Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8960
- 8979)
8960. They are improvements which are required
by the rail freight industry whether or not Crossrail happens.
(Mr Cann) They are committed to, regardless
of Crossrail or not.
8961. Capacity improvements are required, according
to the freight industry, and are being actioned quite independently
of the issue of the Crossrail Bill.
(Mr Cann) That is true.
8962. You have committed to upgrading Felixstowe
to Peterborough. Do I understand that?
(Mr Cann) No.
8963. What was the position that you committed
yourselves to then?
(Mr Cann) There are a number of different
capacity improvements and gauge enhancements in that area, but
we are not committed to any overall improvement of the Felixstowe
to Peterborough routes. There are various different schemes promoted
by various different bodies.
8964. So what is it you were telling the Committee
was committed in that event?
(Mr Cann) The largest part is £48
million worth of works on the Felixstowe branch line, which is
a six kilometre dualling, and in the construction of three extra
roads in the Ipswich yard. That is the largest part. What there
also are, and this is the majority of the remainder of the money,
are 13 gauge enhancements from Ipswich to Doncaster.
8965. They are being paid for by whom?
(Mr Cann) By Hutchison Ports UK.
8966. Who is paying for Gospel Oak to Barking.
(Mr Cann) I think that is coming out of
the TIF fund.
8967. So you are not being required to pay that?
(Mr Cann) No.
8968. There are two groups of improvements that
you have identified, both of which are required in any event,
regardless of Crossrail.
(Mr Cann) I agree.
8969. So far as your planning permission is
concerned for your port expansion, you say you have to be committed
by 2014.
(Mr Cann) I think the backstop date is
the end of 2014.
8970. That allows you to make a decision as
to whether or not to proceed over a period of time; you do not
have to make a decision now.
(Mr Cann) In practice that is not the
case because, of course, in order to get constructions moving
you need to work several years ahead.
8971. That is true. What was the timescale allowed
for by the planning permission? Was that granted 18 months ago?
(Mr Cann) It was about 18 months ago.
The original planning permission was five years. That planning
permission was varied.
8972. To ten years.
(Mr Cann) No, it was varied to include
a backstop date.
8973. When you say you are committed, the planning
permission, in fact, despite what you said, allows you actually
not to do anything at all, if you decided—
(Mr Cann) If we decided not to build our
port, yes.
8974. If the growth was not there you do not
have to do the work.
(Mr Cann) If we decided not to build our
port and not operate it, yes.
8975. So you do have the flexibility in economic
terms if you have to address it.
(Mr Cann) If we did not want to build
the railway we would not build the port and operate it.
8976. Yes. Coming to the ORR, you appeared with
two of your colleagues at the hearing on 1 February.
(Mr Cann) No, I did not appear. I was
present.
8977. I am sorry, that is a subtlety that is
beyond me, Mr Cann. You were present at the hearing of the ORR;
you are recorded as being there with two of your colleagues. You
had the opportunity to put forward any case you wished to make
on the issues that were being considered.
(Mr Cann) We put forward our case in written
submissions.
8978. Including freight growth and capacity
issues with regard to Crossrail.
(Mr Cann) Yes.
8979. We have seen what the ORR said in the
provisional decision already. Hutchison Ports wrote on 19 March
in response to the provisional decision.
(Mr Cann) Yes.
| 
