Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF COMMONS
SESSION 2005-06
CROSSRAILBILL
P E T I T I O N
Against the Bill - On Merits - Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c.
TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OFGREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED
THE HUMBLE PETITION of:
ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISH RAILWAY LIMITED
SHEWETH as follows:—
1 A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced into and is nowpending in your Honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for arailway transport system running from Maidenhead, in the County of Berkshire,
and Heathrow Airport, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, through centralLondon to Shenfield, in the County of Essex, and Abbey Wood, in the London
Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes.".
2 The Bill is promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter called
"the Promoter").
Relevant Clauses of the Bill
3 Clauses 1 to 20 of the Bill together with Schedules 1 to 9 make provision for theconstruction and maintenance of the proposed works including the main works setout in Schedule 1. Provision is included to confer powers for various building andengineering operations, for compulsory acquisition and the temporary use of and
3387986.11
entry upon land, for the grant of planning permission and other consents, for thedisapplication or modification of heritage and other controls and to governinterference with trees and the regulation of noise.
Clauses 21 to 44 of the Bill together with Schedule 10 make provision for the
application with modifications and the disapplication in part of the existing
railways regulatory regime which is contained in, and in arrangements made
under, the Railways Act 1993 and associated legislation. In particular, theyprovide for the disapplication of licensing requirements, the imposition of specialduties on the Office of Rail Regulation ("ORR"), the modification of railway
access contracts and franchising agreements and the disapplication of railway
closure procedures and of the need for consent from Transport for London in
relation to impacts on key system assets. Provision is also included to enable
agreements to be required as between the nominated undertaker and controllers ofrailway assets, to govern the basis for arbitration and to provide for the transfer ofstatutory powers in relation to railway assets.
Clauses 45 to 59 of the Bill together with Schedules 11 to 14 contain
miscellaneous and general provisions. These include provision for the making of
transfer schemes, the designation of nominated undertakers, the devolution of
functions and as respects other actions to be taken by the Secretary of State.Provision is also made in particular for the disapplication or modification of
various additional miscellaneous controls, for the treatment of burial grounds, for
the application of provisions of the Bill to future extensions of Crossrail, for the
particular protection of certain specified interests and as respects arbitration.
Your Petitioners and their properties
Your Petitioners are English Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited (EWS), a privatelimited company (Company No. 02938988) and Britain's largest rail freight
operator. Your Petitioners are the only rail freight operator to provide a fullnationwide service. Your Petitioners currently haul over 100 million tonnes of rail
freight, including more than 20 million tonnes of construction materials, each year
and operate over 6,000 services each week. Your Petitioners' registered office is
3387986.11
McBeath House, 310 Goswell Road London EC IV 7LW. Your Petitioners holdlicences under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) ("the 1993 Act") to
operate railway assets throughout Britain and are party to access agreements
approved or entered into pursuant to section 17 or 18 of the 1993 Act, which arefor routes that cross or use part or all of, the Crossrail routes identified by the Bill.
Your Petitioners own or have an interest in the following properties, which are
subject to compulsory acquisition or use under the Bill:
BOROUGH OF SLOUGH
Parcels: 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 87
Property: Slough
Description: Land and siding
BOROUGH OF SLOUGH
Parcels: 226, 239,240, 241,242, 243, 244, 245 and 247
Property: Langley
Description: Land and siding
LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
Parcels: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52,
55, 56,57 and 58
Property: West Drayton
Description: Land, siding and ancillary buildings
3387986.11
LONDON BOROUGH OF BALING
Parcels: 8 and 17
Property: Southall Yard
Description: Land and siding
LONDON BOROUGH OF HALING
Parcels: 32, 36, 37, 38, 44,45, 48, 50, 52 and 54
Property: Hanwell Bridge
Description: Ballast land and siding
LONDON BOROUGH OF BALING
Parcels: 153, 162, 166, 175, 176,179 and 181
Property: Acton
Description: Land and goods terminal
LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM
Parcels: 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
Property: Old Oak Common
Description: Land and Traction Maintenance Depot
4
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
Parcels: 25 and 27
Property: Paddington New Yard
Description: Land, siding and buildings
LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS
Parcels: 1243 and 1396
Property: Bow Midland Yard West
Description: Land and siding
LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM
Parcels: 293, 294, 304, 307, 309, 310, 313, 314, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 376
Property: Bow Midland Yard East
Description: Land and siding
In addition, your Petitioners own or have an interest in railway apparatus andrunning rights in the areas of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead,
Borough of Slough, District of South Bucks, London Borough of Hillingdon,
London Borough of Baling, City of Westminster, London Borough of Tower
Hamlets, London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Greenwich, London
Borough of Bexley, London Borough of Redbridge, London Borough of Barking& Dagenham, London Borough of Havering, Borough of Brentwood and District
of Basildon which, whilst not subject to the compulsory purchase or use proposals
of the Bill, are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works and so liable to beinjuriously affected by them.
3387986.11
10
Your Petitioners also note from the Bill and documentation deposited with it thatfurther Crossrail scheme extensions are safeguarded or proposed to besafeguarded, beyond Maidenhead to Reading and beyond Abbey Wood toEbbsfleet. These extensions would have an impact on further parts of the national
rail network, and the interests of your Petitioners who operate train services on
both of these routes. The extensions would therefore need to allow for the
continued operation and growth of your Petitioners' rail services, providing
sufficient capacity and capability for rail freight. It is respectfully submitted thatprovision should be made for your Petitioners to comment on, and influence, any
proposals to extend the Crossrail network.
Your Petitioners and their rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by
the Bill, to which your Petitioners object for the reasons, amongst others,
hereinafter stated.
Your Petitioners' concerns
11 Your Petitioners are not opposed in principle to the construction of the new
railway transport system for which the Bill provides, but are concerned as to the
impact that the works and system will have on their business and property. The
scheduled works detrimentally interfere with and affect the property and apparatus
of your Petitioners and their customers at many points along the line of the route.
12 Your Petitioners object to the Bill on the grounds that it does not afford sufficient
safeguards to the continued and future operation of facilities and routes used in the
daily operation of your Petitioners' and their customers' businesses in the areas
concerned, and that as a result your Petitioners will suffer reduced rail freight
carriage tonnage which will be displaced onto the roads.
13 Your Petitioners consider it imperative that the powers proposed to be conferredby the Bill should only be exercised so that there is no interruption with or
interference to the operation of rail freight services or rail freight customers. If,
however, interruption or interference is inevitable then your Petitioners consider
that any such interruption or interference should be kept to an absolute minimum
and that it is only appropriate that your Petitioners and their customers should be
folly compensated for all losses, costs and expenses incurred and suffered as a
result.
Site-specific concerns
Slough depot
14 The Slough depot provides a run-around loop for freight terminals at West
Drayton (EWS) and West Drayton ARC, which can only be accessed by trains
arriving from the west. The Slough property can also be used by the military forequipment and supply transport. Your Petitioners are planning to develop the site
further for use in conjunction with Slough Industrial Estate to provide an "at the
door" rail freight service to estate tenants. In compulsorily acquiring the site, the
Promoter would prevent your Petitioners from developing services for Slough rail
freight customers and force freight trains to travel greater distances to alternative
run-around facilities. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended torequire the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid
disruption to the Slough depot, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site
interruption is, however, required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill,
your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute
minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made
available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or
permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.
Langley
15 The Langley property provides a concreted siding adjoining the station at Langley,
which is ideal for rail-served businesses. Your Petitioners are currently innegotiation with a potential tenant for long-term use of the property as a national
distribution centre where rail-delivered goods are held for onward distribution by
road, and vice versa. Your Petitioners are also in negotiation with another
potential tenant who wishes to use another part of the property for the disposal, by
rail, of spoil generated in the area. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be
3387986.11
amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would
avoid disruption to the Langley property, your Petitioners and their prospective
tenants. If site interruption is, however required for the works authorised byClause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be keptto an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities shouldbe made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary
or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.
West Dray ton
16 The West Drayton property is currently tenanted by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd,
which holds a long term lease of the property. Lafarge Aggregates Ltd operates arail-served aggregate storage and distribution business from the property, whichcurrently services Greater London handling over 100,000 tonnes of aggregate a
year. West Drayton also provides access to the Colnbrook branch line, which isheavily used by freight trains serving the aggregates terminal at Thorney Mill, theoil terminal at Colnbrook and the Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 development alsoat Colnbrook. All of these site-specific rail freight services would be severely
disrupted by the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services. Your Petitioners submitthat the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative
proposal that would avoid disruption to the West Drayton property, yourPetitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however, required for theworks authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such
interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternativeproperty and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of
mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter'sproposed long term use of the site.
Southall
17 The Southall property is an essential run-around facility for freight services
travelling to and from the Brentford Branch. It is heavily used by freight trainsdestined for the Day Group facility located at Brentford, which receives 300,000
tonnes of aggregate by rail each year. In addition freight services departing from
the West London Waste Authority terminal, also located on the Brentford Branch,
use the Southall run-around facility. In this respect approximately 200,000 tonnes
of containerised domestic waste and material for recycling moves through theSouthall site by rail each year. The rail infrastructure on the site also provides
recessing and stabling facilities for freight services clear of the main line in times
of congestion, emergency and planned engineering works. The Promoter'sproposed Crossrail services would not allow for continued use of the property by
either the West London Waste Authority or the Day Group, with the likely effect
of transferring 500,000 tonnes of rail freight to road. The site is also of great
importance as it is one of the few locations on the south side of the Great WesternMain Line (GWML) that allows for the formation and stabling of the longest
freight trains that operate over that section of the GWML. Your Petitioners submit
that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative
proposal that would avoid disruption to the Southall property, the Brentford
branch line, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however,
required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submitthat such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable
alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by
way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the
Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.
Hanwell Bridge
18 Hanwell Bridge is an essential location for the efficient and effective operation of
freight services on the congested GWML between Reading and Acton. Trains are
regularly planned to use Hanwell Bridge and it is frequently utilised during times
of perturbation and disruption to the network for holding freight services clear of
the main line that are unable to access Acton Yard or the North London Line. Thelength of its sidings makes it one of the few locations on the north side of the
route that can accommodate the longest freight services that operate over that
section of the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended torequire the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoiddisruption to the Hanwell Bridge property and to your Petitioners' services using
3387986.11
the site. If site interruption is, however, required for the works authorised byClause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be keptto an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should
be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary
or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.
Acton
19 The Acton property is fundamental to your Petitioners' London rail freight
business, comprising two rail-served aggregate business tenants. YeomanAggregates and Hanson Aggregates operate aggregate processing, storage and
distribution facilities on the site, which together receive 590,000 tonnes of
materials a year by rail. Acton is the major hub for your Petitioners' services onthe GWML in London. It is equivalent to Paddington station for the freightrailway. It is a major freight yard, with connections to both the east and west. Inorder to make the most economic use of scarce railway timetable pathways, long"jumbo" trains of aggregates from the Mendip quarries are brought to Acton to be
split into two or three separate trains, each for a different destination in London
and the South-East. Acton is ideal for its function as it is strategically placed so
that all freight terminals in and around central London and all main lines radiatingfrom London can be reached. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should beamended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would
avoid disruption to the Acton property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If,
however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the
Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute
minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made
available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or
permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.
Old Oak Common
20 The Old Oak Common property houses the traction maintenance depot for themaintenance of your Petitioners' own locomotives, Virgin Crosscountry
10
passenger trains, passenger charter train rolling stock and other commercial rail
operators' rolling stock on a contracted regular, or ad hoc basis. The property
provides extensive stabling facilities that are used in conjunction with the traction
maintenance operations carried out on the site. The property houses one of only
two rail turntables in central London but relies on access from the east requiring
all trains entering the property from the west to run-around or reverse using the
Kensal Green run-around facility. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be
amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would
avoid disruption to the Old Oak Common property, your Petitioners and their
tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by
Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept
to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should
be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary
or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.
Paddington New Yard
21 The Paddington New Yard property houses your Petitioners' rail-served concrete
batching plant and associated infrastructure. The concrete batching plant is
operated by Tarmac Limited and is the most central concrete batching plant in
London, serving the local building and construction industry. The Promoter's
proposed Crossrail services would not allow for continued use of the property by
Tarmac Limited, with the likely effect of transferring 100,000 tonnes of freight
from rail to road. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to
require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid
disruption to the Paddington New Yard property, your Petitioners and their
tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by
Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be keptto an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should
be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary
or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of thesite.
3387986.11 11
Bow Midland Yard West
22 The Bow Midland Yard West property is currently tenanted by London Concrete,
Aggregate Industries and Plasmor, all of whom hold long term leases of the
property. The tenants operate rail-served ready-mixed concrete, aggregate and
concrete block distribution businesses from the property, which currently services
Greater London handling over 600,000 tonnes of building materials a year. YourPetitioners' supply of freight trains to this site would be severely disrupted by the
Promoter's proposed Crossrail services. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill
should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that
would avoid disruption to the Bow Midland Yard West property, your Petitioners
and their tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised
by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should bekept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilitiesshould be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a
temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long termuse of the site.
Bow Midland Yard East
23 The Bow Midland Yard East property is currently tenanted by Bow Waste
Recycling Limited, which holds a long term lease of the property. The tenant
operates waste recycling businesses from the property. The Promoter's works on
the site will disrupt your Petitioners' and their tenant's business operations on the
property. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the
Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the
Bow Midland Yard East property, your Petitioners and their tenant. If, however,s
site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your
Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimumand that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available toyour Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis
depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site.
3387986.11 12
24 In relation to all of the sites referred to above, your Petitioners would wish to
ensure that Network Rail is party to any agreement as to the temporary occupationor suspension of use of the sites that is agreed with the Promoter, so that your
Petitioners do not lose the use of their sites permanently merely as a result of their
inability to use them due to and during construction of the works.
Alternative sites
25 Your Petitioners have given careful consideration to a number of sites that could
provide the Promoter with alternative locations at which to conduct activities
associated with the Crossrail scheme, such as the stabling of rolling stock. These
and a number of other sites could also provide the Promoter with alternative
locations to which the activities of your Petitioners and their tenants and
customers might be relocated, subject to their consent. In this way, it may be
possible for the Promoter to mitigate the damaging effects of his proposals on
your Petitioners and their tenants and customers. Your Petitioners will continue to
discuss these matters with the Promoter. In the event that agreement cannot bereached with the Promoter it is submitted that the Bill should not be passed into
law without full consideration of the alternative sites identified by your
Petitioners.
Network-specific concerns
Capacity
26 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services on Network Rail's network and have
three network track access agreements providing access for rail freight and open
access (charter) passenger services throughout the network. In addition your
Petitioners hold a number of access agreements providing for the continued
connection of their sites to the national rail network. Your Petitioners are also
party to an unregulated track access agreement with Network Rail to provide
access to the network for your Petitioners' trains connected with the maintenance,
repair and renewal of the network. These agreements all have various periods torun and are currently subject to negotiation for long term renewal. Your
338798611 13
Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services willcreate further congestion on a network that is already congested, displace yourPetitioners' rail freight and open access (charter) passenger services in favour of
Crossrail services and prevent future rail freight service growth through lack of
network capacity. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be
allowed to pass into law without making provision for additional network capacity
for the proposed Crossrail services whilst providing for existing levels of networkaccess to remain, with a suitable level of capacity for future growth.
27 Your Petitioners have given careful consideration to specific measures to improve
network capacity which would help to ensure that Crossrail services would not
adversely affect your Petitioners' own services. These measures include capacity
and capability improvements such as additional running lines, loop lines,
additional signalling and grade-separation at junctions, to sections of the GWML,
the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) and the Abbey Wood Line (AWL) and alsoto routes that might provide alternatives to these lines: for example, the line
between Felixstowe and Nuneaton via Peterborough and Leicester, the line from
Barking to Willesden via Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak, and alternative access
to Angerstein Wharf in Greenwich. Your Petitioners will continue to discuss these
matters with the Promoter. In the event that agreement cannot be reached with the
Promoter it is submitted that the Bill should not pass into law without full
provision for network capacity and capability improvements, including additional
railway lines, identified by your Petitioners.
Facility access
28 Your Petitioners are party to master access agreements to stations throughout the
national rail network, including the proposed Crossrail route, and a number of
supplementary access agreements for individual facilities. Your Petitioners are
concerned that the Promoter, in exercising his rail facility access priority powers
provided by Clauses 22 - 32 of the Bill, will modify or void your Petitioners'
station access agreements so impeding or preventing access to stations. Station
access is central to the operation of your Petitioners' rail services as it provides a
safe and efficient environment to enable passengers to join or alight from your
14
Petitioners' charter passenger trains as well as enabling your Petitioners' trains to
change train crews en route, to meet occupational health and safety requirements.
Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter toprovide full and continued access to stations and associated facilities, along theproposed Crossrail route, necessary to avoid disruption to your Petitioners'business. If, however, interruption to the operation of any station or its facilities
used by your Petitioners' trains or its passengers is required for the works
authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions
should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative station
facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, eitheron a temporary or permanent basis.
Network ownership
29 The Promoter is to be provided with the power under Clause 6 of the Bill toacquire compulsorily Network Rail-owned facilities and network throughout theproposed Crossrail route, which will either limit or prevent access to the acquirednetwork. To access the acquired network, your Petitioners would need to enterinto separate track access agreements with the Promoter in order to continue toprovide throughout a single rail freight service, as their current track access
agreements with Network Rail would no longer be valid over the acquired
network. Furthermore, the Promoter is to be provided with a power under Clause
45 of the Bill to transfer rail network facilities to a third party. Your Petitionersbelieve that the national rail network should remain in the hands of a single partyto allow for ease of service integration, efficient timetabling and coordinated
maintenance scheduling. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that Clause 6 of the
Bill should be amended to ensure that the national rail network remains in the
ownership of Network Rail.
Great Western Main Line
30 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, seven days a
week along the GWML, with up to 85 train paths per day available for use bytheir customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed
15
services along the GWML would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, orsignificantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight and
charter passenger services on the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill
should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight
and charter passenger services.
Great Eastern Main Line
31 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, seven days a
week along the GEML, with up to 36 train paths per day available for use by their
customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed servicesalong the GEML would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or
significantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight and
charter passenger services on the GEML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill
should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight
and charter passenger services.
Abbey Wood
32 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, six days a
week along the AWL, with up to 11 train paths per day available for use by theircustomers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed services
along the AWL would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or significantly
reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight services on the AWL.
Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate your Petitioners' current and
projected future levels of rail freight and charter passenger services.
Terminal access
33 Your Petitioners' rail freight services are dependent on access to a large number
of freight terminals and branch lines along the GWML, GEML and AWL for the
3387986.1 16
operation of their business (a number of which are described in paragraphs 14 to23 above): without access to these terminals your Petitioners would be unable to
deliver freight effectively and therefore would be in breach of their customercontracts. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter proposes to acquire,adjust or remove access to a large number of rail freight terminals along the
GWML, GEML and AWL, so preventing or severely limiting your Petitioners'ability to operate rail freight services on these lines. Your Petitioners submit that
the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide them with full andcontinued access to your Petitioners' rail freight terminals along the GWML,
GEML and AWL, or with alternative equivalent facilities.
Environment
34 The Promoter, in exercising the compulsory acquisition powers that would be
provided by Clause 6 of the Bill in relation to the rail network inside the limitsshown on the deposited plans, will be able to prevent your Petitioners from
accessing the rail network along the route. A lack of network access by yourPetitioners could have the effect of displacing up to 10 million tonnes of bulkfreight from rail to road-based transport each year, equating to an extra 80 millionlorry miles and an extra 800,000 lorry journeys a year. This would have a
detrimental effect on CC>2 and other emissions, noise levels and traffic congestionwhich the Promoter has failed to take into account in assessing the impacts of theproposed works and associated powers.
Construction
35 The Promoter proposes to close temporarily many network sections and terminalsalong the existing rail network during the construction phase of the works
authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners are concerned that thePromoter's proposed track closures would limit or remove their ability to operaterail freight services during the works. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill shouldbe amended to require the Promoter to provide them with full and continuedaccess, or with alternative equivalent access, to your Petitioners' network sections
17
and terminals along the GWML, GEML and AWL during the carrying out of the
works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill.
36 The loss of your Petitioners' sites and facilities for the delivery of materials,
together with the disruptive effects of construction of the works, will also
seriously hamper the construction and timely delivery of facilities for the 2012
London Olympic Games. Your Petitioners suggest that the effect of the loss oftheir sites and reduction in access to their remaining sites be assessed in this light.
Growth
37 It is clear that increases in rail service traffic on the existing rail network will
reduce capacity if additional network infrastructure is not also provided. The
proposed Crossrail scheme will increase the amount of rail services on a networkthat is already highly congested. It is clear that even with the minimum level ofCrossrail services proposed in the Environmental Statement and associated
technical documents, existing rail service levels could not be accommodated and
future capacity growth would not be possible without additional rail infrastructure.
Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be allowed to pass
into law without a provision placing an obligation on the Promoter to constructadditional rail infrastructure to provide the future capacity needed to
accommodate both the proposed Crossrail services and the future growth in
existing services.
38 The recent London Gateway Port public inquiry and the subsequent Secretary of
State's "minded to" approval of the proposed new port facility has highlighted theGovernment's preference for a 25% share of the proposed port's freight to be
conveyed by rail, which will place extra rail freight services on the south-eastern
section of the proposed Crossrail route. Your Petitioners are concerned that theBill fails to account for the increased freight services, predicted to be up to 32 aday, which will serve the completed London Gateway Port. It is respectfully
pointed out that the Promoter, in drafting the Bill, has failed to take a consistent orintegrated approach to the support and delivery of rail freight growth to thetransport industry and its customers. It is submitted that the Bill should not be
18
allowed to pass into law without providing for the expected increase in rail freightservices that will follow from the construction and operation of London GatewayPort.
Railway matters
39 Your Petitioners are concerned that the duties imposed on the independent ORR
by Clause 22 of the Bill (the duty to exercise its access contract functions infavour of Crossrail) will undermine current impartial and open regulation of therailways and in turn create a climate of uncertainty throughout the industry.Clause 22 of the Bill further provides the Promoter with the power to extend theperiod of operation of the duty without reference to Parliament. Your Petitionersare concerned that open and fair regulation of the railways is maintained through
an unfettered and impartial regulator so that your Petitioners' timetables, access
rights and future rail freight capacity can be determined with certainty in theinterests of their customers and the use of rail to carry freight generally.
40 Your Petitioners note that Clause 23 of the Bill requires the Promoter to consult
with Transport for London and passenger rail service providers likely to be
affected by Crossrail before directing the ORR to specify the minimum operating
levels for Crossrail. The operating levels for Crossrail will impact on the ability of
other rail service providers, including your Petitioners, to run services along thoseparts of the existing rail network that will be used by Crossrail services, as trackcapacity will be reduced significantly once Crossrail services commenceoperation. Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should not be able to issuedirections under Clause 23 without first consulting with and having regard for rail
freight operators likely to be affected by the exercise of the direction, and that the
Clause should be amended to reflect this requirement. Your Petitioners do not
believe that the discretionary power to consult "other persons (if any) as theSecretary of State considers appropriate" is sufficient, as there is no entitlement
for rail freight interests to be heard, as there is in the case of rail passenger
interests.
3387986.11 19
41 Your Petitioners are concerned that the ORR is to have its regulatoryindependence interfered with further by the operation of Clause 24 of the Bill.
Your Petitioners' specific concern is that the general duties of the ORR (including
the promotion of the use of the rail network for the carriage of goods) are to be
overridden by a duty to exercise its functions in a manner that does not impede the
performance of any design, construction, financing or maintenance agreement
relating to the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners submitthat the Promoter should -
(a) be required comprehensively to justify the need for these overriding
duties;
(b) not be permitted to modify or override the statutory duties of the ORR by
the operation of this Clause; and
(c) in the event that your Honourable House considers it necessary to approve
these overriding duties, be required to make provision for meeting the full
cost of making good any disadvantage or loss suffered as a result of anyexercise of the overriding duties.
42 Your Petitioners respectfully point out that the Bill contains no provisions
whereby the Promoter will be specifically obliged to have regard to the interests
of your Petitioners' business, or of their tenants and customers, which is
unacceptable, and they therefore request that it does so.
43 Your Petitioners are concerned as to the disruptive effect which the exercise of
powers conferred by Clause 25 of the Bill, the power to amend existing rail
facility access contracts, would have on the operation of your Petitioners' rail
freight services leading into and through central London. If exercised, your
Petitioners' existing rights of access to the rail network will be modified orextinguished, impeding or preventing the operation of services on the network.
Your Petitioners submit that if such a power were to be granted, the power should
be tempered with a requirement to provide alternative access to those parties
subject to a direction, or for the Promoter to provide full compensation for any
20
loss or cost incurred as a result of the exercise of the power, or both, in order to
minimise the impact of the power on rail freight into and out of central London
44 Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter will be able to object to your
Petitioners' access contracts already in force, potentially resulting in the access
contracts being amended or voided under the powers provided by Clause 26 of the
Bill. Your Petitioners and their customers will suffer business instability as a
result of the uncertainty created by the Promoter's ability to influence the content
or existence of agreed and operational access contracts. The exercise of theproposed access contract objection power by a competitor, such as the Promoter,
is an abuse of a dominant position in the market and is inconsistent with ChapterII of the Competition Act 1998 (c.41) and Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome. Your
Petitioners wish to ensure the maintenance of the current transparent,
competitively neutral and industry-accepted access contract process without the
statutorily authorised undue influence, favour or uncertainty proposed by Clause
26 of the Bill. It is submitted that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into lawwithout omitting Clause 26.
45 Your Petitioners are concerned that the ORR is to have its regulatory
independence further interfered with through the operation of Clause 27, which
provides the Promoter with the power to direct the ORR to make and amend
directions it issues under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (directions
requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for the use of their railway
facilities). The proposed power will undermine the confidence the rail industry has
in the independence of the ORR and because of its discriminatory nature places
Clause 27 of the Bill in direct conflict with Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC,
which entitles Member State rail service operators to non-discriminatory rail trackaccess. Your Petitioners will be especially affected by the exercise of this power
in gaining on-going access to track and terminal facilities along and adjacent tothe proposed Crossrail route.
46 Your Petitioners further submit that the ORR will have its regulatory
independence interfered with by the Promoter through the operation of Clause 28of the Bill. Under the proposed power the ORR will be required to consider any
3387986.11 21
representations of the Promoter before adjusting an access contract relating to a
competitor of the Promoter, to account for any compensation that may flow from
the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners are currently party
to a large number of access contracts that may be adjusted through the exercise of
this power, resulting in the loss of business certainty, an inability to guarantee
customer timetables and significant disruption to the movement of freight along or
through facilities affected by Clause 28.
47 Your Petitioners submit that the provisions of Clause 29 of the Bill are
objectionable in that they disapply your Petitioners' access rights to railway
facilities, conferred by sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43),
while the Promoter, through the operation of Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Bill,
is provided with preferential and discriminatory access to facilities currently
utilised by your Petitioners and their customers. The powers proposed in Clause
29 of the Bill are in direct contravention of Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC
which prohibits, with some minor exceptions, the rejection of facility access
requests. Your Petitioners are also concerned that an order made under powers
provided by Clause 29 of the Bill will not be subject to annulment through a
resolution of either House of Parliament and hence the disapplication of primary
legislation will not be subject to any scrutiny by Parliament.
48 Your Petitioners are concerned that the provisions of Clause 30 of the Bill will
enable the Promoter to prohibit the ORR, in certain circumstances, from making a
direction under section 18 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (access agreements:
contracts requiring the approval of the ORR). The operation of Clause 30 of the
Bill will further provide the Promoter, being a competitor for facility access, with
the power to modify proposed access contracts in favour of the Promoter, or to
reject proposed access contacts outright. The Promoter, in exercising the power
provided by Clause 30 of the Bill, may delay the ORR from approving an accesscontract indefinitely. Your Petitioners will suffer significant disadvantage and
delay when making applications for facility access agreement approvals in relation
to new and alternative rail freight sidings, depots and customer freight transfer
facilities required in order to replace existing facilities that are to be acquired as aresult of the operation of Clause 6 of the Bill, if these provisions are approved.
3387986.11 22
49 Your Petitioners note that the Promoter will, under the provisions of Clause 31 ofthe Bill, be empowered to direct a railway facility owner to enter into an accesscontract with the Promoter or any other person for the purposes of the worksapproved by Clause 1 of the Bill. The powers provided to the Promoter underClause 31 of the Bill are likely to be exercised to the detriment of your Petitioners,
who have significant long term access contracts for facilities in places, either on or
adjacent to the proposed Crossrail route, which are likely to be displaced by or be
in conflict with the Promoter's new access contracts. Your Petitioners request that
the Promoter be required to consult with, and take advice from, your Petitionersprior to making a direction under Clause 31 of the Bill, if your Petitioners have an
interest in the railway facility that is proposed to be subject to the direction.
50 Your Petitioners note that Clause 32 of the Bill provides the ORR with the power
to amend existing access contracts affected by the creation of a new access
contract by the Promoter under the powers provided by Clause 31 of the Bill(power of the Secretary of State to require entry into an access contract), for thepurpose of facilitating the operation of Crossrail as the principal passenger
service. Your Petitioners are concerned that Clause 32 makes no provision for
circumstances where the Promoter's new access contract will disrupt the operation
of your Petitioners' existing access contracts to an extent that makes them
unworkable. Your Petitioners are also concerned that the provisions of Clause 32
of the Bill do not require the Promoter to provide compensation to parties to an
existing access contract or to third parties adversely impacted by the exercise of
the power provided by Clause 31 of the Bill.
51 Your Petitioners understand that the UK Government is currently subject to
infraction proceedings by the European Commission for failure to implement the
European Union First Package of EU Rail Directives (2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC
and 2001/14/EC). Your Petitioners further understand that draft regulations have
now been produced to transpose those Directives into domestic law in the form of
the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 and the
Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005. YourPetitioners submit that those provisions of the Bill (mentioned above) which will
undermine current open and impartial regulation of the railways will be in conflict
3387986.11 23
with the provisions of the draft Regulations, which will throw doubt upon the UK
Government's commitment to honour the purposes of the Directives in practice.
52 The proposed railway matters in the Bill and the effect of the Bill more generally
therefore run counter to established Government policy on the carriage of goods
by rail, set out or enshrined in (1) minerals planning policy guidance notes MPG1
and MPG6 and draft planning policy statement MPS1; (2) the Promoter's own
statement on rail freight made on 19 July 2005; (3) the White Paper that led to the
Railways Act 2005; and (4) European Union law on railway infrastructure and the
licensing of railway undertakings. By the compulsory purchase of rail sidings and
the removal of any guarantee of access to those that remain, the Promoter is also
significantly threatening the supply of construction materials to Greater London,
which may impact on construction costs generally and regeneration of the South-East, and risk damage to the environment by displacing rail freight onto the roads.
Blight
53 Your Petitioners submit that the compensation provisions proposed by the Bill are
inadequate to compensate your Petitioners for the loss, damage and
inconvenience, particularly attributable to blight to their properties, which theyhave already suffered or may now suffer as a result of the prospective construction
and subsequent use of the proposed works. The redevelopment or re-letting of a
number of your Petitioners' properties has already been prevented or severely
prejudiced by the Crossrail proposals. The incidence of blight will also continue.
Your Petitioners fear, for example, that prospective lessees of properties will feel
that the proposals may so blight some properties that they would not be interested
in acquiring any part of the property, or that prospective or existing lessees will
demand a considerably reduced rent, due to the prospect of the works. Further
provisions should, your Petitioners submit, be included in the Bill in this respect,including provisions respecting the making and assessment of claims for
compensation, and indemnifying your Petitioners for any loss they might suffer as
the result of unfavourable rent reviews respecting the leases currently affecting
some of their properties insofar as the reduced rent payable (as it may differ from
open market rent) is attributable to the proposed works and their effect on your
338798611 24
Petitioners' properties, or for any loss (so attributable) which your Petitioners
might suffer in the event of them not being able to re-let their properties (in whole
or in part) to existing or new tenants or in the event of them only being able to do
so at a reduced premium or rent.
54 Your Petitioners further submit that the blight placed by the Promoter's scheme on
current negotiations for rail freight haulage contracts and future negotiations and
the associated uncertainty of future train paths availability should be compensated.
Your Petitioners have experienced significant uncertainty in negotiating futurefreight business since details of the Promoter's scheme and its impact on rail paths
were announced. Provision should be included in the Bill for the Promoter to
provide full compensation for any loss or future loss suffered as a result of the
blight on your Petitioners' rail freight business created by the Promoter's scheme.
General matters
55 There are other Clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they
now stand, will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights, interests and
property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners.
56 As a general matter, your Petitioners submit that provision should be made for the
Promoter to repay to your Petitioners all proper costs, charges and expenses
(including the proper fees of such professional advisers as they may instruct)reasonably incurred in consequence of the Bill or of any provision made as a
result of this Petition.
3387986.11 25
Conclusion
57 Your Petitioners submit that the Bill fails to safeguard and protect the interests of
your Petitioners and their tenants and should not be allowed to pass into law
without the issues mentioned above being addressed.
YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAY your Honourable Housethat the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that they
may be heard by themselves, Counsel or Agents and with witnesses in support of
the allegations of this Petition against so much of the Bill as affects the property,
rights and interests of your Petitioners and in support of other such Clauses and
provisions as may be necessary or expedient for their protection or that such other
relief may be given to your Petitioners in the premises as your Honourable House
shall deem meet.
AND YOUR PETITIONERS WILL EVER PRAY, &c.
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL
Parliamentary Agents for
ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISH RAILWAY LIMITED
3387986.11 26
IN PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF COMMONS
SESSION 2005-06
CROSSRAIL BILL
P E T I T I O N
of
ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISHRAILWAY LIMITED
Against, the Bill - On Merits -
Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c.
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL50 BroadwayWestminsterLondon SW1H OBLParliamentary Agents
15 September 2005
_