The Scoping Study
11. The twenty-two page Scoping Study has been commissioned by the management of the racecourse to identify the implication and impacts of the development of a floodlit AWT. It was first prepared in November 2003 and updated in April 2005. The aim of the study was to equip the management of the racecourse with “the range of factors that will have to be given detailed consideration in a comprehensive feasibility study”.
12. The Scoping Study is a desk study, compiled on the basis of information obtained from the racecourse management, other organisations and individuals involved in horse racing in the UK, a planning consultancy, East Lothian Council and the Scottish Executive. It does not appear to contain any original research or field studies which provide financial, economic or social data specific to Musselburgh. For example, the inclusion of “parking” in Musselburgh in the spending of race goers demonstrates a clear lack of local knowledge.
13. The report does not make any detailed assessment of the market for floodlit AWTs or the comparative advantages of Musselburgh against other racecourses. It does not contain a budget or any costings for the proposed development. It does not contain a Cost Benefit Analysis which values community and environmental costs against defined benefits. It does not contain a financial analysis, and therefore it does not reach any conclusion on the financial or economic viability of the proposals.
14. Understandably in a scoping study, the approach used is broad brush. Assertions and conclusions are not backed by detailed data or an examination of all the arguments. There has been no attempt to assess the views of the local community and the only reference to consultation with “stakeholders” is in the context of consultation with industry partners in the design of the course. As it stands, the study is not and was not intended to be a suitable base on which to justify investment or assess the economic impact of the proposals.
15. Surprisingly, the Study does not contain even a simple risk analysis matrix setting out potential risks with their probability of occurrence and their impacts on the estimates of benefits and the viability of the proposals.
16. The overall impression left by the study is that the floodlit AWT is a “supply-led” proposal where the dynamic comes from a desire to expand the racecourse rather than in response to a demonstrated market demand. In addition, the benefits to Musselburgh are largely assumed on minimal data rather than quantified on the basis of detailed field studies. The detailed assumptions on which the current claimed benefits and the promised benefits are based are not fully stated and the risks are not quantified.
|
