Tag: Lord Berkeley

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.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the total cost of fees, facilitation costs and enabling works for HS2 in each year since 2010.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The table below sets out the spend on HS2 in each year since 2009/10. Data for 2015/16 is currently provisional and so is not included.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-10-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Royal Parks have not yet completed the construction of the sections of the East-West London Super Cycle highway which are planned to pass through Hyde Park and St James Park; and when it is expected that the work will be complete and open to cyclists.

Lord Ashton of Hyde

The East West Cycle Superhighway is a Transport for London (TfL) project carried out by their contractors. The Royal Parks has issued licenses to TfL to permit the work to take place within the parks. Part of the cycle route in Hyde Park is already open. TfL estimates that the remainder of the Hyde Park route will be open in the New Year.

The work in St James’s and Green Parks is being planned in stages and the complete route should be finished by next summer although parts may be open sooner.

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.