Tag: Lord Berkeley

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2015-11-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 28 October (HL2659) stating that there was no intention to seek a derogation from the technical specifications for interoperability in respect of dimensions of the GC structure gauge for new high-speed lines for station platforms, whether HS2 have withdrawn their letter to the European Commission dated 21 July that seeks such a derogation.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Department for Transport with HS2 Ltd are discussing with the Commission compliance requirements with the technical specification for infrastructure dealing with platform heights. These discussions are ongoing. The intention is, irrespective of the outcome of discussions on platform height, to meet the GC gauge requirements.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) proportion, and (2) volume, of excavated spoil from each of the Thames Tideway Tunnel construction sites will be transported from them by river.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Development Consent Order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) requires 100% of the specified materials to be transported by river for construction sites on the Thames foreshore, unless an approved derogation is in place. Derogations could include periods when it is not possible to use river transport due to factors such as river closures, incidents, weather and supply chain failures, and for material not suitable for river transport such as contaminated material that needs specialist disposal or material that is too wet for safe transit without specialist vessels.

The commitment to transportation by river from the construction sites was secured through the River Transport Strategy, which was included in Thames Water’s application for Development Consent for the Tunnel, although it only applies to specific material listed in the Strategy (including excavated material from the main tunnel at main tunnel drive sites and material excavated from the shafts at foreshore sites).

Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (operating as Tideway), the company appointed to design, finance, build and operate the TTT, has estimated the proportion and volume of excavated spoil that will be transported by river from each of the TTT construction foreshore sites (see Table 1 below). The percentages shown for each site demonstrate the anticipated effect of derogations on the amounts of excavated spoil they will be able to transport by river.

However, Tideway and appointed mains works contractors have made commitments to maximise their use of river transport and are therefore working on opportunities to increase the extent of river transport further in liaison with the Local Authorities, Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Transport for London.

Table 1 – Excavated specified material percentage and volume by river transport

SITE	% of all excavated specified material transported by river	Volume to be transported by river (m3)
Putney Bridge Foreshore	90%	14,000
Carnwath Road Riverside	90%	353,400
Cremorne Wharf Depot	90%	9,000
Chelsea Embankment	90%	44,400
Kirtling Street	81%	693,600 *
Heathwall Pumping Station	82%	16,300**
Albert Embankment	90%	56,300
Victoria Embankment	90%	27,900
Blackfriars Bridge	90%	72,100
Chambers Wharf	90%	416,100
King Edward Memorial Park	90%	57,500

*excludes shaft and excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures, due to restricted river frontage

**excludes ‘excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures’, due to site constraints

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the total overall cost of the planned M4 relief road south of Newport, and what funding they will provide, if any, for that project.

Viscount Younger of Leckie

The Department for Transport (DfT) is in regular contact with the devolved governments in both Scotland and Wales to discuss strategic matters and to co-operate on cross border roads. In this case, the M4 relief road south of Newport is entirely a matter for the Welsh Assembly and DfT have made no assessment of the scheme.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why water customers are being required to pay for the financing and legal fees of the shareholders of the consortium, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd., which was awarded the licence for the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

A water and sewerage company’s management and investors are responsible for determining the company’s capital and financing structure. This is an important feature of the water industry as it encourages investment by enabling a company to put in place a structure that works for it. However, accountability for a water or sewerage company’s capital and financing structure rests with investors and not customers.

Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd (trading as Tideway) is an infrastructure provider, appointed and licenced under the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/ 1582). Any costs incurred by Tidewayand its shareholders for its financing and other corporate arrangements are prevented under their project licence from being met by customers and are instead borne by the shareholders. This includes costs incurred both before and after licence award in August 2015.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the additional cost of £70 to £80 per annum, at 2011 prices and based on a 50 per cent probability of cost overruns, to all Thames Water customers of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, as quoted on page 83 of the prospectus of Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Ltd, represents good value for money for the consumer.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The impact of the Thames Tideway Tunnel on Thames Water customer bills is expected to be £20-£25 per year (at 2015 prices) by the mid-2020s. This is about a third of the initial estimate of £70-£80 per year in 2011, assessed at an early development stage of the project, and represents good value for money for customers. It follows the successful competition by Thames Water Utilities Ltd, completed in August 2015, to procure an Infrastructure Provider to finance and deliver the Thames Tideway Tunnel. The Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Ltd prospectus quoted by the Noble Lord is dated 26 June 2015 and so was prior to this procurement.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-10-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Royal Parks supports the provision of safer and improved cycleways, even at the expense of reduced space for cars and carriages.

Lord Ashton of Hyde

The Royal Parks seeks to balance the needs of all visitors while protecting the intrinsic qualities of the parks. It aims to achieve a safe coexistence between drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The addition of new cycle provision is one of a number of ways of delivering this.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions are taking place between the Department for Transport and HM Treasury about the disposal of land owned by (1) Network Rail, and (2) London and Continental Railways.

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, further to the remarks by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 28 January (HL Deb, col 1405), what is the estimated cost of the next two years’ work by Network Rail that has now been cancelled on (1) the stabilisation of the cliff between Parsons and Teignmouth, and (2) breakwaters, groynes and revetments in the Dawlish area; and what are the new estimated completion dates for those works.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

No work on this study has been cancelled. Network Rail is currently progressing the Exeter to Newton Abbot geo-environmental study on the existing route via Dawlish to explore options which will reduce the chances of future route failure. The work will produce a short-list of options for further strengthening of the existing railway from Control Period 6 (CP6) (2019 to 2024) and beyond. It is due to be fully complete in May 2016 and will feed into the funding deliberations for CP6 and beyond.

Plans for Control Period 6 will be defined through the standard industry planning processes. These will take into account the recommendations of the Bowe and Shaw reviews and the re-profiling carried out by Sir Peter Hendy, along with the views of both PRTF and Network Rail .This process is led by Network Rail, with input from a wide range of stakeholders and funders, and covers the needs of each 5-year Rail Investment Strategy (RIS) with consideration of longer term requirements up to 2043.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Welsh Government about alternative options to the M4 relief road south of Newport, including investing in additional rail services, stations and infrastructure.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Consideration of the case for alternative options to the M4 relief road south of Newport is a matter for the Welsh Government. However, we are working closely with the Welsh Government on the development of the next Rail Investment Strategy to ensure that relevant Welsh priorities for rail investment in Control Period 6 (2019-2024) are reflected. No decision on any major investment in Wales is made without taking into account the views of the Welsh Government.

The Welsh Government will gain much greater control over the development of rail services in Wales as a result of the agreement reached between the two Governments in November 2014 to devolve executive franchising rail functions in Wales, so that the Welsh Government can lead on the procurement of the next Wales and Borders franchise from 2018. Subject to agreement on final terms, I would expect the Welsh Government to be leading on the specification of future service levels in Wales in the next franchise.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what legislative provision OFWAT is able to waive the need for a public procurement process for lawyers and financiers for the Thames Tideway Tunnel for services contracts with fees of open-ended value, in the light of the limit for services contracts under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 of £345,028.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The statutory provision is regulation 6(8) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/ 1582) ("the SIP Regulations"). This confers a power on Ofwat to waive the requirement imposed on a licensed infrastructure provider (being Tideway, in respect of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project) to put certain contracts out to tender under a modified version of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 as set in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the SIP Regulations. Tideway is neither a contracting authority nor a utility within the meaning of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 or Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 and so is not subject to the normal procurement rules.

Following a public consultation, Ofwat issued two notices under this provision that waived Tideway’s obligation to comply with the modified version of the Utilities Contracts Regulations in certain limited and defined circumstances. The second notice issued by Ofwat provided Tideway with a narrow exemption for certain specified professional services relating to their financing and corporate arrangements, and only to the extent that those services will be paid for by its shareholders rather than customers.