Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20240
- 20259)
20240. EWS, however, have marketed the site
as at November of last year on the basis that the whole of its
leasehold interest was up for sale and not necessarily for a rail
depot. It seemed to be suggested that it should be marketed for
industrial sheds of some description served by rail. We can put
up the particulars of the sale, 04-019 and 04-020.[6]
20241. You can see these are the particulars
from November 2006, with EWS putting the site on to the market
and perhaps we can look at the second page. It can be seen from
the areas which are described there that there is a series of
coloured blocks of land on Exhibit 04-020 and they are all described
in the list in the top left-hand corner, and the areas which are
coloured and apparently put on the market as available for disposal
cover, as far as we are aware, the entirety of EWS's lease.
20242. The only areas of Old Oak Common Depot
which are excluded from the sale are those which are not in EWS's
possession and are not required for the depot, and we just show
the totality at 04-032.[7]
Unfortunately, the plan is almost completely unreadable. You will
see that we have superimposed the coloured blocks, that the red
line shows the boundary of EWS's ownership and you can see that
the areas for sale, therefore, cover the totality of EWS's property.
20243. Perhaps we can just put up a series of
aerial photographs which show the Committee how the site is currently
divided, and 04A-001 to start with.[8]
You will see there an oblique aerial photograph which shows you
the relationship of the EWS areas and the dotted white line demarcating
it from the first Great Western depot and the Heathrow Express
depot and sidings, and you will see the North Pole to the right.
Then in number 002, you will see another angle further into the
site and you get a very clear view of the rough triangle on the
left-hand side which is the EWS site, and that is the site which
is up for sale.[9]
Then number 003 is another angle again, it is an aerial photograph
again, and you can see the demarcation line, the white, dotted
line showing where the EWS ownership ends.[10]
20244. An illustrative drawing appears to have
been produced by EWS and was provided at our request last week
because it had not been available on the site visit, which is
04A-033, which appeared to accompany the sale proposals.
[11]It appears
to show the whole of the site taken up by sheds served by rail
and no retention of any land for EWS's maintenance facilities
or indeed for the charter fleet which, they say, is necessary
for a viable use of the site.
20245. Therefore, at least on EWS's own showing,
it has put the site up for sale, it is a site which we do not
appear to have in very intensive use, the illustration which has
been produced does not appear to keep it in the current usage
to which it is being used by EWS, and the Committee will have
seen the "For Sale" sign on its site visit. Sir, the
extent to which Old Oak Common is quite as important as EWS states
it is is a matter of some question.
20246. Whilst North Pole seemed a possible solution,
and was so promoted in the Bill, it has subsequently become clear
that that may not be the case because unfortunately the costs
as they have been looked at in more detail since the Bill was
deposited may well be prohibitive because the operating costs
and the rating liability for the site were much higher than anticipated.
It is entirely right, and EWS, I am sure, will point it out to
the Committee, that the estimate that accompanied the deposit
of the AP3 amendments considered that £73 million would be
the cost of relocating EWS to North Pole, making North Pole fit
for EWS's operations and paying compensation, including a contingency.
20247. However, like it or not, so far as EWS
are concerned, it remains a fact that what became clear in December
is that the rating liability for North Pole was massively greater
than had been anticipated. Old Oak Common is rated along with
Network Rail's general rating liability for all of its lands within
the country, and North Pole is separately rated on a special arrangement
with Eurostar at a much higher level. The effect of having to
pay the rating liability not on the Network Rail basis, which
is at Old Oak Common, but moving EWS to North Pole would be to
add some £20 million to the bill, it appears, and the costs
would rise to some £93 million. It is a matter of regret
that that issue was not spotted at the time, but nonetheless,
the bill estimate of £73 million was carried out without
the knowledge of that enhanced rating liability.
20248. Crossrail has, therefore, also considered
an alternative relocation strategy, which was shown to EWS last
week, as part of the long continuing discussions which there have
been over this issue.[12]
This involves having regard to their core freight maintenance
business on the site, relocating them to three new sidings with
sheds on the northern side of Old Oak Common which, on the current
figures and the current light usage by the freight maintenance
and related activities, would allow them capacity for growth.
You can see at the top of the depot the Crossrail
depot building, the big rectangle, and then just around that is
a series of new blue tracks and some sheds associated on both
sides of the blue tracks. It is proposed, and the discussions
are still continuing, although I cannot say that EWS have manifested
any enthusiasm for this, and it is perfectly possible, we say,
to retain EWS's core freight maintenance activities on Old Oak
Common without having to incur the disproportionate costs to the
public purse of paying the enhanced rating liability for North
Pole, and certainly the Promoter is willing to consider further
adjustments to that. Mr George tells me he will raise the point
about the environment assessment and I will hear what he has to
say and respond to it in due course.
20249. That option would require the relocation
of the charter fleet and would doubtless be subject to proper
compensation if that were the case; but that was the situation
EWS told us would be the case even with Romford. Sir, we are looking,
therefore, at whether there are any options to make North Pole
proportionate in terms of the cost to the public expense; we are
willing to look at the alternative stabling options with new sidings
in the northern part of the existing site at Old Oak Common; and
we are happy to continue working with EWS to see if a solution
can be found which is proportionate at public cost.
20250. Sir, we have offered them an undertaking.
I appreciate it differs significantly from the undertaking EWS
requests. This essentially says that we will continue to work
with EWS to seek to deal with the relocation at Old Oak Common,
to provide a rail maintenance facility of three sidings and a
shed together with compensation for displacement of the charter
train; or to relocate the whole of the business to North Pole,
or any other options to relocate within existing property holdings;
but that is subject to those costs being proportionate to the
costs of compensation. Although we have requested from EWS a breakdown
of their likely displacement costs, either on the basis only that
the charter fleet is displaced or that the whole of their operation
is displaced, they have declined to date to offer a breakdown;
because it may well be the case that it turns out that in terms
of expenditure to the public purse it may be proportionate to
relocate them to North Pole; we simply do not know at the moment.
We say this is a matter which requires further discussion; and
we are prepared to give an undertaking in the terms set out in
this document exhibit 04A-34.[13]
20251. It may be at the end of the process,
if there were no option other than complete displacement of EWS,
then the cost of compensating them would have to be paid; but,
as I say, whether that is right, whether those costs would exceed
the cost of relocation to North Pole are simply not known at the
moment.
20252. In summary, therefore, we say the position
before the Committee, and I apologise for taking a little bit
of time but it is a bit complicated, is this: firstly, Old Oak
Common is an appropriate optimal location for the Crossrail depot
and has distinct advantages over Romford, including the fact that,
as with other alternatives linked with it, it uses principally
railway land, does not impinge on Green Belt, playing fields or
local amenities.
20253. Secondly, there is no outstanding objection,
other than from EWS, to the principle of this proposal, and none
now at all relating to Ilford and Clacton.
20254. Thirdly, many objectives remain as to
retaining the original proposals for Romford; and EWS says that
even Romford, with its stabling at Old Oak, would have an adverse
effect on their charter fleet, so the same problem arises.
20255. Fourthly, consistent with safeguarding
this proposal is for the passenger use of Cross Rail, and that
safeguarding has been in place since 1990, and certainly well
before EWS taking its lease.
20256. Fifthly, the level of usage overall by
EWS is light, even including the charter trains which account
for about 60% of their traffic; and by freight it is very light
indeed. EWS's planning for the future of the site, as you have
seen from the sales particulars, do not appear to include their
own freight maintenance operation for their charter service, but
at best a rail served business or industrial site. We have done,
and there is in the bundle, a small pie chart, and I accept Mr
George may wish to criticise it on this basis, which involves
an analysis of the train movements for about a quarter of the
year rather than the full year. If we go to 04A-027, this compares
the elements of usage which would be at Old Oak Common/ North
Pole if EWS carried on at its current level of activity and Crossrail
came in.[14]
You will see EWS are so small that they appear in a single line,
in comparison therefore to usage by BAA Heathrow Express and Heathrow
Connect, by First Great Western, or the Crossrail movement itself.
EWS's usage of Old Oak Common appears to be very small indeed.
We say that is an irrelevant factor to bear in mind when balancing
the competing rail uses which exist for Old Oak Common in light
of the concerns about the other depot site.
20257. Finally, there exists, as I have mentioned,
several options for relocation within Old Oak Common or North
Pole which the Promoter will continue to appraise in discussion
with EWS with the objective of finding a suitable means of accommodating
at least its core maintenance and related activities, failing
which it will in any event be compensated for the cost of displacement
from Old Oak Common, and compensated according to the national
compensation code on the basis of fair compensation. Thank you,
sir.
20258. Mr George: Sir, I represent, as
the Committee knows, the principal freight operator in the United
Kingdom, and a principal user of the lines on which Crossrail
will run. The Committee will recall back on Day 51, when it was
agreed that our concerns about Old Oak Common would be held over,
which is why we did not go into those matters on that occasion.
20259. I shall shortly be recalling Mr Graham
Smith the Planning Director of EWS, and I want to take as little
time as I can with my opening. I hope the Committee have a little
bundle of exhibits which has been distributed, and I will be referring
just to a few of the particular exhibits.
6 Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common Traction Maintenance
Depot Leasehold Brochure (LINEWD-AP3-43-04-019 and -020). Back
7
Committee Ref: P144, Depot & Stabling Strategy Review-Layout
of EWS Facilities within Old Oak Common Depot (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-032). Back
8
Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common-Oblique view looking east
(LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-001). Back
9
Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common-Oblique view (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-002). Back
10
Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common-Aerial view (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-003). Back
11
Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common aerial view-Rail distribution
facility for EWS (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-033). Back
12
Committee Ref: P144, Old Oak Common Depot to Westbourne Park
Study (LINEWD-AP3-43--035) Back
13
Committee Ref: P144, Undertaking to EWS on Old Oak Common (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-034). Back
14
Committee Ref: P144, Comparative usage of Old Oak Common/North
Pole between EWS and Crossrail activity (LINEWD-AP3-43-04A-027). Back
|
