiration was to include within the wider site, certainly in terms of the setting, both the fronted section of Holyrood Road and ideally Horse Wynd as well. So I think we were always viewing it in that particular context.

 

268.          Lord Fraser:  And that site, which is now developed by Teague Homes — do I understand this correctly, that your view is that that would have added elbow room — I think was the terminology you used — to the site and the development of the Parliament on the site, but it was not a critical inclusion?

 

269.          Mr Holmes:  It was not a critical inclusion. I think it would have given you more scope in terms of creating the setting because I think we will have a Parliament which has a very fine setting on some sides, but I do not think anybody would claim that the setting is necessarily world-beating on that particular side. So there would have been an opportunity for more presence rather than at that stage more building.

 

270.          Lord Fraser:  Yes, because the windows on this — I am not sure of my directions here — but the windows from the MSPs’ building, which overlook the Teague homes, they are really pretty close together.

 

271.          Mr Holmes:  They are, but I am not sure how much of that related to the original concept of a Parliament building at a particular size and how much relates to the changes in concept and size which occurred following that decision point.

 

272.          Lord Fraser:  As Director of City Development, which includes planning, have you had any criticism from residents in that Teague Homes block about the proximity of the MSPs’ buildings to their homes?

 

273.          Mr Holmes:  I cannot recall seeing anything. There may well have been, but if it had been of any significance or significant numbers I would have expected to see it. In one context it is part of old-town living having somebody across the close within a short distance.

 

274.          Lord Fraser:  But given the proximity of the MSPs’ building and those famous windows and the Teague building, it is perhaps not surprising that there may have been one or more criticisms of that.

 

275.          Mr Holmes:  There may have been. It is not all a downside. At least the residents of that Teague block are going to have the best residential security of anywhere in that part of the city.

 

276.          Lord Fraser:  That is true.

 

277.          Could I invite you to look to SE/2/998? Could you scroll down to the bottom of the page please? The last paragraph says… this is from you to Mr Alistair Brown, dated 31 December 1997. Now, you say at the bottom of that page:

 

278. “I appreciate that the above may not be helpful in terms of maximising the attractiveness of the Holyrood site. In particular, the presence of significant traffic volumes quite clearly diminishes both the immediate setting and the opportunities to use as public space the former sportsground opposite the site.”

 

279.          There might be a suggestion that you are being led to a certain conclusion and you are having to remark reluctantly you cannot give it quite the support that you would like to?

 

280.          Mr Holmes:  I think I had made it clear from an early stage that I could not see that it was going to be easy to satisfy what I had understood to be part of the aspiration for the Holyrood site, which was to create a virtually traffic-free precinct. Our view was that Holyrood Road could be closed, it has been closed, and I think — Horse Wynd construction works apart — the traffic diversion works reasonably well. The bottom end of the Canongate — we have longer term proposals. We do not have the money, which I suppose turns it into a plan for major traffic calming and environmental upgrading. Horse Wynd has a major traffic function in that part of the city, and I did not feel able to commit myself, which was what those concerned with the project I think at all levels wanted, to a complete closure of Horse Wynd or see any feasible way of a local diversion of traffic.

 

281.          Lord Fraser:  Well, having taken you to the foot of page SE/2/998, can I invite you to look to the next page and your final comment there which is:

 

282. “I can only reiterate what I earlier indicated, that if this site is selected every effort would be made to reduce local traffic in the vicinity of the site. At present however, I do not feel able to guarantee success.”

 

283.          Is that a summary of your concerns at the time?

 

284.          Mr Holmes:  Yes.

 

285.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could I ask you just to place on record the date of that memorandum?

 

286.          Lord Fraser:  I think I said it was 31 December 1997.

 

287.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.

 

288.          Lord Fraser:  This is written, sent off by you on 31 December then?

 

289.          Mr Holmes:  Yes.

 

290.          Lord Fraser:  Thank you very much, then, Mr Holmes.

 

291.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you, Mr Holmes, much obliged. Sir, we have achieved four witnesses today. I am sorry to say that nobody else is programmed today and, although it is only 3.10 pm, I am sure you will understand there is a great deal of work to do in preparation for tomorrow. Accordingly, can I invite you to adjourn?

 

292.          Lord Fraser:  Yes. Thank you Mr Campbell. We have got through four witnesses today. I cannot say we complain if we have got through them quicker than we anticipated, but I am most grateful for the evidence that has been given. It has been helpful to the Inquiry, and I think a rate of four per day is really quite acceptable in anyone’s books, and we will then adjourn till 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. Thank you very much.

 

Hearing adjourned at 3.09 pm.