Against the Bill - On Merits - Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c.

Transcription

1 IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION CROSSRAILBILL PETITION Against the Bill - On Merits - Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c. TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED THE HUMBLE PETITION of: ENGLISH WELSH & SCOTTISH RAILWAY LIMITED SHEWETH as follows: 1 A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced into and is now pending in your Honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for a railway transport system running from Maidenhead, in the County of Berkshire, and Heathrow Airport, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, through central London to Shenfield, in the County of Essex, and Abbey Wood, in the London Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes.". 2 The Bill is promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport (hereinafter called "the Promoter"). Relevant Clauses of the Bill 3 Clauses 1 to 20 of the Bill together with Schedules 1 to 9 make provision for the construction and maintenance of the proposed works including the main works set out in Schedule 1. Provision is included to confer powers for various building and engineering operations, for compulsory acquisition and the temporary use of and

2 entry upon land, for the grant of planning permission and other consents, for the disapplication or modification of heritage and other controls and to govern interference with trees and the regulation of noise. Clauses 21 to 44 of the Bill together with Schedule 10 make provision for the application with modifications and the disapplication in part of the existing railways regulatory regime which is contained in, and in arrangements made under, the Railways Act 1993 and associated legislation. In particular, they provide for the disapplication of licensing requirements, the imposition of special duties on the Office of Rail Regulation ("ORR"), the modification of railway access contracts and franchising agreements and the disapplication of railway closure procedures and of the need for consent from Transport for London in relation to impacts on key system assets. Provision is also included to enable agreements to be required as between the nominated undertaker and controllers of railway assets, to govern the basis for arbitration and to provide for the transfer of statutory powers in relation to railway assets. Clauses 45 to 59 of the Bill together with Schedules 11 to 14 contain miscellaneous and general provisions. These include provision for the making of transfer schemes, the designation of nominated undertakers, the devolution of functions and as respects other actions to be taken by the Secretary of State. Provision is also made in particular for the disapplication or modification of various additional miscellaneous controls, for the treatment of burial grounds, for the application of provisions of the Bill to future extensions of Crossrail, for the particular protection of certain specified interests and as respects arbitration. Your Petitioners and their properties Your Petitioners are English Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited (EWS), a private limited company (Company No ) and Britain's largest rail freight operator. Your Petitioners are the only rail freight operator to provide a full nationwide service. Your Petitioners currently haul over 100 million tonnes of rail freight, including more than 20 million tonnes of construction materials, each year and operate over 6,000 services each week. Your Petitioners' registered office is

3 McBeath House, 310 Goswell Road London EC IV 7LW. Your Petitioners hold licences under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) ("the 1993 Act") to operate railway assets throughout Britain and are party to access agreements approved or entered into pursuant to section 17 or 18 of the 1993 Act, which are for routes that cross or use part or all of, the Crossrail routes identified by the Bill. Your Petitioners own or have an interest in the following properties, which are subject to compulsory acquisition or use under the Bill: BOROUGH OF SLOUGH Parcels: 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 87 Property: Slough Description: Land and siding BOROUGH OF SLOUGH Parcels: 226, 239,240, 241,242, 243, 244, 245 and 247 Property: Langley Description: Land and siding LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON Parcels: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56,57 and 58 Property: West Drayton Description: Land, siding and ancillary buildings

4 LONDON BOROUGH OF BALING Parcels: 8 and 17 Property: Southall Yard Description: Land and siding LONDON BOROUGH OF HALING Parcels: 32, 36, 37, 38, 44,45, 48, 50, 52 and 54 Property: Hanwell Bridge Description: Ballast land and siding LONDON BOROUGH OF BALING Parcels: 153, 162, 166, 175, 176,179 and 181 Property: Acton Description: Land and goods terminal LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Parcels: 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Property: Old Oak Common Description: Land and Traction Maintenance Depot 4

5 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Parcels: 25 and 27 Property: Paddington New Yard Description: Land, siding and buildings LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS Parcels: 1243 and 1396 Property: Bow Midland Yard West Description: Land and siding LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM Parcels: 293, 294, 304, 307, 309, 310, 313, 314, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 376 Property: Bow Midland Yard East Description: Land and siding In addition, your Petitioners own or have an interest in railway apparatus and running rights in the areas of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Borough of Slough, District of South Bucks, London Borough of Hillingdon, London Borough of Baling, City of Westminster, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Borough of Newham, London Borough of Greenwich, London Borough of Bexley, London Borough of Redbridge, London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, London Borough of Havering, Borough of Brentwood and District of Basildon which, whilst not subject to the compulsory purchase or use proposals of the Bill, are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works and so liable to be injuriously affected by them

6 Your Petitioners also note from the Bill and documentation deposited with it that further Crossrail scheme extensions are safeguarded or proposed to be safeguarded, beyond Maidenhead to Reading and beyond Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. These extensions would have an impact on further parts of the national rail network, and the interests of your Petitioners who operate train services on both of these routes. The extensions would therefore need to allow for the continued operation and growth of your Petitioners' rail services, providing sufficient capacity and capability for rail freight. It is respectfully submitted that provision should be made for your Petitioners to comment on, and influence, any proposals to extend the Crossrail network. 10 Your Petitioners and their rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioners object for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter stated. Your Petitioners' concerns 11 Your Petitioners are not opposed in principle to the construction of the new railway transport system for which the Bill provides, but are concerned as to the impact that the works and system will have on their business and property. The scheduled works detrimentally interfere with and affect the property and apparatus of your Petitioners and their customers at many points along the line of the route. 12 Your Petitioners object to the Bill on the grounds that it does not afford sufficient safeguards to the continued and future operation of facilities and routes used in the daily operation of your Petitioners' and their customers' businesses in the areas concerned, and that as a result your Petitioners will suffer reduced rail freight carriage tonnage which will be displaced onto the roads. 13 Your Petitioners consider it imperative that the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill should only be exercised so that there is no interruption with or interference to the operation of rail freight services or rail freight customers. If, however, interruption or interference is inevitable then your Petitioners consider that any such interruption or interference should be kept to an absolute minimum

7 and that it is only appropriate that your Petitioners and their customers should be folly compensated for all losses, costs and expenses incurred and suffered as a result. Site-specific concerns Slough depot 14 The Slough depot provides a run-around loop for freight terminals at West Drayton (EWS) and West Drayton ARC, which can only be accessed by trains arriving from the west. The Slough property can also be used by the military for equipment and supply transport. Your Petitioners are planning to develop the site further for use in conjunction with Slough Industrial Estate to provide an "at the door" rail freight service to estate tenants. In compulsorily acquiring the site, the Promoter would prevent your Petitioners from developing services for Slough rail freight customers and force freight trains to travel greater distances to alternative run-around facilities. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Slough depot, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however, required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Langley 15 The Langley property provides a concreted siding adjoining the station at Langley, which is ideal for rail-served businesses. Your Petitioners are currently in negotiation with a potential tenant for long-term use of the property as a national distribution centre where rail-delivered goods are held for onward distribution by road, and vice versa. Your Petitioners are also in negotiation with another potential tenant who wishes to use another part of the property for the disposal, by rail, of spoil generated in the area. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be

8 amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Langley property, your Petitioners and their prospective tenants. If site interruption is, however required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. West Dray ton 16 The West Drayton property is currently tenanted by Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, which holds a long term lease of the property. Lafarge Aggregates Ltd operates a rail-served aggregate storage and distribution business from the property, which currently services Greater London handling over 100,000 tonnes of aggregate a year. West Drayton also provides access to the Colnbrook branch line, which is heavily used by freight trains serving the aggregates terminal at Thorney Mill, the oil terminal at Colnbrook and the Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 development also at Colnbrook. All of these site-specific rail freight services would be severely disrupted by the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the West Drayton property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however, required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Southall 17 The Southall property is an essential run-around facility for freight services travelling to and from the Brentford Branch. It is heavily used by freight trains destined for the Day Group facility located at Brentford, which receives 300,000

9 tonnes of aggregate by rail each year. In addition freight services departing from the West London Waste Authority terminal, also located on the Brentford Branch, use the Southall run-around facility. In this respect approximately 200,000 tonnes of containerised domestic waste and material for recycling moves through the Southall site by rail each year. The rail infrastructure on the site also provides recessing and stabling facilities for freight services clear of the main line in times of congestion, emergency and planned engineering works. The Promoter's proposed Crossrail services would not allow for continued use of the property by either the West London Waste Authority or the Day Group, with the likely effect of transferring 500,000 tonnes of rail freight to road. The site is also of great importance as it is one of the few locations on the south side of the Great Western Main Line (GWML) that allows for the formation and stabling of the longest freight trains that operate over that section of the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Southall property, the Brentford branch line, your Petitioners and their tenants. If site interruption is, however, required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Hanwell Bridge 18 Hanwell Bridge is an essential location for the efficient and effective operation of freight services on the congested GWML between Reading and Acton. Trains are regularly planned to use Hanwell Bridge and it is frequently utilised during times of perturbation and disruption to the network for holding freight services clear of the main line that are unable to access Acton Yard or the North London Line. The length of its sidings makes it one of the few locations on the north side of the route that can accommodate the longest freight services that operate over that section of the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Hanwell Bridge property and to your Petitioners' services using

10 the site. If site interruption is, however, required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Acton 19 The Acton property is fundamental to your Petitioners' London rail freight business, comprising two rail-served aggregate business tenants. Yeoman Aggregates and Hanson Aggregates operate aggregate processing, storage and distribution facilities on the site, which together receive 590,000 tonnes of materials a year by rail. Acton is the major hub for your Petitioners' services on the GWML in London. It is equivalent to Paddington station for the freight railway. It is a major freight yard, with connections to both the east and west. In order to make the most economic use of scarce railway timetable pathways, long "jumbo" trains of aggregates from the Mendip quarries are brought to Acton to be split into two or three separate trains, each for a different destination in London and the South-East. Acton is ideal for its function as it is strategically placed so that all freight terminals in and around central London and all main lines radiating from London can be reached. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Acton property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Old Oak Common 20 The Old Oak Common property houses the traction maintenance depot for the maintenance of your Petitioners' own locomotives, Virgin Crosscountry 10

11 passenger trains, passenger charter train rolling stock and other commercial rail operators' rolling stock on a contracted regular, or ad hoc basis. The property provides extensive stabling facilities that are used in conjunction with the traction maintenance operations carried out on the site. The property houses one of only two rail turntables in central London but relies on access from the east requiring all trains entering the property from the west to run-around or reverse using the Kensal Green run-around facility. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Old Oak Common property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Paddington New Yard 21 The Paddington New Yard property houses your Petitioners' rail-served concrete batching plant and associated infrastructure. The concrete batching plant is operated by Tarmac Limited and is the most central concrete batching plant in London, serving the local building and construction industry. The Promoter's proposed Crossrail services would not allow for continued use of the property by Tarmac Limited, with the likely effect of transferring 100,000 tonnes of freight from rail to road. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Paddington New Yard property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site

12 Bow Midland Yard West 22 The Bow Midland Yard West property is currently tenanted by London Concrete, Aggregate Industries and Plasmor, all of whom hold long term leases of the property. The tenants operate rail-served ready-mixed concrete, aggregate and concrete block distribution businesses from the property, which currently services Greater London handling over 600,000 tonnes of building materials a year. Your Petitioners' supply of freight trains to this site would be severely disrupted by the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Bow Midland Yard West property, your Petitioners and their tenants. If, however, site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site. Bow Midland Yard East 23 The Bow Midland Yard East property is currently tenanted by Bow Waste Recycling Limited, which holds a long term lease of the property. The tenant operates waste recycling businesses from the property. The Promoter's works on the site will disrupt your Petitioners' and their tenant's business operations on the property. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide an alternative proposal that would avoid disruption to the Bow Midland Yard East property, your Petitioners and their tenant. If, however, s site interruption is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative property and facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis depending on the Promoter's proposed long term use of the site

13 24 In relation to all of the sites referred to above, your Petitioners would wish to ensure that Network Rail is party to any agreement as to the temporary occupation or suspension of use of the sites that is agreed with the Promoter, so that your Petitioners do not lose the use of their sites permanently merely as a result of their inability to use them due to and during construction of the works. Alternative sites 25 Your Petitioners have given careful consideration to a number of sites that could provide the Promoter with alternative locations at which to conduct activities associated with the Crossrail scheme, such as the stabling of rolling stock. These and a number of other sites could also provide the Promoter with alternative locations to which the activities of your Petitioners and their tenants and customers might be relocated, subject to their consent. In this way, it may be possible for the Promoter to mitigate the damaging effects of his proposals on your Petitioners and their tenants and customers. Your Petitioners will continue to discuss these matters with the Promoter. In the event that agreement cannot be reached with the Promoter it is submitted that the Bill should not be passed into law without full consideration of the alternative sites identified by your Petitioners. Network-specific concerns Capacity 26 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services on Network Rail's network and have three network track access agreements providing access for rail freight and open access (charter) passenger services throughout the network. In addition your Petitioners hold a number of access agreements providing for the continued connection of their sites to the national rail network. Your Petitioners are also party to an unregulated track access agreement with Network Rail to provide access to the network for your Petitioners' trains connected with the maintenance, repair and renewal of the network. These agreements all have various periods to run and are currently subject to negotiation for long term renewal. Your

14 Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed Crossrail services will create further congestion on a network that is already congested, displace your Petitioners' rail freight and open access (charter) passenger services in favour of Crossrail services and prevent future rail freight service growth through lack of network capacity. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law without making provision for additional network capacity for the proposed Crossrail services whilst providing for existing levels of network access to remain, with a suitable level of capacity for future growth. 27 Your Petitioners have given careful consideration to specific measures to improve network capacity which would help to ensure that Crossrail services would not adversely affect your Petitioners' own services. These measures include capacity and capability improvements such as additional running lines, loop lines, additional signalling and grade-separation at junctions, to sections of the GWML, the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) and the Abbey Wood Line (AWL) and also to routes that might provide alternatives to these lines: for example, the line between Felixstowe and Nuneaton via Peterborough and Leicester, the line from Barking to Willesden via Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak, and alternative access to Angerstein Wharf in Greenwich. Your Petitioners will continue to discuss these matters with the Promoter. In the event that agreement cannot be reached with the Promoter it is submitted that the Bill should not pass into law without full provision for network capacity and capability improvements, including additional railway lines, identified by your Petitioners. Facility access 28 Your Petitioners are party to master access agreements to stations throughout the national rail network, including the proposed Crossrail route, and a number of supplementary access agreements for individual facilities. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter, in exercising his rail facility access priority powers provided by Clauses of the Bill, will modify or void your Petitioners' station access agreements so impeding or preventing access to stations. Station access is central to the operation of your Petitioners' rail services as it provides a safe and efficient environment to enable passengers to join or alight from your 14

15 Petitioners' charter passenger trains as well as enabling your Petitioners' trains to change train crews en route, to meet occupational health and safety requirements. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide full and continued access to stations and associated facilities, along the proposed Crossrail route, necessary to avoid disruption to your Petitioners' business. If, however, interruption to the operation of any station or its facilities used by your Petitioners' trains or its passengers is required for the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill, your Petitioners submit that such interruptions should be kept to an absolute minimum and that suitable alternative station facilities should be made available to your Petitioners by way of mitigation, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Network ownership 29 The Promoter is to be provided with the power under Clause 6 of the Bill to acquire compulsorily Network Rail-owned facilities and network throughout the proposed Crossrail route, which will either limit or prevent access to the acquired network. To access the acquired network, your Petitioners would need to enter into separate track access agreements with the Promoter in order to continue to provide throughout a single rail freight service, as their current track access agreements with Network Rail would no longer be valid over the acquired network. Furthermore, the Promoter is to be provided with a power under Clause 45 of the Bill to transfer rail network facilities to a third party. Your Petitioners believe that the national rail network should remain in the hands of a single party to allow for ease of service integration, efficient timetabling and coordinated maintenance scheduling. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that Clause 6 of the Bill should be amended to ensure that the national rail network remains in the ownership of Network Rail. Great Western Main Line 30 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, seven days a week along the GWML, with up to 85 train paths per day available for use by their customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed 15

16 services along the GWML would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or significantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight and charter passenger services on the GWML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight and charter passenger services. Great Eastern Main Line 31 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, seven days a week along the GEML, with up to 36 train paths per day available for use by their customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed services along the GEML would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or significantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight and charter passenger services on the GEML. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight and charter passenger services. Abbey Wood 32 Your Petitioners operate rail freight services twenty four hours a day, six days a week along the AWL, with up to 11 train paths per day available for use by their customers. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed services along the AWL would severely decrease line capacity and prevent, or significantly reduce, the ability of your Petitioners to operate rail freight services on the AWL. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate your Petitioners' current and projected future levels of rail freight and charter passenger services. Terminal access 33 Your Petitioners' rail freight services are dependent on access to a large number of freight terminals and branch lines along the GWML, GEML and AWL for the

17 operation of their business (a number of which are described in paragraphs 14 to 23 above): without access to these terminals your Petitioners would be unable to deliver freight effectively and therefore would be in breach of their customer contracts. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter proposes to acquire, adjust or remove access to a large number of rail freight terminals along the GWML, GEML and AWL, so preventing or severely limiting your Petitioners' ability to operate rail freight services on these lines. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide them with full and continued access to your Petitioners' rail freight terminals along the GWML, GEML and AWL, or with alternative equivalent facilities. Environment 34 The Promoter, in exercising the compulsory acquisition powers that would be provided by Clause 6 of the Bill in relation to the rail network inside the limits shown on the deposited plans, will be able to prevent your Petitioners from accessing the rail network along the route. A lack of network access by your Petitioners could have the effect of displacing up to 10 million tonnes of bulk freight from rail to road-based transport each year, equating to an extra 80 million lorry miles and an extra 800,000 lorry journeys a year. This would have a detrimental effect on CC>2 and other emissions, noise levels and traffic congestion which the Promoter has failed to take into account in assessing the impacts of the proposed works and associated powers. Construction 35 The Promoter proposes to close temporarily many network sections and terminals along the existing rail network during the construction phase of the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter's proposed track closures would limit or remove their ability to operate rail freight services during the works. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should be amended to require the Promoter to provide them with full and continued access, or with alternative equivalent access, to your Petitioners' network sections 17

18 and terminals along the GWML, GEML and AWL during the carrying out of the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. 36 The loss of your Petitioners' sites and facilities for the delivery of materials, together with the disruptive effects of construction of the works, will also seriously hamper the construction and timely delivery of facilities for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Your Petitioners suggest that the effect of the loss of their sites and reduction in access to their remaining sites be assessed in this light. Growth 37 It is clear that increases in rail service traffic on the existing rail network will reduce capacity if additional network infrastructure is not also provided. The proposed Crossrail scheme will increase the amount of rail services on a network that is already highly congested. It is clear that even with the minimum level of Crossrail services proposed in the Environmental Statement and associated technical documents, existing rail service levels could not be accommodated and future capacity growth would not be possible without additional rail infrastructure. Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law without a provision placing an obligation on the Promoter to construct additional rail infrastructure to provide the future capacity needed to accommodate both the proposed Crossrail services and the future growth in existing services. 38 The recent London Gateway Port public inquiry and the subsequent Secretary of State's "minded to" approval of the proposed new port facility has highlighted the Government's preference for a 25% share of the proposed port's freight to be conveyed by rail, which will place extra rail freight services on the south-eastern section of the proposed Crossrail route. Your Petitioners are concerned that the Bill fails to account for the increased freight services, predicted to be up to 32 a day, which will serve the completed London Gateway Port. It is respectfully pointed out that the Promoter, in drafting the Bill, has failed to take a consistent or integrated approach to the support and delivery of rail freight growth to the transport industry and its customers. It is submitted that the Bill should not be 18

19 allowed to pass into law without providing for the expected increase in rail freight services that will follow from the construction and operation of London Gateway Port. Railway matters 39 Your Petitioners are concerned that the duties imposed on the independent ORR by Clause 22 of the Bill (the duty to exercise its access contract functions in favour of Crossrail) will undermine current impartial and open regulation of the railways and in turn create a climate of uncertainty throughout the industry. Clause 22 of the Bill further provides the Promoter with the power to extend the period of operation of the duty without reference to Parliament. Your Petitioners are concerned that open and fair regulation of the railways is maintained through an unfettered and impartial regulator so that your Petitioners' timetables, access rights and future rail freight capacity can be determined with certainty in the interests of their customers and the use of rail to carry freight generally. 40 Your Petitioners note that Clause 23 of the Bill requires the Promoter to consult with Transport for London and passenger rail service providers likely to be affected by Crossrail before directing the ORR to specify the minimum operating levels for Crossrail. The operating levels for Crossrail will impact on the ability of other rail service providers, including your Petitioners, to run services along those parts of the existing rail network that will be used by Crossrail services, as track capacity will be reduced significantly once Crossrail services commence operation. Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should not be able to issue directions under Clause 23 without first consulting with and having regard for rail freight operators likely to be affected by the exercise of the direction, and that the Clause should be amended to reflect this requirement. Your Petitioners do not believe that the discretionary power to consult "other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate" is sufficient, as there is no entitlement for rail freight interests to be heard, as there is in the case of rail passenger interests

20 41 Your Petitioners are concerned that the ORR is to have its regulatory independence interfered with further by the operation of Clause 24 of the Bill. Your Petitioners' specific concern is that the general duties of the ORR (including the promotion of the use of the rail network for the carriage of goods) are to be overridden by a duty to exercise its functions in a manner that does not impede the performance of any design, construction, financing or maintenance agreement relating to the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners submit that the Promoter should - (a) be required comprehensively to justify the need for these overriding duties; (b) not be permitted to modify or override the statutory duties of the ORR by the operation of this Clause; and (c) in the event that your Honourable House considers it necessary to approve these overriding duties, be required to make provision for meeting the full cost of making good any disadvantage or loss suffered as a result of any exercise of the overriding duties. 42 Your Petitioners respectfully point out that the Bill contains no provisions whereby the Promoter will be specifically obliged to have regard to the interests of your Petitioners' business, or of their tenants and customers, which is unacceptable, and they therefore request that it does so. 43 Your Petitioners are concerned as to the disruptive effect which the exercise of powers conferred by Clause 25 of the Bill, the power to amend existing rail facility access contracts, would have on the operation of your Petitioners' rail freight services leading into and through central London. If exercised, your Petitioners' existing rights of access to the rail network will be modified or extinguished, impeding or preventing the operation of services on the network. Your Petitioners submit that if such a power were to be granted, the power should be tempered with a requirement to provide alternative access to those parties subject to a direction, or for the Promoter to provide full compensation for any 20

21 loss or cost incurred as a result of the exercise of the power, or both, in order to minimise the impact of the power on rail freight into and out of central London 44 Your Petitioners are concerned that the Promoter will be able to object to your Petitioners' access contracts already in force, potentially resulting in the access contracts being amended or voided under the powers provided by Clause 26 of the Bill. Your Petitioners and their customers will suffer business instability as a result of the uncertainty created by the Promoter's ability to influence the content or existence of agreed and operational access contracts. The exercise of the proposed access contract objection power by a competitor, such as the Promoter, is an abuse of a dominant position in the market and is inconsistent with Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (c.41) and Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome. Your Petitioners wish to ensure the maintenance of the current transparent, competitively neutral and industry-accepted access contract process without the statutorily authorised undue influence, favour or uncertainty proposed by Clause 26 of the Bill. It is submitted that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into law without omitting Clause Your Petitioners are concerned that the ORR is to have its regulatory independence further interfered with through the operation of Clause 27, which provides the Promoter with the power to direct the ORR to make and amend directions it issues under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (directions requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for the use of their railway facilities). The proposed power will undermine the confidence the rail industry has in the independence of the ORR and because of its discriminatory nature places Clause 27 of the Bill in direct conflict with Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC, which entitles Member State rail service operators to non-discriminatory rail track access. Your Petitioners will be especially affected by the exercise of this power in gaining on-going access to track and terminal facilities along and adjacent to the proposed Crossrail route. 46 Your Petitioners further submit that the ORR will have its regulatory independence interfered with by the Promoter through the operation of Clause 28 of the Bill. Under the proposed power the ORR will be required to consider any

22 representations of the Promoter before adjusting an access contract relating to a competitor of the Promoter, to account for any compensation that may flow from the works authorised by Clause 1 of the Bill. Your Petitioners are currently party to a large number of access contracts that may be adjusted through the exercise of this power, resulting in the loss of business certainty, an inability to guarantee customer timetables and significant disruption to the movement of freight along or through facilities affected by Clause Your Petitioners submit that the provisions of Clause 29 of the Bill are objectionable in that they disapply your Petitioners' access rights to railway facilities, conferred by sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43), while the Promoter, through the operation of Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Bill, is provided with preferential and discriminatory access to facilities currently utilised by your Petitioners and their customers. The powers proposed in Clause 29 of the Bill are in direct contravention of Article 5 of Directive 2001/14/EC which prohibits, with some minor exceptions, the rejection of facility access requests. Your Petitioners are also concerned that an order made under powers provided by Clause 29 of the Bill will not be subject to annulment through a resolution of either House of Parliament and hence the disapplication of primary legislation will not be subject to any scrutiny by Parliament. 48 Your Petitioners are concerned that the provisions of Clause 30 of the Bill will enable the Promoter to prohibit the ORR, in certain circumstances, from making a direction under section 18 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (access agreements: contracts requiring the approval of the ORR). The operation of Clause 30 of the Bill will further provide the Promoter, being a competitor for facility access, with the power to modify proposed access contracts in favour of the Promoter, or to reject proposed access contacts outright. The Promoter, in exercising the power provided by Clause 30 of the Bill, may delay the ORR from approving an access contract indefinitely. Your Petitioners will suffer significant disadvantage and delay when making applications for facility access agreement approvals in relation to new and alternative rail freight sidings, depots and customer freight transfer facilities required in order to replace existing facilities that are to be acquired as a result of the operation of Clause 6 of the Bill, if these provisions are approved

23 49 Your Petitioners note that the Promoter will, under the provisions of Clause 31 of the Bill, be empowered to direct a railway facility owner to enter into an access contract with the Promoter or any other person for the purposes of the works approved by Clause 1 of the Bill. The powers provided to the Promoter under Clause 31 of the Bill are likely to be exercised to the detriment of your Petitioners, who have significant long term access contracts for facilities in places, either on or adjacent to the proposed Crossrail route, which are likely to be displaced by or be in conflict with the Promoter's new access contracts. Your Petitioners request that the Promoter be required to consult with, and take advice from, your Petitioners prior to making a direction under Clause 31 of the Bill, if your Petitioners have an interest in the railway facility that is proposed to be subject to the direction. 50 Your Petitioners note that Clause 32 of the Bill provides the ORR with the power to amend existing access contracts affected by the creation of a new access contract by the Promoter under the powers provided by Clause 31 of the Bill (power of the Secretary of State to require entry into an access contract), for the purpose of facilitating the operation of Crossrail as the principal passenger service. Your Petitioners are concerned that Clause 32 makes no provision for circumstances where the Promoter's new access contract will disrupt the operation of your Petitioners' existing access contracts to an extent that makes them unworkable. Your Petitioners are also concerned that the provisions of Clause 32 of the Bill do not require the Promoter to provide compensation to parties to an existing access contract or to third parties adversely impacted by the exercise of the power provided by Clause 31 of the Bill. 51 Your Petitioners understand that the UK Government is currently subject to infraction proceedings by the European Commission for failure to implement the European Union First Package of EU Rail Directives (2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC). Your Petitioners further understand that draft regulations have now been produced to transpose those Directives into domestic law in the form of the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005 and the Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations Your Petitioners submit that those provisions of the Bill (mentioned above) which will undermine current open and impartial regulation of the railways will be in conflict

24 with the provisions of the draft Regulations, which will throw doubt upon the UK Government's commitment to honour the purposes of the Directives in practice. 52 The proposed railway matters in the Bill and the effect of the Bill more generally therefore run counter to established Government policy on the carriage of goods by rail, set out or enshrined in (1) minerals planning policy guidance notes MPG1 and MPG6 and draft planning policy statement MPS1; (2) the Promoter's own statement on rail freight made on 19 July 2005; (3) the White Paper that led to the Railways Act 2005; and (4) European Union law on railway infrastructure and the licensing of railway undertakings. By the compulsory purchase of rail sidings and the removal of any guarantee of access to those that remain, the Promoter is also significantly threatening the supply of construction materials to Greater London, which may impact on construction costs generally and regeneration of the South- East, and risk damage to the environment by displacing rail freight onto the roads. Blight 53 Your Petitioners submit that the compensation provisions proposed by the Bill are inadequate to compensate your Petitioners for the loss, damage and inconvenience, particularly attributable to blight to their properties, which they have already suffered or may now suffer as a result of the prospective construction and subsequent use of the proposed works. The redevelopment or re-letting of a number of your Petitioners' properties has already been prevented or severely prejudiced by the Crossrail proposals. The incidence of blight will also continue. Your Petitioners fear, for example, that prospective lessees of properties will feel that the proposals may so blight some properties that they would not be interested in acquiring any part of the property, or that prospective or existing lessees will demand a considerably reduced rent, due to the prospect of the works. Further provisions should, your Petitioners submit, be included in the Bill in this respect, including provisions respecting the making and assessment of claims for compensation, and indemnifying your Petitioners for any loss they might suffer as the result of unfavourable rent reviews respecting the leases currently affecting some of their properties insofar as the reduced rent payable (as it may differ from open market rent) is attributable to the proposed works and their effect on your

25 Petitioners' properties, or for any loss (so attributable) which your Petitioners might suffer in the event of them not being able to re-let their properties (in whole or in part) to existing or new tenants or in the event of them only being able to do so at a reduced premium or rent. 54 Your Petitioners further submit that the blight placed by the Promoter's scheme on current negotiations for rail freight haulage contracts and future negotiations and the associated uncertainty of future train paths availability should be compensated. Your Petitioners have experienced significant uncertainty in negotiating future freight business since details of the Promoter's scheme and its impact on rail paths were announced. Provision should be included in the Bill for the Promoter to provide full compensation for any loss or future loss suffered as a result of the blight on your Petitioners' rail freight business created by the Promoter's scheme. General matters 55 There are other Clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand, will prejudicially affect your Petitioners and their rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioners. 56 As a general matter, your Petitioners submit that provision should be made for the Promoter to repay to your Petitioners all proper costs, charges and expenses (including the proper fees of such professional advisers as they may instruct) reasonably incurred in consequence of the Bill or of any provision made as a result of this Petition