Record of Decision

Record of Decision under Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

The Scottish Ministers have considered whether to carry out works to widen the existing M9/A9 Edinburgh – Stirling-Thurso Trunk Road between Crubenmore and Kincraig to dual the carriageway throughout its 16.5 km length (hereafter referred to as the Project).

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken for this Project.

In making this decision the Scottish Ministers have taken into consideration:

a) The Environmental Statement (ES) for this Project published on 4 September 2018;

b) Representations by consultation bodies and other persons, including objections, made to the ES and draft Orders during the six-week statutory consultation period following the draft Order publication commencing on 4 September 2018 and closing on 16 October 2018; and

c) The evidence presented to the Public Local Inquiry (PLI) for the Project to consider the extant objections, and the Reporter’s conclusions and recommendations as set out in Chapter 4 of the Inquiry Report dated 26 April 2021.

d) The project did not appear to the Scottish Ministers to be likely to have a significant effect on an EEA State and no EEA State indicated a wish to participate in the EIA procedure.

Description of the Project

The Project is located on the existing A9 trunk road and comprises of generally on-line widening to create a high-quality dual carriageway along approximately 16.5 km of the A9 between Crubenmore and Kincraig, replacing the existing single carriageway road.

The Project will incorporate:

• two grade separated junctions at Newtonmore and Kingussie
• three left in-left out junctions at Ralia, Nuide and Balavil
• replacement of 12 principal structures (including the River Spey Crossing and crossing of the Highland Mainline railway)
• local diversions and the provision of new private means of access
• retaining walls and earthworks to enable the road widening
• utility diversions

In December 2011, the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment announced the Scottish Government’s commitment to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025, identified as a strategic priority for Scotland via the 2011 Infrastructure and Investment Plan (IIP); this commitment was reaffirmed in the 2015 and 2021 IIPs.

The A9 Dualling Programme Objectives set by Transport Scotland are:

1. To improve the operational performance of the A9 by:

Reducing journey times; and

Improving journey time reliability.

2. To improve safety for motorised and non-motorised users by:

Reducing accident severity; and

Reducing driver stress.

3. Facilitate active travel in the corridor; and

4. To improve integration with public transport facilities.

The design and assessment of the Project was progressed through Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Stage 2 (route option assessment) taking into account the commitments outlined in the IIP. A preferred route option was announced in March 2017.

In accordance with the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, as it was in force at that time, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening exercise was undertaken in March 2017, determining that the project fell within the Annex 1 of Council Directive No. 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive No. 97/11/EC and Council Directive No. 2003/35/EC. It was therefore necessary to conduct an EIA and publish an ES.

Annex 1 set out the categories of large-scale development that requires to be supported by an EIA. This included the realignment and/or widening of an existing road of two lanes or less so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new road would be 10 kilometres or more in continuous length. As the proposed scheme is approximately 16.5 kilometres in length, including tie-ins, it required to be subject to an EIA.

The outcome of the screening exercise was set out in a Record of Determination published by Transport Scotland on 14 March 2017 and the preferred route option for the Project identified at DMRB Stage 2 has since been developed and assessed through DMRB Stage 3. Whilst the EIA provisions in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (the 1984 Act) relevant to trunk road projects in Scotland were amended in May 2017, the Project was subject to EIA scoping procedures and determination prior to the relevant transitional date of the amending legislation of 16 May 2017, and the EIA was therefore undertaken in accordance with the previous provisions of the 1984 Act.

An ES was published on 4 September 2018 along with draft Orders for the Project.

Decision

On 17 January 2022 the Scottish Ministers decided to proceed with the Project and that the following Orders will be made for the A9 Dualling – Crubenmore to Kincraig Project, subject to certain modifications detailed below:

1. The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) Compulsory Purchase Order 2024
2. The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Trunking) Order 2024
3. The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Side Roads) Order 2024
4. The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Extinguishment of Public Rights of Way) Order 2024.

Considerations and Reasons for Decision

In making the decision to proceed with this Project and make orders the Scottish Ministers took account of the following material considerations;

The Project is part of the wider Scottish Government commitment, the A9 Dualling Programme, to upgrade the A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness to dual carriageway standard. The Scottish Ministers, as trunk road authority in terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, have a duty to keep under review the management and maintenance of the trunk road network in Scotland, ensuring the provision of a safe and efficient national network of roads. The existing A9 between Perth and Inverness comprises primarily of sections of single carriageway interspersed with wide single (2+1) and dual carriageways. The route is subject to a number of constraints that adversely affect traffic conditions and safety, resulting in a high proportion of severe accidents due to driver frustration and the lack of safe overtaking opportunities.

Transport Scotland have identified that the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness would provide a number of opportunities and benefits for businesses, travellers and local communities. In particular A9 Dualling Programme would:

• provide economic benefits to the food and drink, tourism, energy, life sciences and forestry industries;
• reduce journey times between Perth and Inverness by approximately 20 minutes, which would benefit businesses and road users and deliver wider economic benefits;
• improve journey time reliability, enabling road users and businesses to plan predictable trips;
• contribute to local economic performance through improved access to markets, reduced need for stockpiling and better productivity;
• make the surrounding areas more attractive as short-term tourism destinations;
• provide drivers with safe, consistent and reliable driving conditions and lead to improved route resilience and reduce delays during incidents and adverse weather;
• reduce and largely eliminate the conditions that currently lead to high levels of driver stress and frustration;
• offer the opportunity to improve Non-Motorised User (NMU) facilities; and
• contribute to the completion of the dual carriageway network between all of Scotland’s cities.

In relation to the Project, key issues affecting the Project between Crubenmore and Kincraig are:

• delays due to conflicting demand and interest of road users resulting in increased driver stress;
• a lack of safe overtaking opportunities giving potential for serious accidents; and
• driver stress caused by frustration, fear of potential accidents and uncertainty relating to the route being followed, particularly evident during holiday periods where traffic levels are increased and there are a significant number of road users unfamiliar with the route.

Support for the A9 Dualling Programme between Perth and Inverness is expressed in national planning, transport and economic policy and supported by ministerial commitments. These include the A9 Route Action Plan and Route Strategy (1997); Route Improvement Strategy Study (2004); Strategic Transport Projects Review Final Report (2009); Infrastructure Investment Plan (2011); National Planning Framework 3 (2014); Scotland's Economic Strategy (2015); A9 Dualling: Case for Investment (2016); and National Transport Strategy (2016).

Dualling of the A9 would create safe, consistent and reliable driving conditions, alleviate driver frustration and contribute to a reduction in the high incidence of serious and fatal road accidents. It would also benefit national and local businesses, local communities, and tourists by providing improved access locally and between the Central Belt and the Scottish Highlands. The Project would also deliver improved integration of public transport and infrastructure for non-motorised users.

The Reporter was satisfied that the Project is integral to delivering the overall benefits of the A9 Dualling Programme and without the Project the benefits described above would not be fully realised and the A9 Dualling Programme diminished.

The route alignment of the Project has been chosen after careful consideration of its environmental impacts; which are fully described in the ES and which the Reporter concluded has been prepared in accord with the requirements of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, relevant guidance and good practice and that the environmental effects have been thoroughly considered and the assessment process robust. The Reporter was also satisfied that Transport Scotland made strenuous efforts to minimise the impacts of the proposed scheme on public bodies and private interests; which is reflected in the proposed modified draft Compulsory Purchase Order and draft Side Roads Order.

There is a need for the Project; the land identified in the draft Compulsory Purchase order is required to deliver and operate the Project; the Compulsory Purchase Order is necessary and justified; the draft Orders as a whole are necessary to achieve delivery of the proposed scheme; modifications to the draft Compulsory Purchase Order and draft Side Roads Order reflect discussions with Objectors and other parties affected by the Project; and an Appropriate Assessment has been completed under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended and this has concluded that the proposed Project would not result in an adverse effect on site integrity on the River Spey SAC, Insh Marshes SAC, River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA and River Spey – Insh Marshes Ramsar.

The Scottish Ministers have carefully considered and accepted in their entirety the findings, reasoned conclusions and recommendations contained in the Reporters Report to Scottish Ministers, in addition to the conclusion of the ES, and have decided the Orders should be made with modifications to the draft Side Roads Order and Compulsory Purchase Order as detailed below, in order to create a high-quality dual carriageway along approximately 16.5 km of the A9 between Crubenmore and Kincraig.

• The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) Compulsory Purchase Order 2024, including agreed modifications to plots 136, 518, 627,716, 720, 732, 801, 810, 816, 841 and the removal of plots 626, 731, 823, 829 and 842;
• The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Trunking) Order 2024;
• The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Side Roads) Order 2024, including agreed modifications to plan SR8 which removes plots 220 and 271; and
• The A9 Trunk Road (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Extinguishment of Public Rights of Way) Order 2024.

Public participation in decision making

To ensure that the public had the opportunity to participate in the decision-making procedures, arrangements included landowner consultation throughout the assessment process which informed the Project design, public exhibitions in Newtonmore and Kingussie, and exhibition materials including fly-through videos on the Project’s Community Engagement section of Transport Scotland website.

Information gathered through landowner consultation has also been utilised in the land use assessment in Chapter 8 of the ES (People and Communities: Community and Private Assets). The assessment work for the proposed Project also included a rolling programme of regular engagement with local communities and other stakeholders, which started with public exhibitions held in November 2015. The route option assessment (DMRB Stage 2 assessment) culminated in public exhibitions in April 2018 to present the preferred route option for the Crubenmore to Kincraig – A9 Dualling Project.

Section 9 (Consultation) of this report includes details of consultations undertaken during design development of the Project and during periods of statutory consultation. Section 9 also details how public participation was facilitated through the PLI.

Objections received from affected parties including members of the public and businesses were in some instances able to be resolved and objections were withdrawn. In other cases, objections remained extant at the time of the PLI and were considered by the Reporter.

Table 1 below lists the parties from whom objections were received and Table 2 lists parties who submitted representations.

Objections

• 001 Hon. MJ Samuel & Phoines Estate
• 002 Network Rail
• 003 The Highland Council
• 004 Ralia Estate
• 005 Ruthven Farm – Thomas Hone
• 006 Mr David and Mrs Ivy Morris
• 007 RSPB
• 008 Church of Scotland
• 009 John Mackintosh
• 010 Balavil Estate
• 011 RZSS
• 012 Iain Brodie
• 013 Matthew and Vicky Smith
• 014 Archie Slimon
• 015 Judy Buckingham
• 016 Julian Buckingham
• 017 David Lyle
• 018 Mr and Mrs Clark
• 060 Mr Veen
• 019 Helen Skuodas
• 020 David Lintern
• 021 Paul Blomfield
• 022 Fiona Aungier
• 023 Sarah Ford Hutchinson
• 024 Guy Johnson
• 025 Meike Schmidt
• 026 Diane Gemmell
• 027 Aileen Henderson
• 028 Anne Lumgair
• 029 Stephen Ballard
• 030 Janet Brinklow
• 031 Chris Allan
• 032 Kate Johnston
• 033 Rahila Hirani
• 034 David and Linda Harrison
• 035 Anne Honeyman
• 036 Karen Williams
• 037 Marian Antram
• 038 Graham Whitaker
• 039 Peter Gordon
• 040 Anne Chisholm
• 041 Fiona Whitton
• 042 Elaine Ingram
• 043 Alexander Smart
• 044 Margaret Renstead
• 045 Barbara Holligan
• 046 Moira Deakin
• 047 Jo Kinghorn
• 048 J Shoosmith
• 049 Mr D Jackson & E Callaway-Bond
• 050 Rev Richard Clement
• 051 Mike Holland
• 052 Marlies and Ronald McLean
• 053 Marie-Anne Durham
• 054 Joyce Brown
• 055 Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group
• 056 Maureen Carracher
• 057 Maxwell and Susan Pittman
• 058 Ann Wood
• 059 Jenny Graydon

Representations

• Historic Environment Scotland
• Scottish Natural Heritage (now NatureScot)
• Cairngorms National Park Authority*
• SEPA
• Atkins Global (Vodafone)
• Crown Estate Scotland (GIS)
• Mercury Communication
• Telefonica and Vodafone
• The Highland Council (Planning and Environment - Access Officer)
• The Highland Council (Development and Infrastructure Service)
• Cycle Friendly Kingussie
• Rights of Way and Access Society (ScotWays)
• National Grid
• Kingussie Community Development Company
• Mr & Mrs Briddon
• Aileen Fox
• David Pierce
• Chris Taylor

Summary of the Environmental Assessment in ES

As noted above in this Record of Decision, an Environmental Statement for this Project was published on 4 September 2018.

The ES Chapter 22 (Summary of Significant Residual Impacts) details the residual impacts (Tables 22-1 and 22-2) that have been assessed to arise from construction and operation of the Project and are considered to be significant.

The assessment of environmental factors reported in the ES found that there were no significant adverse residual effects for:

• Effects on All Travellers (Chapter 9);
• Road Drainage and the Water Environment (Chapter 11);
• Cultural Heritage (Chapter 15);
• Air Quality (Chapter 16);
• Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17); and
• Materials (Chapter 18).

As identified in Chapter 22 Table 22-1 of the ES, significant residual effects (adverse) are assessed for:

• Community and Private Assets (Chapter 8);
• Geology, Soils and Groundwater (Chapter 9);
• Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 10);
• Landscape (Chapter 13); and
• Visual (Chapter 14).

Potential adverse cumulative impacts are reported in the chapter on Cumulative Impacts (Chapter 20).

As identified in Chapter 22 Table 22-2 of the ES, residual significant (beneficial) effects are predicted in relation to:

• Road Drainage and the Water Environment (Chapter 11);
• Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 12); and
• Cumulative Impacts (Chapter 20).

No other significant adverse or beneficial effects are predicted or reported in the ES as a result of the Project.

Chapter 22 (Summary of Significant Residual Impacts) Table 22-1 of the ES, predicted significant residual impacts (adverse) in relation to:

• Land-take and accessibility impacts on residential land and property; development land; and agricultural, forestry and sporting interests as reported in Chapter 8 (People and Communities, Community and Private Assets).
• Groundwater levels and flows in the vicinity of some larger areas of widening and cuttings as reported in Chapter 10 (Geology, Soils, Contaminated Land and Groundwater).
• Loss of 10.78 ha of habitat designated as ancient woodland as reported in Chapter 12 (Ecology and Nature Conservation).
• Impacts on the local landscape character at Ralia and Insh Marshes as reported in Chapter 13 (Landscape).
• Impacts from viewpoints for visitors to Ruthven Barracks and users of farm and properties on B970 to the east of Ruthven and for residents of Knappach Cottage as reported in Chapter 14 (Visual).
• Type 1 (intra-project) cumulative impacts on Ralia Estate, Balavil Estate, Knappach Cottage, Mains of Balavil and RSPB land as reported in Chapter 20 (Cumulative Impacts).
• Type 2 (inter-project) cumulative impacts on Kerrow Cottage and Ancient Woodland as reported in Chapter 20 (Cumulative Impacts).

The policy assessment conducted as part of the EIA process considered the proposed Project’s compliance with national and local policy as reported in ES Chapter 19 (Policies and Plans) and Appendix 19.1 (Policy Compliance). This assessment concludes that there is limited conflict with policies and plans in relation to the Project, with the only conflict identified in relation to noise mitigation and where the installation of noise barriers is not feasible at certain locations. This is in conflict with Policy 3 of the Cairngorm National Park Local Development Plan. In terms of potential impacts on protected resources such as ecological features and also physical infrastructures, such as heritage assets, a range of appropriate additional specific and general mitigation will be incorporated into both the construction and operational phases of the Project. A schedule of committed mitigation measures can be found in Chapter 21, and these mitigation measures will be location specific to ensure compliance with a range of relevant policies.

It is noted, however, that potential policy non-compliance should be balanced against the overarching benefits of the proposed Project such as improving connectivity, enhancing safety for all users, and promoting social and regional economic opportunities. These benefits reflect the spatial strategies set out in Cairngorms National Park and The Highland Council’s respective Local Development Plans.

The Reporter, in Chapter 2 of his report, has summarised and considered the predicted environmental effects of the Project as reported in the ES and in doing so has also considered the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures, particularly those required to alleviate the concerns of Objectors. Despite some criticism from Objectors that the ES is inadequate, the Reporter considers that the environmental effects of the Project have been thoroughly assessed in accord with all relevant regulations, guidance and good practice. The Reporter specifically states that he is satisfied that the ES has been prepared in accord with the requirements of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, relevant guidance and good practice, that the environmental effects have been thoroughly considered and the assessment process is robust.

Other Information

The Project has the potential to affect the habitats of protected species, including European Protected Species (EPS). NatureScot have confirmed that Transport Scotland will need to apply for the relevant permits and licences with regards to any protected species affected by the Project.

The environmental mitigation measures detailed in Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) of the ES include that the contractor will prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that will include, but not be limited to, subsidiary plans relating to: agricultural soils, geology and land contamination; surface water and groundwater (including a Flood Response and Pollution Incident Response Plan); ecology (including specific Species and Habitat Management Plans); landscape, cultural heritage, air quality and noise and vibration.

Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) of the ES also states that an Environmental Coordinator and team of suitably qualified Environmental Clerk of Works (EnvCoW) (i.e., professionally qualified in a relevant environmental discipline) will be appointed by the Contractor. The EnvCoW(s) will report to the Environmental Coordinator and be present on site, as required, during the construction period to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures identified and ensure that activities are carried out in such a manner to prevent or reduce impacts on the environment.

Compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has been assessed under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (as amended) (CAR) (Scottish Government, 2013) and regulated through the CAR licencing process with SEPA.

Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) of the ES states that in relation to authorisations under CAR, the Contractor will be required to provide a detailed Construction Method Statement which will include proposed mitigation measures for specific activities including any requirements identified through the pre-CAR application consultation process.

No marine licensable activities are associated with the proposed Project.

No listed building consents are associated with the proposed Project.

No scheduled monument consents are associated with the Project.

Habitats Regulations Appraisal

A Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) screening was undertaken which determined that the proposed Project had potential to result in ‘likely significant effects’ on the qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites. It concluded the need for an appropriate assessment and that various mitigation measures could resolve the likely significant effects. Scottish Natural Heritage (now NatureScot) accepted and agreed with these conclusions.

The Scottish Ministers have carried out an Appropriate Assessment under the terms of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994, as amended. The Appropriate Assessment concluded on 24 April 2020 that the proposed Project would not result in an adverse effect on site integrity on the River Spey SAC, Insh Marshes SAC, River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA and River Spey – Insh Marshes Ramsar.

Results of Consultation and information gathered

During the preparation of the ES, consultation activities were undertaken with statutory consultees, other relevant bodies/organisations, and members of the public. Chapter 7 (Consultation) of the ES details the consultation undertaken.

The A9 Dualling Programme Environmental Steering Group (ESG), was established in 2014 and formed of representatives from NatureScot, Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA), Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) and The Highland Council (THC). The ESG provided feedback throughout the route selection and EIA process. A summary of the key issues raised and how these have been taken into account is provided in the ES, Appendix A7.1 (Response to ESG DMRB Stage 2 Consultation Comments) with Table 7.11 specifically describing how the ESG comments received have been addressed and informed the Project design process and preparation of the DMRB Stage 3 assessments. The ESG continue to meet on a regular basis.

Notices in respect of the ES, draft Compulsory Purchase Orders, Trunking and Side Roads Orders and Extinguishment of Public Rights of Way Order were published in the Edinburgh Gazette on 4 September 2018 and are available on the Transport Scotland website. These notices intimated a statutory consultation period of six weeks ending on 16 October 2018.

The notice included the following:

• that the Scottish Ministers, as the relevant roads authority, were considering implementing the project;
• the proposed location and nature of the project;
• that the project was subject to EIA;
• that a copy of the ES was available for viewing on the Transport Scotland website and other local locations;
• that copies of the ES could be obtained by writing to Transport Scotland at a charge of £150 for a hard copy or £10 for the DVD format. Requests for further information about the project could be sent to Transport Scotland;
• that any person wishing to make representations about the project and the EIA could have done so by email to Transport Scotland stating the title of the scheme and the grounds of objection and that any such notice must have been received on or before 16 October 2018; and
• that the Scottish Ministers would take into consideration any representations so made before deciding whether or not to proceed with the project with or without modifications.

Publication Exhibitions for the A9 Dualling Crubenmore to Kincraig project to support the publication of the ES and the Draft Orders were held in Newtonmore Village Hall on Wednesday 3 and Thursday 4 October 2018. The information presented at the public exhibitions can be viewed at the A9 Crubenmore to Kincraig Community Engagement section of the Transport Scotland website.

A total of 13 statutory objections and 47 non-statutory objections to the Project together with 18 representations were received. Not all of these objections were able to be resolved and arrangements were made for a Public Local Inquiry.

A pre-inquiry meeting was held on 29 October 2020 to consider the arrangements and procedures for the inquiry. At this time, there were eight statutory and 41 non-statutory objections that had not been withdrawn. Information and associated Public Local Inquiry documents can be accessed at DPEA - PLI Documents

Of these, 39 objections related to the effects of the proposed scheme on the Insh Marshes; a statutory objection from the RSPB, and 38 non-statutory objections in support of its position. The RSPB indicated that it wished to participate in an inquiry. None of the non-statutory objectors indicated that they wished to take part in the inquiry. Accordingly, an inquiry session was scheduled to take place on 1 March 2021. The RSPB subsequently withdrew its objection in full on 24 December 2020. This negated the need for any oral procedure. In light of the RSPB’s withdrawal of its objection, 19 of its supporters subsequently withdrew their objections.

As none of the remaining objectors expressed a wish to participate in the inquiry process, and neither did they participate in the pre-inquiry meeting held in October 2020, the Reporter considered that their original written submissions had not been withdrawn. The Reporter considered 27 extant objections to the Project; six statutory objections and 21 non-statutory objections, 18 of which relate to the proposed scheme’s effects on the Insh Marshes.

The Reporter granted Transport Scotland’s request to be permitted to submit further written submissions in relation to extant objections in order to set out its position and provide an update on progress to resolve the objections, in part or full, and Transport Scotland submitted written statements on 18 January 2021 and 15 February 2021.

The Reporter in Chapter 4 (Reporter’s Conclusions and Recommendation) of his Report to Scottish Ministers states that the Project route alignment had been chosen after careful consideration of its environmental impacts which are fully described in the ES. In the design development of the proposed scheme, the Reporter concludes that Transport Scotland had engaged with statutory consultees and the RSPB to address potential adverse impacts on the River Spey and Insh Marshes National Nature Reserve.

The Reporter also found it noteworthy in consideration of the extent of objections to the proposed scheme that statutory consultees, namely, NatureScot; SEPA; Historic Environment Scotland; and Cairngorms National Park Authority, did not object to the Project. The Reporter also noted the position of the RSPB, which initially objected to the proposed scheme but, following detailed discussions with Transport Scotland, withdrew its objection subject to agreed modifications. The objection from The Highland Council was also withdrawn after concluding a Minute of Agreement with Transport Scotland.

The Reporter found that the evidence lodged by Transport Scotland, including correspondence with objectors, demonstrated that Transport Scotland made strenuous efforts to minimise the impacts of the Project on public bodies and private interests and that this was reflected in the proposed modified draft Compulsory Purchase Order and draft Side Roads Order.

A summary of the consultation efforts with The Highland Council and the RSPB following publication of the ES, and how objections been resolved, is provided below.

i. The Highland Council

The Highland Council submitted a statutory objection to the Project on 4 October 2018. Key concerns related to the proposed changing roles of local roads including Glentruim, Raliabeag and Ralia-Nuide Farm Roads and the overall impact on traffic and the community during the construction phase of the Project.

The Highland Council also stated their position that the new bridge crossing the Highland Main Line railway should be part of the railway infrastructure and not an asset burden for the Highland Council.

Following ongoing discussion, and further consultation and design development, a Minute of Agreement between The Highland Council and Transport Scotland was concluded on 6 October 2020 and The Highland Council subsequently removed their objection to the Project.

ii. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

The RSPB submitted a statutory objection to the Project on 15 October 2018. The points of objection were complex and extensive and focussed on key factors including impacts on the visitor experience at Insh Marshes National Nature Reserve (NNR), management of the Reserve, excessive land acquisition for temporary and permanent works, which included land required for drainage purposes. Also, excessive environmental impacts of the Project on the Reserve habitats and wildlife were a major element to the objection.

Following extensive discussions and negotiation between Transport Scotland and the RSPB a detailed Undertaking was agreed, and the RSPB withdrew their objection to the Project on 24 December 2020. The Undertaking included commitments to develop and implement additional mitigation measures and species protection plans as well as a commitment from Transport Scotland to continue to work closely with the RSPB to ensure that the measures agreed are effectively planned and implemented in the lead up to, during and after the construction of the Project.

The following sections detail how public participation in the decision making for the Project has been undertaken.

i. Objections Resolved and Withdrawn

• Phoines Estate Partnership: A statutory objection to the Project was submitted on 16 October 2018. The objection related to the Compulsory Purchase Order, land take and the EIA. Transport Scotland responded to the matters of objection, and in consultation with the Estate an Undertaking was concluded which commits to reasonably consider access and management issues as well as an offer to return surplus land and provide servitude rights of access to the Estate following construction of the Project. Phoines Estate withdrew their objection to the Project on 28 November 2019.
• Network Rail Infrastructure Limited: A statutory objection to the Project was submitted on 16 October 2018. The objection related to adverse effects on operational railway land and servitude rights on/over/under the railway being acquired without full internal Network Rail consultations being undertaken. Following further discussion and conclusion of Network Rail internal processes, an agreement was concluded with Network Rail and their objection to the Project was withdrawn on 23 August 2020.
• Alasdair Findlay, James Findlay, Alasdair Findlay and the Trustees of the Eira Drysdale Trust (Ralia): A statutory objection to the Project was submitted on the 12 October 2018. The objection related to access, tree removal that will result in visual, noise, light and dust impacts on Ralia Lodge and associated land take connected to proposed project for environmental mitigation (woodland planting). Other specific issues related to consultation, disruption during construction and general impact on estate operations. Following further discussion and design development, Undertakings and Agreements were concluded, and the objection was withdrawn on 21 September 2020.
• David Morris and the Executors of Ivy Morris: A statutory objection was submitted on the 01 October 2018 and related to land acquisition, excessive permanent land take, loss of woodland and access and disruption during construction. Further discussion and explanation of the need for land acquisition was completed and an Undertaking was concluded, resulting in the withdrawal of the objection on 28 July 2020.
• Church of Scotland General Trustees: A statutory objection was submitted by The Church of Scotland on 16 October 2018. The objection related to access, drainage, land-take and the impact of the land-take on future land use following construction of the Project. Transport Scotland provided explanation and clarifications of the matters raised and agreed Heads of Terms on the voluntary purchase of land. The Church of Scotland withdrew their objection on 6 November 2020.
• Balavil Estate Limited and Balavil Estate Services Limited: A statutory objection was submitted on 09 October 2018. The objection related to excessive land take, content of side roads order, drainage, construction impacts, Estate access, impact on Balavil House, design of mitigation planting of native woodland, loss of business during construction and other miscellaneous matters. Following extensive negotiations and design development, an Undertaking was concluded with Balavil Estate Limited and Balavil Estate Services Limited, and the objection was withdrawn on 10 December 2020.
• Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS): RZSS submitted a statutory objection on 15 October 2018. The objection related to land take, access to the Highland Wildlife Park, the need for improvement of access into the park, the introduction of a new means of access to an adjacent private property and that this would have impacts on animal health and welfare, disease control and biosecurity. Through further negotiations and Transport Scotland’s commitment to secure input from zoological specialists to quantify impacts, an Undertaking was concluded with RZSS, and the objection was withdrawn on 28 October 2020.
• David Lyle: An objection was submitted on the 22 September 2018. The objection related to the lack of provision for walkers using the ‘General Wade’s Military Road’ where a safe crossing point at Crubenbeg/Etteridge had not been provided during previous dualling works on the A9. Transport Scotland provided a response to confirm the area in question was outwith the remit of the Project and provided an update about potential future work in the area in question. Mr Lyle withdrew his objection on 10 September 2019.

ii. Extant Objection: Thomas Nathaniel Hone (Ruthven Farm)

A statutory objection was submitted on the 16 October 2018 and related to severance affecting farming viability, areas of land identified for woodland planting, servitude arrangements and government policy. Further correspondence between Transport Scotland and the Objector relating to access arrangements, a reduction in land take, explanation of design decisions and mitigation during construction enabled the Objector’s agent to confirm that there were no significant issues to be resolved. The objection was not formally withdrawn but this land holding was sold to Lynaberack Ltd, with full awareness of Project. As Mr Hone did not withdraw his objection it remained extant. Lynaberack Ltd did not object to the Project and have not engaged in the development of the Project with Transport Scotland. The Reporter, in considering the objection, noted that Transport Scotland took steps to address Mr Hone’s concerns prior to the sale of Ruthven Farm and that Transport Scotland have committed to modify the draft Compulsory Purchase Order and offer to grant servitude rights of pedestrian and vehicular access to provide alternative means of access to parts of the farm lying to the east of the Project. The Reporter did not accept the argument of the Objector that the Project would threaten the economic viability of the farm and that the land identified for acquisition at Ruthven Farm is necessary for the purposes of the Project and to provide an appropriate level of mitigation, including woodland planting. Accordingly, the Reporter concluded that Mr Hone’s objection did not justify any refusal to make the Orders.

iii. Extant Objection: John Alexander Mackintosh

A statutory objection was submitted on 09 October 2018 and related to the impact and extent of land-take of the Objector’s Croft, concerns over the viability of the croft and a request for servitude rights rather than compulsory acquisition of parts of the land. Transport Scotland responded explaining the need for the land acquisition and with a commitment to reduce land-take to avoid the acquisition of the existing croft buildings. The Reporter concluded that the land identified for acquisition was necessary for the purposes of the proposed scheme and that land-take from the Croft would not undermine its future business viability. Accordingly, the Reporter concluded that Mr Mackintosh’s objection did not justify any refusal to make the Orders.

iv. Extant Objection: Iain Brodie

A non-statutory objection was submitted on 15 October 2018 and related to aspects of the design development and environmental assessment of the Project, including the proposed new means of access for Croftcarnoch and the potential impacts of the Project on the operations of the Highland Wildlife Park. Transport Scotland issued a response addressing each aspect of the objection and providing an explanation for the reason behind design decisions and the function of the ES to ensure that environmental impacts are mitigated in the Project. The Reporter was satisfied that Transport Scotland had responded to the concerns raised by the Objector, with reference to detailed assessments on road drainage and the water environment; noise; landscape; and planting, and accordingly did not consider that the objection justifies any refusal to make the Orders.

v. Extant Objections: Matthew and Vicky Smith and Archie Slimon

Statutory objections were submitted by Mr and Mrs Smith on 15 October 2018 and by Mr Slimon on 18 October 2018. The objections related to the impact of the Project on Glentruim, in particular, the removal of the Glentruim Junction and the alternative junction and access arrangements proposed. Their objections also raised road safety concerns; school bus stop provision; and the consultation process. Transport Scotland responded on these matters, addressing each aspect of the objections and explaining the wider decision-making process which was the basis for the Project design. The Reporter found that the proposal to remove the Glentruim Junction, where the C1137 meets the existing A9, was consistent with the junction and access strategy of the A9 dualling programme, which seeks to limit direct access to the new dualled carriageway and remove right turn manoeuvres across the carriageway for reasons of road safety. In particular, the strategy seeks to close ‘C’ Class, unclassified and private and agricultural accesses unless at a local level their retention can be strongly justified. In the case of the Glentruim Junction, the Reporter was not persuaded by the arguments of the objectors that the existing junction should be retained, or an alternative provided to the south, and was satisfied that the new access arrangements would meet Transport Scotland’s stated objective of improving safety for all road users. The Reporter agreed with Transport Scotland that it is preferable where possible to locate bus stop facilities, particularly those that would be used by school children, on the local road network rather than a lay-by on the dualled A9 carriageway and noted that the proposed location had been identified in consultation with The Highland Council and school bus operators. The Reporter found that Transport Scotland had consulted The Highland Council; non-motorised user groups; and other stakeholders; to ensure that the proposed access arrangements and side roads are safe to use for all users. The Reporter detailed that Transport Scotland had also demonstrated that the engineering, environmental and cost constraints associated with the alternative access options suggested by the objectors render them undeliverable or no better than the access arrangements included in the Project. The Reporter concluded that the access arrangements of the proposed scheme to serve Glentruim and its environs were reasonable, appropriate and justified and that the objections of Mr and Mrs Smith and Mr Slimon did not justify any refusal to make the Orders.

vi. Extant Objection: Mr and Mrs Clark

A statutory objection was submitted on 21 September 2019 and related to the use of an access track, which it is proposed to acquire in order to access a SuDS pond, by heavy plant and machinery and the damage that may be caused to a foul water drainage pipe which lies below. The objectors also sought clarification that the foul water drainage pipe would be protected from damage during construction works and an assurance that no operational traffic would use the aforementioned track from the B9152 during the construction phase of the proposed scheme. Transport Scotland responded acknowledging that existing utilities at the location will be maintained and protected. The response also clarified that the additional traffic carrying out maintenance works on the track would be very low. A further update was provided to the Objector on these matters in advance of the PLI. The Reporter found that their concerns had been fully addressed by Transport Scotland and that commitments to address their concerns are contained in the Environmental Statement; and that such commitments would be binding on the chosen contractor. Accordingly, the Reporter did not consider that Mr and Mrs Clark’s objection justified any refusal to make the Orders.

vii. Extant Objection: Christopher Veen

A statutory objection was submitted on 16 November 2018 relating to breach of rights from not serving the Objector with a copy of the draft Orders when first published, failure to recognise his prescriptive right of access over the access road to his property and seeking clarification on the intended use of the access road and its maintenance arrangements. Transport Scotland responded explaining that, whilst the land title searches did not record that the Objector had any specific rights over the land, copies of the orders had been provided to the Objector allowing objection within the standard consultation period. In ongoing correspondence, Transport Scotland confirmed that the Objector’s access was being maintained through the Side Roads Order and that any compensation would be considered once land was vested. The Reporter was satisfied that Transport Scotland had met the legal requirements of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 with regard to the publication of the draft Orders. In accord with requirements of the 1947 Act, it also served notice upon those with an interest in land to be compulsorily acquired. The Reporter found that Mr Veen did not suffer disadvantage in this matter and had been consulted appropriately and that Mr Veen’s claim of a prescriptive right of vehicular and pedestrian access to the Auld Poor House from the B9152, over the land to be acquired, had been considered appropriately and reasonably by Transport Scotland; which would be maintained and included in the Side Roads Order and as a result, Mr Veen would no longer have to rely on a purported prescriptive right of access. The Reporter was also satisfied that Transport Scotland had provided the clarification and assurances sought by Mr Veen regarding the intended use of the access road and responsibility for its future maintenance. The Reporter concluded that the objection did not justify any refusal to make the Orders.

viii. Extant Objection: Judy Buckingham

A statutory objection was submitted on the 12 October 2018 relating to safety issues for cyclists who use the National Cycle Route (NCN7) between Newtonmore and Kingussie; which are not being addressed by the Project and that there would be an opportunity to provide a cycle path adjacent to the A9 between Ralia and Ruthven. Transport Scotland responded explaining how the non-motorised user routes were determined and why the alternative suggestion was not chosen. The Reporter placed great importance on the fact that the Project design development had been informed by extensive consultation with stakeholders, in particular, NMU and Accessibility Forums, which include representatives of national; regional; and local cycling interest groups; none of which have objected to the Project. The Reporter noted that NMU stakeholder engagement had been undertaken throughout all phases of the DMRB assessment process; to gather information and feedback on its proposals, including the preparation of NMU Access Strategy as part of the DMRB Stage 2 route options assessment. The Reporter considered Ms Buckingham’s suggestion against the objectives of the NMU Access Strategy and agreed with Transport Scotland that such a link is not necessary to meet the objectives of the Project. In particular, the link is not required to maintain existing levels of NMU route connectivity or mitigate the impacts of the Project. Furthermore, the NMU Access Strategy did not identify an opportunity to provide a segregated cycle route between Ralia and Ruthven, nor is there a Ministerial commitment to provide such a link. Accordingly, the Reporter found that the objection maintained by Ms Buckingham did not justify any refusal to make the Orders.

ix. Extant Objection: Julian Buckingham

A non-statutory objection was submitted on 15 October 2018 relating to potential increase in noise levels at the self-catering cottages from road traffic and the adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed to address his concern. Mr Buckingham requested that further mitigation measures be developed and incorporated into the Project and a programme of noise measurements taken before scheme construction to allow for comparison with the Project once complete. Transport Scotland responded to the objection by explaining the methodology applied to the noise assessment and the classifications used by industry to determine when noise impacts are significant. It was explained that the worst noise increases at the Objector’s property were considered to be minor adverse impacts and therefore it was not proposed to provide further mitigation nor to undertake peak noise assessments as this was not an accepted methodology. The Reporter found that the noise and vibration assessment undertaken by Transport Scotland was robust and in accord with relevant guidance and that the predicted increase in noise levels at Ruthven Steadings would be below the threshold requiring mitigation, beyond that embedded in the design of the Project. The Reporter also found that the purpose of the proposed bund and tree planting to the west of Ruthven Steadings would be to screen the proposed development rather than to reduce the effects of road traffic noise. Accordingly, the Reporter found that Mr Buckingham’s objection did not justify any refusal to make the Orders.

x. Extant Objection: 41 No. Insh Marshes objectors

In addition to the main RSPB objection summarised in Section c ii above, a further 41 objections were received from parties concerned about the impact of the Project on the Insh Marshes NNR. The Insh Marshes Objectors included members of the RSPB, regular or occasional visitors to the Reserve, local residents, concerned individuals and the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group.

The main points of objection can be summarised as:

• the Project is unnecessary;
• the design of the Project is not the optimum and alternative designs should have been considered. In particular, the Project should not comprise of an off-line dual carriageway to the east;
• the River Spey crossing design should have encompassed a longer bridge and the Project has failed to use the dualling opportunity to deliver a ‘green underpass’ at the River Spey crossing;
• the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out in relation to the Project is inadequate. In particular, it underestimates extent of habitat that would be lost and the effects of construction and operation of the Project;
• the Project runs through an area of ecological and environmental importance (the River Spey-Insh Marshes Ramsar/ SPA/ SSSI, the River Spey SAC and the Insh Marshes SAC) and would give rise to substantial disruption to important habitat and wildlife. The importance of the NNR has not been recognised or considered;
• insufficient mitigation is being proposed in respect of the environmental and ecological impacts of the Project;
• in particular, the mitigation proposed to be provided through compensatory habitat creation at Dellmore of Kingussie is insufficient;
• the Project gives rise to unacceptable impacts on biodiversity;
• the NNR is a site which attracts tourists and visitors and the Project would adversely impact both visitor experience of the NNR and the contribution that tourists visiting the NNR brings to the local economy;
• an increase in road traffic is likely to give rise to an increase in road traffic accident mortality of waders due to increased traffic flow;
• the Insh Marshes provide necessary protection from flood risk, as they are a flood plain; and
• the Project gives rise to unacceptable cumulative impacts.

Transport Scotland responded to each of the Objectors addressing the points made, explaining how the proposals were arrived at and that the environmental assessment and mitigation proposed is informed, appropriate and sufficient. Transport Scotland also prepared and submitted to the PLI an Objector Report and the Dellmore of Kingussie Ecological Management Plan.

Subsequent to the statutory RSPB objection being resolved, the Insh Marshes Objectors were informed that measures to protect the ecology and habitats of the area during the construction and operation of the Project had been agreed with the RSPB. On the basis of this agreement, Transport Scotland invited the Insh Marshes Objectors to consider whether the detailed measures agreed with the RSPB also addressed their concerns, and if so, whether they could consider withdrawing their objections. A total of 23 Insh Marshes Objectors subsequently withdrew their objections to the Project, leaving a total of 18 Objectors and their objections extant.

The Reporter noted that Transport Scotland had undertaken a thorough, robust and appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment of the Project effects and where the assessment has identified impacts on the National Nature Reserve, mitigation is proposed to minimise those impacts as far as possible, including project specific mitigation. While the concerns of the Insh Marshes objectors are expressed in general terms, and broadly support the initial concerns of the RSPB, the Reporter concluded that Transport Scotland had responded in considerable detail and that the Objector Report distilled the relevant information contained in the Environmental Statement that has informed the design development of the Project and the steps taken to resolve objections in respect of the National Nature Reserve. The Reporter was satisfied that the concerns of the Objectors have been fully addressed by Transport Scotland and that none of the grounds of objection justified a refusal to make the Orders. In considering the matter of the Insh Marshes Objectors the Reporter placed significant importance on the fact that the RSPB had withdrawn its objection and that none of the statutory consultees, including NatureScot, SEPA, Historic Environment Scotland nor the Cairngorms National Park Authority objected to the Project.

Conditions to which the Decision is Subject

The decision to proceed with the Project is subject to the following conditions.

The design of the Project has been progressed taking account of identified environmental constraints and considerations, enabling reduction or avoidance of potential environmental impacts where practicable. Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) of the ES summarises the additional mitigation measures identified in the ES, which are considered necessary to avoid; reduce; or offset potential impacts. The mitigation measures stipulated in Chapter 21 will form contractual requirements on the Contractor (or Transport Scotland where applicable).

Transport Scotland, following discussions with Objectors proposed some limited agreed modifications to the draft CPO and the draft Side Roads Order. These are set out in the Schedule of Amendments to draft Compulsory Purchase Order and Schedule of Amendments to draft Side Roads Order in Appendix 2 of Transport Scotland’s Closing Submission to the PLI.

These also reflect Statutory Undertakings and/or Agreements with landowners, including agreements under Section 53 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. These agreements set out specific amendments to the draft CPO, agreements for servitude rights, developments to the design, changes to certain locations of woodland mitigation, offers of land buy back in accordance with Crichel Down rules, and other additional detailed and explicit measures specific to each objection.

Undertakings and/ or Agreements have been concluded with the following Objectors:

1. The Honourable Michael John Samuel and others in respect of Phoines Estate
2. Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
3. The Highland Council
4. Alasdair Findlay and Others in respect of Ralia Estate
5. David Morris
6. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
7. The Church of Scotland
8. Balavil Estate
9. The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland

The Reporter concludes in Chapter 4 of his Report that subject to appropriate assessments undertaken in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 concluding that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the River Spey–Insh Marshes Ramsar; River Spey–Insh Marshes Special Protection Area; River Spey Special Area of Conservation; Insh Marshes Special Area of Conservation; River Spey–Insh Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest; River Spey Site of Special Scientific Interest; and Insh Marshes National Nature Reserve that the Orders be made, subject to the changes to the draft CPO (modifications to CPO plots 136, 518, 627,716, 720, 732, 801, 810, 816, 841 and the removal of CPO plots 626, 731, 823, 829 and 842) and Side Roads Order (modification to plan SR8) proposed by Transport Scotland, which enabled the withdrawal of a number of Objections.

Having regard to the Environmental Statement, and with specific reference to Chapter 10 (Geology, Soils and Groundwater), Chapter 11 (Road Drainage and the Water Environment), Chapter 12 (Ecology and Nature Conservation) and Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) and their conclusions, the Reporter was satisfied that the extensive mitigation measures proposed would ensure that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the statutory designated sites of international and national importance. It is a condition on the decision to proceed that the proposed extensive mitigation measures be implemented.

The Scottish Ministers confirm the Appropriate Assessment referred to has been undertaken and has concluded that the Project will not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura Sites.

No further correspondence has been received by the Scottish Government regarding the A9 Crubenmore to Kincraig proposals that would affect the Scottish Ministers’ decision.

Reasoned Conclusion

The reasoned conclusion by the Scottish Ministers on the significant effects of the proposed Project on the environment, taking into account the results of the examination by the Scottish Ministers of the information presented in the ES and the other environmental information set out above, including in relation to consultation as set out in Sections 2 and 3, is that the effects of the Project proceeding on the environment will be as follows:

• An EIA has been undertaken as set out in the published ES and has concluded that, with mitigation and monitoring measures in place, the Project will not result in significant adverse residual effects on the following environmental factors:
  • Effects on All Travellers (Chapter 9);
  • Road Drainage and the Water Environment (Chapter 11);
  • Cultural Heritage (Chapter 15);
  • Air Quality (Chapter 16);
  • Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17); and
  • Materials (Chapter 18).
• Significant residual adverse effects are predicted for the following topics:
  • Community and Private Assets (Chapter 8);
  • Geology, Soils and Groundwater (Chapter 10);
  • Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 12);
  • Landscape and Visual (Chapter 13 and Chapter 14) ; and
  • Cumulative Impacts (Chapter 20).
• Significant residual (beneficial) effects are predicted in relation to:
  • Road Drainage and the Water Environment (Chapter 11);
  • Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 12); and
  • Cumulative Impacts (Chapter 20).

The Reporter reviewed the ES and reports his conclusions in Chapter 2 of his Report. He concludes that the overall environmental effects of the proposed scheme have been assessed in the ES. The measures to mitigate predicted significant effects, where practicable, have been identified and embedded into the design of the proposed scheme and/or contained in a schedule of environmental commitments. The Reporter concludes that he is satisfied that the ES has been prepared in accord with the requirements of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 as amended by Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, relevant guidance and good practice and he considers that the environmental effects have been thoroughly considered and the assessment process robust.

The Reporter also noted that the Project encroaches into a number of statutorily designated sites of international and national importance and as such, in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland), an Appropriate Assessment was required to establish whether there would be adverse effects on the integrity of the designations affected.

An Appropriate Assessment was completed and this concluded that the Project would not result in an adverse effect on site integrity on the River Spey SAC, Insh Marshes SAC, River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA and River Spey – Insh Marshes Ramsar.

The Reporter, having regard to the Environmental Statement, and with specific reference to Chapter 10 (geology, soils and groundwater), Chapter 11 (road drainage and the water environment), Chapter 12 (ecology and nature conservation) and Chapter 21 (schedule of environmental commitments) and conclusions contained within, stated he was satisfied that the extensive mitigation measures proposed would ensure that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the statutory designated sites of international and national importance.

The Scottish Ministers, having regard to the current knowledge and methods of assessment are satisfied that this reasoned conclusion is still up to date and addresses the likely significant effects of the project on the environment.

Features of the Project and Measures to Avoid, Prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset Likely Significant Adverse Effects on the Environment

The ES Design Development (Chapter 4) outlines the iterative DMRB Stage 3 design and environmental review processes that has informed the development of the Project, the principal aim being to ensure that a range of potential environmental impacts could, in the first instance, be addressed or avoided by embedding mitigation through iterative design revisions. Table 3 illustrates how environmental reviews have supported design development through DMRB Stage 3 resulting in mitigation being embedded in the design of the Project.

DMRB Stage 3 design revision	Engineering design elements considered	Environmental inputs/ reviews
Preliminary DMRB3 design February 2017	Revision of DMRB Stage 2 Insh Marshes embankment and River Spey crossing alignment to bring closer to existing crossing Horizontal and vertical alignment of mainline and junctions Initial earthworks extents (cuttings and embankments, engineered slopes) Initial location and arrangement of principal structures and lay-bys	Watercourse crossings workshop mammal permeability geomorphology and flood risk Local landform review of earthworks (landscaped slope extents) Potential locations for enhanced lay-bys considered
Design rev. 1 February 2017	Changes to above following initial review, plus: Initial SuDS and culvert locations, pre-earthworks cut-off drains and watercourse diversions Vertical alignment revision to accommodate structures and culverts Slope angle stability review in identified rock cut areas Identification and relocation of accesses to properties, side roads and cycleways	Overlay of earthworks extents and 1:200 year floodplain to identify encroachment areas Interdisciplinary design review workshop Feb. 2017 identifying potential conflicts with designated sites, peat, notable habitats and 1:200 flood plain extent
Design rev. 2 March 2017	Changes to above following 2nd design review, plus: Earthworks extents and landscape slopes revised following flood model overlays to reduce areas of encroachment where possible Revision of Newtonmore Junction layout Initial compensatory storage locations based on flood model Introduction of maintenance accesses to SuDS features	Environmental review workshop March 2017 Interdisciplinary review of initial compensatory flood storage locations to consider constraint conflicts Landscape review of SuDS feature layouts
Design rev. 3 September 2017	Changes to above following 3rd design review, plus: Localised adjustment of landscape earthworks slopes Refinement of Newtonmore Junction and Glentruim/ Ralia access Revisions to structures and culverts to include mammal ledges and geomorphological clearance, where feasible Horizontal and vertical alignment confirmed across the Insh Marshes and for 270m long River Spey bridge, linking with vertical alignment of HML crossing at Kingussie	Environmental review workshop Nov. 2017 to identify further opportunity for embedded mitigation, and to outline preliminary land requirements for impact mitigation/ restoration/ compensation purposes Design review record compiled on mitigation requirements Design rev. used for Draft Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) described in FRA as ‘initial design’
Design rev. 4 February 2018	Design ‘freeze’ for draft EIA and mitigation review Introduction of northbound access to Ralia Lodge/ Nuide Farm Inclusion of northbound access to Balavil Estate Amended access to Knappach Cottage realigning NMU access Updates recommended by Draft FRA, where achievable Presented at Public Drop-in events April 2018	Draft EIA chapter production assessing design freeze version Development of required mitigation proposals, including Dellmore of Kingussie Construction/ buildability review March 2018
Design rev. 5 May 2018	Changes made following EIA draft and consideration of mitigation and public consultation feedback North bank extension of River Spey bridge (to 290m total) to include access provision beneath final span Mapping of land required for mitigation purposes Refinement of Ralia/ Nuide and Balavil northbound accesses	Draft Environmental Statement (ES) for Environmental Steering Group (ESG) review Consultation with SEPA on acceptability of removing compensatory flood storage where conflicted by other environmental constraints Review of land required for mitigation
Design rev. 6 June/ July 2018 Proposed Scheme	Design ‘fix’ for final EIA, FRA and production of Draft Road Orders Compensatory flood storage areas confirmed Phoines underpass vertical clearance increased Chapelpark Farm underpass relocated Refinement of Croftcarnoch access Church of Scotland (Kingussie Glebe) access amended Lay-by positions fixed Police Observation Platforms added	Assessment updates following consideration of ESG feedback Final EIA and FRA revisions assessing fixed Proposed Scheme design FRA refers to the Proposed Scheme as ‘final design’ Finalisation of required mitigation proposals Environmental Statement compilation for publication with Draft Road Orders

As detailed in ES Chapter 6 (Overview of Assessment Process) as well as this embedded mitigation, the residual effects assessed in the ES include: Standard A9 Mitigation - typical best practice items that will be applied and referenced across all A9 Dualling projects; and Project Specific Mitigation - items that are further required to mitigate Proposed Scheme impacts, such as landscape proposals and management plans, that must be implemented to avoid, reduce or offset identified impacts.

The Schedule of Environmental Commitments (Chapter 21) of the ES specifies A9 Standard, Embedded Mitigation and Project Specific Mitigation for each environmental topic. These have either been incorporated in the Project design (Embedded) or will be implemented during the construction and/or operation (A9 Standard and Project Specific) of the Project. There are 94 Standard Mitigation items and 159 Embedded and Project Specific Mitigation items identified for the Project and the Contractor will be contractually required to implement these during construction/operation.

The application of mitigation reduces potential impacts as follows:

• Community and Private Assets: Community Liaison team to consult with local communities and residents and maintaining access to properties and businesses throughout construction
• All Travellers: Reinstatement of lost vegetation and planting of additional trees and scrub along diverted and new non-motorised user (NMU) routes and adjacent to the Project to improve amenity for NMU and vehicle travellers. Safer junctions and provision of safe overtaking will benefit and reduce driver stress.
• Geology, Soils and Groundwater: Protection of groundwater and private water supplies; best practice pollution, sediment, material management, soil management and peat management; monitoring and application of construction techniques to avoid or reduce impacts on peat; and re-instatement, restoration or creation of peat habitats through re-use of excavated peat.
• Road Drainage and the Water Environment: Increasing water conveyance capacity during high flow events reducing flood risk upstream of the River Spey bridge crossing and limiting change in downstream flood levels within the Insh Marshes; provision of compensatory flood storage to replace functional floodplain; maintaining natural channel migration and natural movement of sediment in watercourses; provision of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to remove road pollutant runoff, to provide attenuation and storage during flooding, and to afford opportunities for improved wildlife habitat and increased biodiversity.
• Ecology and Nature Conservation: Provision of riverbed material in culverts to support fish passage; provision of dry mammal underpasses; restoration of habitats directly affected during construction and further tree planting to mitigate loss of woodland (including Ancient Woodland); and creation of wader habitat within Dellmore of Kingussie.
• Landscape and Visual: Design of the River Spey bridge with a low profile to reflect the existing structure form and limit the level of change; stone treatments to new retaining structures and planting of native trees, shrubs, heath and grasses to blend with the surrounding landscape and screen visual receptors.
• Cultural Heritage: Historic building recording; mapping of historic earthworks; archaeological excavation where preservation in situ is not possible; monitoring of areas of potential archaeology during construction by archaeologists to identify and record archaeological remains; and sensitive planting of trees and other screening vegetation as appropriate to protect the setting of cultural heritage sites.
• Air Quality: Application of appropriate dust control measures during construction such as covering of stockpiles, wheel-washing and use of site speed limits.
• Noise and Vibration: Provision of low noise road surfacing on the mainline dual carriageway and at junctions; and provision of site-specific noise barriers at five locations.
• Materials: application of material and waste management principles that will minimise use of construction materials and products that consume large amounts of energy in their extraction, processing and manufacturing; minimise purchasing of key construction materials and products from suppliers who cannot demonstrate that they have been produced sustainably; minimising use of virgin aggregates produced from naturally occurring mineral deposits and used for the first time; and minimising the generation of surplus materials and waste, and the permanent disposal of these materials to landfill through promoting re-use, recycling and recovery options.

Implementation of this mitigation will assist with avoiding and reducing potential significant adverse effects on the environment to only those detailed in Section 6 and Section 11 of this Record of Decision and providing the significant beneficial effects on the environment also detailed in these sections.

Monitoring Measures

The Schedule of Environmental Commitments tables presented in the ES at Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) contain specific monitoring, consultation and approval requirements for each of the 259 mitigation items. These monitoring measures are to be implemented.

An Environmental Clerk of Works (i.e. professionally qualified in a relevant environmental discipline) will be appointed by the Contractor, be present on site as required during the construction period and will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures identified to ensure that construction activities are carried out in such a manner to prevent or reduce impacts on the environment. Specific monitoring measures identified as mitigation during construction include, but are not limited to, monitoring:

• ground gas where pollutant pathways for ground gas have been identified;
• soils, peat, and potential areas of land contamination;
• excavated peat temporary storage stockpiles to prevent them from drying out;
• water table and vegetation in peat re-use areas to identify requirements for additional treatments works;
• groundwater and surface water features to protect the water environment;
• continuous water quality (including for turbidity and for leaks/spills) in strategically important areas downstream of the working areas;
• private water supplies to ensure infrastructure is not damaged and supplies are maintained;
• river levels in the immediate vicinity and in the wider catchment to identify flood risk during periods of heavy rainfall or extended periods of wet weather;
• restoration of notable habitats affected during construction, including those for protected species and breeding birds;
• noise from percussive works (including piling and drilling) that may affect Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey and Arctic charr; and
• noise and vibration levels as agreed with the Environmental Health Officer Department.

Post construction monitoring identified specifically within the ES Chapter 21 (Schedule of Environmental Commitments) for the Project include:

• P09-E29: Inspections of mammal ledges and tunnels will be undertaken during operational years. Inspections need to include checking for evidence of use on the lead up to and in and around the ledges. This will include footprints, spraint, feeding remains and any other field signs which will indicate their use. This is to determine whether structures providing species permeability are being used by the target species.
• P09-E30: The Contractor will specify relevant specific monitoring requirements for habitat and species mitigation in the relevant Habitat Management Plan, Species Protection Plan and/or NatureScot licence. Long-term monitoring requirements will be agreed between Transport Scotland and the relevant statutory consultees. This is to determine if mitigation and/or habitat restoration is successful.

Right of Challenge

Any person aggrieved by the following Orders, or of any provision contained therein, on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or that any requirement of that Act or of any Regulations made under that Act has not been complied with in relation to the Order, may, within six weeks of 17 January 2025 make an application as regards that validity to the Court of Session:

1. The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Trunking) Order 2024,
2. The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Side Roads) Order 2024

Any person aggrieved by The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) Compulsory Purchase Order 2024 who wants to question its validity or any provision of it on the ground that authorisation of the Order is not empowered to be granted under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 or the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, or on the ground any requirement of the 1947 Act or any regulation made under it, has not been complied with, may make an application to the Court of Session within six weeks of 17 January 2025.

Any person wishing to question the validity of the decision to make The A9 and A86 Trunk Roads (Crubenmore to Kincraig) (Extinguishment of Public Rights of Way) Order 2024, or any of its provisions, may make an application as regards that validity to the Court of Session, within such time period as that Court in its discretion will allow.