Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20720
- 20739)
20720. That is the reason for moving it?
(Mr Berryman): No, that is not the reason for
moving it; that is the reason why we definitely cannot go any
further. The reason for moving it is to get a better operational
layout.
20721. It is for the concrete plant; it is nothing
to do with residents, noise, pollution, planning—none of
that. It is for the concrete plant --
20722. Chairman: Is this a question,
Lady Bright?
20723. Lady Bright: I was just going
to ask Mr Berryman, what advantage is the concrete plant for the
operation of the railways?
(Mr Berryman): What advantage is the concrete
plant for the operation of the railway?
20724. Does it give any advantage? Is it useful
to have it there from the railways point of view?
(Mr Berryman): From Crossrail's point of view
or from the railway in general?
20725. Both.
(Mr Berryman): From Crossrail's point of view
it is not relevant, because Crossrail is not a freight railway.
20726. Kelvin Hopkins: If I can interrupt,
if somebody decided to move it, you would be perfectly happy about
that?
(Mr Berryman): We would not mind either way,
no. From the overall railway point of view and from the point
of view of the planning policies of Westminster City Council of
course it is important that it is there, because it is rail-served
and it allows the aggregates to be delivered by rail, keeping
many lorry movements off the road, and, secondly, it is in a position
which is close to its market minimising the amount of road time
for the truck mixers which need to deliver. That has two benefits—benefits
for the operators in that they get the concrete quickly before
it starts to go off, and it has benefits for Westminster or the
residents in the area, as it means the amount of time that the
truck mixers spend on the road and the amount of congestion they
cause is minimised. So those are the positive aspects of moving
the concrete batching plant.
20727. Lady Bright: Are you sure Westminster
favour having that plant there?
(Mr Berryman): Absolutely certain.
20728. I think that is misrepresenting Westminster,
frankly.
(Mr Berryman): Well, Westminster is a large
organisation. It may have many people in it but the people we
deal with in the planning department are absolutely certain that
they want it to stay there.
20729. Well, they have pointed out, the people
in the planning department at Westminster, which is our local
council, that that plant was granted permission under a 1971 regime
and it was built I think finally in 1984 when the area was completely
different—and they said all this to the Committee but I
am just reminding you—the area is now densely populated
all round and the last thing you want when you are building a
school is a concrete batching plant right there. The plant has
been safeguarded since—can you remember? 1991, is it?
(Mr Berryman): Ish.
20730. And you pointed out that it had not been
modernised. I believe Tarmac would have modernised it by now because
it would have been able to increase capacity, is that not right?
(Mr Berryman): You would have to ask Tarmac
that question, I do not know. It is probably getting towards the
end of its natural life.
20731. Obviously one must ask why they did not
modernise it, knowing it was safeguarded.
(Mr Berryman): They are fairly careful with
money, concrete producers, in my experience, but the only dispute
between us and Westminster on the batching plant has been about
the conditioning of it, in other words what planning conditions
should apply to it. Obviously, as I think you are aware, we have
come to substantial levels of agreement with them about that,
which is why they did not appear when they had the opportunity
to recently.
20732. It is causing you a lot of problems,
that concrete plant, for something that does not bring any benefit
because you have an awful lot of stuff to put into that area,
have you not? You have reversing sidings that you also want to
have there that we do not want there because we think they should
be in the depot, but there is that, and have you now settled finally
on the design for the postage stamp temporary plant?
(Mr Berryman): No. The temporary plant will
be subject of on-going discussions between the operator and ourselves
and Westminster City Council. Do not forget, it will be quite
some time before construction actually starts.
20733. But the design was approved under the
AP2, is that not right?
(Mr Berryman): The location was approved, yes.
There is a difference between location, which is effectively drawing
a red line around the site where something will be, and the detailed
design which goes to exactly where each bit of kit will be.
20734. Lady Bright: We have to disagree
about what Westminster thinks on this. We know that the London
Plan—can I just make this point?
20735. Chairman: I think the point is
noted, Lady Bright. You are able to sum up and you can mention
it then.
20736. Lady Bright: Then I have one last
question because I am still very puzzled about all the trouble
everyone is going to for this large multinational. What was the
price of the deal with Tarmac to let them stay there?
(Mr Berryman): There is no price. Do you mean
have they given us any money?
20737. Well, you are in negotiations still with
Tarmac, I believe.
(Mr Berryman): Not about money. Tarmac are
no different from any other land owner on the route or adjacent
to the routes. We have as part of normal practice, and I think
legally, to preserve their interests as far as we possibly can,
and we do not go around gratuitously putting people out of business.
It would make our lives a lot easier sometimes if we could, but
we do not do that; we are not allowed to. If we put someone out
of business we have to be able to demonstrate to this Committee
that there is no alternative and there is an alternative. It can
be kept going.
20738. Lady Bright: There is always the
difficulty of fitting in a temporary plant which we know from
Tarmac cannot handle their current capacity at all, but do you
not think that most businesses, if they are going to have an interruption
of four and a half years, would prefer to go straight from plant
A into a fully functioning plant B, and has that option been put
to them? I am thinking of Old Oak Common or points west.
(Mr Berryman): We have discussed with them
the alternative of moving their operations to various sites; we
have talked about North Pole and I am not sure if we have talked
about Old Oak Common in great detail but we have certainly indicated
that there are a number of other potential sites around in that
general area of Old Oak Common; we have certainly talked about
sites up in the industrial estate where Guinness used to be—I
have forgotten the name of it offhand—and they are just
not interested because their market is central London and it is
important to them to get the concrete to the sites in a timely
manner, or wherever it fits in with planning consents.
20739. Chairman: May I just mention that
I would hope that we might finish the witnesses before we break.
| 
