Tag: Lord Berkeley

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2015-11-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what process they are using to assess which parts of Network Rail and London and Continental Railways’ land estate are suitable for disposal, and what conditions will be set to ensure that noise and vibration issues are minimised.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Summer Budget stated “the government will introduce a new approach to station redevelopment and commercial land sales on the rail network, building on the experience of regenerating land around Kings Cross Station and Stratford in East London – the government will establish a dedicated body to focus on pursuing opportunities to realise value from public land and property assets in the rail network to both maximise the benefit to local communities and reduce the burden of public debt”. Discussions are taking place to develop an approach that maximises value for the taxpayer and supports the safe and efficient operation of the rail network.

The disposal of Network Rail’s assets must be in accordance with its network licence, which is regulated by the Office of Rail and Road. London and Continental Railways’ asset disposals are approved by the company’s board and the Department for Transport.

Sale contracts for land will not impose conditions on the seller in relation to noise and vibration. Proximity to the railway and related issues such as noise and vibration are generally considered as part of the planning process, which is regulated by the relevant planning authority in accordance with environmental legislation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what economic benefits are attributed in the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs document of October 2015 Creating a River Thames fit for our future: An updated strategic and economic case for the Thames Tideway Tunnel to (1) the Lee Tunnel, and (2) the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) are key aspects of a wider improvement scheme for the Thames Tideway designed to meet the environmental standards set for the Tideway and achieve the environmental requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

The updated assessment of October 2015 provided a cost-benefit analysis focused on the TTT in isolation, to inform Government’s decision on whether to proceed with that project as the last major phase of the wider Tideway environmental improvement works. Research set out in this assessment showed that the Lee Tunnel, while having significant local benefit, would not in itself deliver the wider environmental outcomes sought from the overall Tideway improvement scheme. The 2015 assessment therefore assumed no benefits are secured by the Lee Tunnel on its own. It demonstrated the benefits of the TTT, based on an assessment of people’s willingness to pay, to be in the region of £7.4 billion to £12.7 billion (at 2014 prices).

Defra carried out two sensitivity tests on this assumption (published alongside the main results in the cost-benefit annex to the Strategic and Economic case), to ensure the robustness of that decision. One test factored in the cost of the Lee Tunnel to the cost-benefit analysis for the TTT, and the second assumed that the Lee Tunnel reduced the benefit attributed to the TTT by 40%. In neither test did the economic case for the TTT become unfavourable.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what investigations they have conducted into the safety of long road tunnels, and what assessment they have made of the implications of those investigations for any proposed road tunnel under the Pennines.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The government has investigated the safety of long road tunnels as part of the strategic study into the Trans-Pennine Tunnel. Such tunnels are operated safely around the world and the Trans-Pennine Tunnel will be designed to be consistent with this.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their current initiatives on the use of tax havens and issues about the use of off-shore companies, what assessment they have made of the use by Thames Water of a Cayman Islands company to raise over £5 billion of debt, and of Thames Water being owned and controlled from Luxembourg.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not disclose details of its work on the affairs of particular taxpayers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-06-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government in which applications under section 100 of the Planning Act 2008 an Examining Authority has appointed a person to act as assessor.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

There has been only one application for development consent where an assessor has been appointed by under section 100 of the Planning Act 2008. This was for the Preesall Saltfield Underground Gas Storage project.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2015-11-05.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, where they are working to enable housing developments on Network Rail’s and London and Continental Railways’ land estate, what conditions will be set to ensure that noise and vibration issues are minimised.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Summer Budget stated “the government will introduce a new approach to station redevelopment and commercial land sales on the rail network, building on the experience of regenerating land around Kings Cross Station and Stratford in East London – the government will establish a dedicated body to focus on pursuing opportunities to realise value from public land and property assets in the rail network to both maximise the benefit to local communities and reduce the burden of public debt”. Discussions are taking place to develop an approach that maximises value for the taxpayer and supports the safe and efficient operation of the rail network.

The disposal of Network Rail’s assets must be in accordance with its network licence, which is regulated by the Office of Rail and Road. London and Continental Railways’ asset disposals are approved by the company’s board and the Department for Transport.

Sale contracts for land will not impose conditions on the seller in relation to noise and vibration. Proximity to the railway and related issues such as noise and vibration are generally considered as part of the planning process, which is regulated by the relevant planning authority in accordance with environmental legislation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Type 45 destroyers will have additional generating capacity installed, and what is the estimated cost of that work.

Earl Howe

The current planning assumption is that all six ships in the class will have additional generating capacity installed. The total cost of implementing the diesel generator upgrade will be determined at the main investment decision.

I am withholding details of our current cost estimates as premature disclosure of this information could prejudice the commercial interests of the Department.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-16.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the (1) internal diameter, (2) cross-sectional area, and (3) maximum design speed allowable, in each of the HS2 train running tunnels, and what assessment they have made of how those compare to equivalent running tunnels on high speed lines in France.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The design of HS2 tunnels has been considered in three separate groups, namely:

1. Cut & Cover tunnels,
2. Bored Tunnels with a maximum nominal line speed up to and including 230km/h,
3. Bored Tunnels with a maximum nominal line speed of between 231 km/h and 360km/h.

a, Cut & cover tunnels are twin cell tunnels with each cell measuring 7m wide x 9m high, giving a cross sectional area of 63m² for a maximum nominal line speed of 360km/h.

b, Bored tunnels with a maximum nominal line speed up to and including 230km/h have been designed with an internal diameter of 7.55m, giving a cross sectional area of 44.77m².

c, Bored tunnels with a maximum nominal line speed between 231 km/h and 360km/h have been designed with an internal diameter of 8.8m, giving a cross sectional area of 60.82m².

The cross sectional area of a tunnel is dependent is on a number of factors, including; maximum nominal line speed, tunnel length, railways structure gauge, railway system spatial requirements, aerodynamics including statutory requirements, operations and maintenance requirements including evacuation and safety. The impact of these factors has been assessed when determining the appropriate diameter/cross sectional area of each of the tunnels on the HS2 Phase 1 route. For this reason it is not appropriate to make a direct comparison between HS2 tunnels and those constructed in France or elsewhere in the world.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Minute to Parliament describing the contingent liability with an indicative value of up to £500 million, as created by the Market Disruption Facility agreed and signed by the Secretary of State and Bazalgette Tunnel Limited on 24 August 2015 in connection with the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was published, in the light of the fact that the potential exposure of the public purse exceeds £300,000; and when a Minute to Parliament was published in respect of the further contingent liability created by the Secretary of State in connection with the same project through his agreement to the Contingent Equity Support Agreement, signed on the same day with the same party, in the light of the fact that the liability could be as great or greater than that in the Market Disruption Facility.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Defra did not submit departmental Minutes on the various limbs of the Government’s contingent financial support package for the Thames Tideway Tunnel because the Secretary of State has statutory authority to give financial assistance for major water or sewerage infrastructure projects under section 154B of the Water Industry Act 1991. This is consistent with the approach set out in HM Treasury’s guidance, Managing Public Money, paragraph A5.4.21 & Box A5.4C.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-06-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Thames Tideway Tunnel project will send clean excavated materials to landfill permit sites as a waste or to be beneficially reused as a material or product as recovery in accordance with its commitment to reduce waste to landfill in the development consent order.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Tideway, the infrastructure provider set up to finance and deliver the Thames Tideway Tunnel, has been assessing several sites identified through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process to receive the tunnel excavated material.

Amongst other things this assessment looks at maximising the beneficial use of excavated material and its transport by river to meet environmental commitments made under the DCO. The relevant site operators have already made a number of applications to the Environment Agency (EA). The type of permit these sites require will be assessed by the EA in line with its guidance. This guidance is currently being revised following a recent Court of Appeal judgment which in some cases may lead to the reclassification of some waste activities as disposal rather than recovery. It is possible for appropriate disposal to deliver beneficial use such as habitat creation.