DOCSLIB.ORG

Berkeley Annual Report 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berkeley Annual Report 2007 Berkeley annual report 2007 Contents ifc Strategic goals and Business drivers ifc Key performance indicators 1 Scheme of arrangement and Financial highlights 3 Business review - Chairman’s statement 6 Business review - Managing Director’s review 18 Business review - Finance Director’s review 22 Business review - Environmental and social report 28 Board of directors and advisers 30 Directors’ report 33 Remuneration Committee report 45 Corporate Governance report 50 Auditors’ report on the Consolidated financial statements 51 Consolidated income statement 52 Consolidated balance sheet 53 Consolidated cash flow statement 54 Notes to the Consolidated financial statements 78 Auditors’ report on the Company financial statements 79 Company balance sheet 80 Notes to the Company financial statements 84 Five year summary 85 Financial diary Scheme of arrangement Financial highlights With £820 million of cash generated over Balanced sustainable results the last 3 years before payments to Profit before Net assets per Return on shareholders, the continued enhancement tax (£m) share (adding average of the Group’s unrivalled land bank and the back B share capital strong forward sales position, the Board redemptions) employed (p) (ROCE) (%) has sufficient visibility and confidence to 188.1 28.1 seek shareholder approval for the 165.1 24.0 acceleration of the remaining B shares. Return of capital to shareholders 697 649 2004 B share £5 – Paid on 3rd December 2004 06 07 06 07 06 07 B share redemption 2006 B share £2 – Paid on 8th January 2007 2008 B share £2 – Original scheduled payment date of January 2009 – Proposed payment date of January 2008 2010 B share £3 – Original scheduled payment date of January 2011 – Proposed payment date to be determined, but no later than the original scheduled payment date of January 2011 Total £12 www.berkeleygroupwww.berkeleygroup.co.uk 1 Strategic Business Measuring our goals drivers performance • Operate in the vanguard of • Uniquely experienced and • Customer satisfaction and sales the urban regeneration industry by committed management team • Balanced sustainable results creating sustainable communities • Astute financial management • Delivering our promise to shareholders • Maximise shareholder value • Responsible business culture • Driving environmental performance and deliver the scheme of • Unrivalled landbank • External recognition arrangement payments • Planning and design expertise • Deliver balanced results that coupled with disciplined delivery generate sustained cashflow • Strong brands • Manage risk in a cyclical industry • Creative partnerships • Optimise our land bank Gunwharf Quays, Portsmouth It combines 900 residential units (of An historic naval site, Berkeley • which 126 are for key-workers) with over • transformed Gunwharf Quays into one of 475,000 ft2 of commercial space that Europe’s largest mixed-use developments. includes 95 designer outlets, 20 bars A multi-phase development, the and restaurants, a 130 bedroom hotel, • regeneration of Gunwharf Quays has a 14-screen cinema and 30,000 ft2 of relaunched Portsmouth as a landmark office space waterfront destination Winner of the BURA Crystal Award for • Best Practice in Regeneration Key Performance Indicators £102.0 million cash generated £81.0 million net cash 100% brownfield land before £241.6 million 2006 B share at the year-end (2006: £220.6 million) used on completed developments over redemption on 8th January 2007 the last 2 years 30,128 plots in the land bank £936.3 million of 89.7% of our customers up from 23,819 at last year-end forward sales would recommend Berkeley to a friend up from £793.3 million last time Imperial Wharf, London A new riverside community spanning 32 • acres of previously derelict and neglected waterfront space The development comprises some 1,800 • homes set around a landscaped 10 acre park, as well as over 300,000 sq ft of commercial space Winner of the London Planning Award • for Best Built Project Contributing to London’s Future Business review - Chairman’s statement Optimising value for all stakeholders Roger Lewis Chairman Environment With regard to the future strategy, the than the £165.1 million reported for the reholde Sha rs Board is seeking to replicate the key same period last year, an increase of 13.9%. People features of the Scheme of Arrangement to Sustainable preserve the environment in which its Basic earnings per share from continuing urban entrepreneurial management team has operations totalled 112.6 pence, an regeneration concentrated on maximising returns to increase of 11.4% on the 101.1 pence shareholders through its focus on reported for the same period last year. Partners optimising Berkeley’s land holdings and cash generation as opposed to the income Over the year, total equity has reduced by statement. This strategy is founded on the £55.6 million to £781.6 million (April 2006 Board’s belief that the business has a – £837.2 million) and net assets per share natural size, and is not scaleable in the by 48 pence (6.9%) from 697 pence to I am delighted that, at the same time traditional sense due to the complexities of 649 pence. The 48 pence reduction is due as announcing these exceptional results, developing and delivering sustainable to the £241.6 million 2006 B share I can also announce our proposals for mixed-use urban regeneration schemes. redemption in January 2007 (200 pence), the next phase of Berkeley’s strategy. Attention to detail and quality together with offset by the profit after tax for the year of devoting the necessary amount of time and 112.6 pence; the revaluation reserve arising Scheme of Arrangement and 2007 management to every aspect of the from fair valuing the 50% of St James’ net Strategic Review development cycle for each site is the key assets already owned at acquisition (16.9 In June 2004 Berkeley announced its to delivering value to shareholders and pence); and factors relating to accounting proposals to return £12 per share to creating the inspiring sustainable for pensions and share based payments shareholders in conjunction with its future communities that we, our customers and (22.5 pence). strategy to focus on its urban regeneration other stakeholders demand. business. This was approved by shareholders At 30th April 2007, Berkeley had net cash and effected by a Court approved Scheme As a result, following the completion of the of £81.0 million (April 2006 – £220.6 of Arrangement in October 2004 which £12 per share Scheme of Arrangement million) after generating £102.0 million of created four tranches of B shares. To date, payments, the Board is proposing to make cash flow in the year before the £241.6 and in line with the original payment annual dividend payments at a cover ratio million 2006 B share payments in January schedule, £7 per share has been returned of less than 2 times. This will ensure 2007; a net reduction of £139.6 million. to shareholders with the remaining £2 and shareholders continue to see immediate £3 per share scheduled for payment in benefit from the Group’s strategy, while Return on capital employed for the year was January 2009 and 2011 respectively. allowing the Board to maximise short term 28.1% compared to 24.0% last time. opportunities under an unambiguous long Since 1st May 2004, the time of the term strategy. Sustainability strategic review that led to the Scheme of Although our focus remains the same, Arrangement, Berkeley has generated some The Board believes that it is appropriate to much has changed in the fifteen years £820 million of cash before payments to consult with shareholders on the since Berkeley took the decision to place shareholders, demonstrating the underlying remuneration policy to bring this in line its business in the centre of towns and strength of the Group and its ability to with the proposed acceleration of the cities. Above all there has been a step- generate cash and meet its strategic remaining B shares and, looking forward, to change in the way in which our society objectives. This, coupled with the strong put in place a new policy aligned to the thinks about the impact of what we do. forward sales position, has provided the next phase of Berkeley’s strategy. Keeping pace with this growing concern Board with the opportunity to review the Accordingly, the Board will consult with with the legacy we create for future timing of the remaining B share payments shareholders on its proposals during July generations has played a central role in and consider the most appropriate strategy and August in advance of the AGM. Berkeley’s success; we have never for Berkeley once the B shares are paid. The underestimated the scale of our conclusion of this review is that approval will Results responsibilities and remain passionate be sought at the Annual General Meeting on about meeting the challenges in the way 5th September 2007 to accelerate the £102.0 million of cash that is expected of us. Consequently, the payment of the 2008 B share (£2 per generated before 2006 principles of sustainability have been, for share) by 12 months to the beginning of some time, a driving force of what we do January 2008 and to pay the final (2010) B B share redemption and how we do it. Bringing derelict share of £3 per share at a date to be Berkeley is delighted to announce a pre-tax brownfield land back to life is inherently determined but no later than the original profit of £188.1 million for the year ended positive, but we are spurred forwards by a scheduled date of January 2011. 30th April 2007. This is £23.0 million more desire to further understand the reality of www.berkeleygroup.co.uk 3 Business review - Chairman’s statement continued implementing our policies, not just in the long-term in a way that in turn helps embedded culture is what sets Berkeley strategic terms, but on a day-to-day basis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • May CARG 2020.Pdf
    ISSUE 30 – MAY 2020 ISSUE 30 – MAY ISSUE 29 – FEBRUARY 2020 Promoting positive mental health in teenagers and those who support them through the provision of mental health education, resilience strategies and early intervention What we offer Calm Harm is an Clear Fear is an app to Head Ed is a library stem4 offers mental stem4’s website is app to help young help children & young of mental health health conferences a comprehensive people manage the people manage the educational videos for students, parents, and clinically urge to self-harm symptoms of anxiety for use in schools education & health informed resource professionals www.stem4.org.uk Registered Charity No 1144506 Any individuals depicted in our images are models and used solely for illustrative purposes. We all know of young people, whether employees, family or friends, who are struggling in some way with mental health issues; at ARL, we are so very pleased to support the vital work of stem4: early intervention really can make a difference to young lives. Please help in any way that you can. ADVISER RANKINGS – CORPORATE ADVISERS RANKINGS GUIDE MAY 2020 | Q2 | ISSUE 30 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted The Corporate Advisers Rankings Guide is available to UK subscribers at £180 per in any form or by any means (including photocopying or recording) without the annum for four updated editions, including postage and packaging. A PDF version written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provision is also available at £360 + VAT. of copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Barnard’s Inn, 86 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A To appear in the Rankings Guide or for subscription details, please contact us 1EN.
    [Show full text]
  • Taylor Woodrow Plc Report and Accounts 2006 Our Aim Is to Be the Homebuilder of Choice
    Taylor Woodrow plc Report and Accounts 2006 Our aim is to be the homebuilder of choice. Our primary business is the development of sustainable communities of high-quality homes in selected markets in the UK, North America, Spain and Gibraltar. We seek to add shareholder value through the achievement of profitable growth and effective capital management. Contents 01 Group Financial Highlights 54 Consolidated Cash Flow 02 Chairman’s Statement Statement 05 Chief Executive’s Review 55 Notes to the Consolidated 28 Board of Directors Financial Statements 30 Report of the Directors 79 Independent Auditors’ Report 33 Corporate Governance Statement 80 Accounting Policies 37 Directors’ Remuneration Report 81 Company Balance Sheet 46 Directors’ Responsibilities 82 Notes to the Company Financial Statement Statements 47 Independent Auditors’ Report 87 Particulars of Principal Subsidiary 48 Accounting Policies Undertakings 51 Consolidated Income Statement 88 Five Year Review 52 Consolidated Statement of 90 Shareholder Facilities Recognised Income and Expense 92 Principal Taylor Woodrow Offices 53 Consolidated Balance Sheet Group Financial Highlights • Group revenues £3.68bn (2005: £3.56bn) • Housing profit from operations* £469m (2005: £456m) • Profit before tax £406m (2005: £411m) • Basic earnings per share 50.5 pence (2005: 50.6 pence) • Full year dividend 14.75 pence (2005: 13.4 pence) • Net gearing 18.6 per cent (2005: 23.7 per cent) • Equity shareholders’ funds per share 364.7 pence (2005: 338.4 pence) Profit before tax £m 2006 405.6 2005 411.0 2004 403.9 Full year dividend pence (Represents interim dividends declared and paid and final dividend for the year as declared by the Board) 2006 14.75 2005 13.4 2004 11.1 Equity shareholders’ funds per share pence 2006 364.7 2005 338.4 2004 303.8 * Profit from operations is before joint ventures’ interest and tax (see Note 3, page 56).
    [Show full text]
  • City-REDI Policy Briefing Series
    City-REDI Policy Briefing Series March Image Image 2018 Part B Carillion’s Collapse: Consequences Dr Amir Qamar & Professor Simon Collinson Carillion, the second-largest construction firm in the UK, were proud of their commitment to support regional growth and small-scale suppliers. As part of this commitment they directed 60% of project expenditure to local economies. Following the collapse of the firm, this positive multiplier effect became a significant, negative multiplier effect, particularly damaging to small-scale suppliers in the construction industry. The aim of this policy brief is to examine the consequences of Carillion’s demise, many of which are only now surfacing. One of the fundamental lessons that we can learn from Carillion’s collapse is about these ‘contagion’ effects. As we saw in the 2008 financial crisis, the businesses that underpin the economic health of the country are connected and strongly co-dependent. When a large flagship firm falls it brings down others. This does not mean we need more state intervention. But it does mean we need more intelligent state intervention. One of the fundamental lessons that the Government can learn from the Carillion episode is that it has a significant responsibility as a key customer, using public sector funds for public sector projects, to monitor the health of firms and assess the risks prior to issuing PPI and other contracts. 1 Introduction The collapse of Carillion, the second-largest construction firm in the UK, has had a significant, negative knock-on effect, particularly on small-scale suppliers in the industry. In total, Carillion was comprised of 326 subsidiaries, of which 199 were in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Tarmac Breedon Full Text Decision
    CMA/07/2018 Anticipated acquisition by Tarmac Trading Limited of certain assets of Breedon Group PLC Decision on relevant merger situation and substantial lessening of competition ME/6719-17 The CMA’s decision on reference under section 33(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 given on 26 April 2018. Full text of the decision published on 15 May 2018. Please note that [] indicates figures or text which have been deleted or replaced in ranges at the request of the parties for reasons of commercial confidentiality. SUMMARY 1. Tarmac Trading Limited (Tarmac) has agreed to acquire 27 ready-mix concrete (RMX) plants, a marine aggregates terminal at Briton Ferry (the Briton Ferry Wharf) as well as certain assets utilised in connection with the RMX plants and the Briton Ferry Wharf from Breedon Group PLC (Breedon) (the Merger). The acquired assets are together referred to as the Target Assets. Tarmac and the Target Assets are together referred to as the Parties. 2. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) believes that it is or may be the case that the Parties will cease to be distinct as a result of the Merger, that the share of supply test is met and that accordingly arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation. 3. The Parties overlap in the supply of: (i) primary aggregates which are used as base materials in the construction of roads, buildings, and other infrastructure, and are quarried from land or dredged from the sea; and (ii) RMX, which comprises a mix of aggregates, cement, and water supplied in ready-mix form.
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Calm and Carillion – the Company’S Pension Schemes Are More Secure Than They Look
    Keep Calm and Carillion – The Company’s Pension Schemes Are More Secure than They Look Safeguarding the Carillion pension empire The company we came to know as Carillion was created in July 1999, following a demerger from Tarmac, through which it acquired a number of huge UK employers, including Mowlem and Alfred McAlpine. This gave the new company immediate responsibility for 13 defined benefit pension schemes. Almost two decades later, 27,500 people First Actuarial’s Catherine Lockyer continue to have benefits in schemes reliant on Carillion as sponsor, with close to half of sheds light on the doom and gloom these already receiving their pensions. surrounding Carillion’s pension schemes Commentators were not slow to point to The recent collapse of the construction and public problems with Carillion’s pension schemes. services contractor, Carillion plc, sent shockwaves The Guardian reported that MPs were through the British economy. accusing the company of trying to wriggle out of its pension obligations, for example. When the news broke in January, the future looked And The Economist asked whether pension uncertain for the company’s 20,000 UK employees. protection was still viable, referring to ‘a big And as industrialists took the measure of the hole’. All in all, the future of these schemes consequences for the country, other questions looked deeply uncertain, and this can only quickly emerged. have added to the anxieties of Carillion’s employees and pensioners. How would the Government deal with the huge infrastructure projects that Carillion had failed to The fantastic news, however, is that all of complete? Who would manage the maintenance Carillion’s pension scheme members have and service of hundreds of hospitals, schools and the security of the Pension Protection Fund homes? And as for the thousands of smaller (PPF).
    [Show full text]
  • Building Excellence
    Barratt Developments PLC Building excellence Annual Report and Accounts 2017 Annual Report and Accounts 2017 Inside this report 1 45 113 175 Strategic Report Governance Financial Statements Other Information 1 Key highlights 46 The Board 114 Independent Auditor’s Report 175 KPI definitions and why we measure 2 A snapshot of our business 48 Corporate governance report 119 Consolidated Income Statement 176 Glossary 4 Our performance and financial highlights 60 Nomination Committee report 119 Statement of Comprehensive Income 177 Other Information 6 How we create and preserve value 65 Audit Committee report 120 Statement of Changes in 8 Chairman’s statement 74 Safety, Health and Environment Shareholders’ Equity – Group 10 Key aspects of our market Committee report 121 Statement of Changes in 76 Remuneration report Shareholders’ Equity – Company 12 Chief Executive’s statement Notice regarding limitations on Directors’ liability under 106 Other statutory disclosures 122 Balance Sheets English law 17 Our Strategic priorities Under the Companies Act 2006, a safe harbour limits the 112 Statement of Directors’ 123 Cash Flow Statements liability of Directors in respect of statements in, and omissions from, the Strategic Report contained on pages 1 to 44 and the Our principles Responsibilities 124 Notes to the Financial Statements Directors’ Report contained on pages 45 to 112. Under English Law the Directors would be liable to the Company (but not to 34 Keeping people safe any third party) if the Strategic Report and/or the Directors’ Report contains errors as a result of recklessness or knowing 35 Being a trusted partner misstatement or dishonest concealment of a material fact, 36 Building strong but would not otherwise be liable.
    [Show full text]
  • Organisations/Groups on the Consultation Database Planning
    Appendix B Organisations/Groups on the Consultation Database Planning Agents/Professional Representatives 3Fox International Limited Acorn, Land & Strategic Property Division Acorus Admiral Homes Affinity Sutton Homes Alliance Planning AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Annington Developments Ltd Appledore Developments Ltd Artesian Asprey Homes Axes Lane Banner Homes Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Batcheller Monkhouse Baxter Phillips Bell Cornwell Bellway Homes Ltd Bellway Homes Ltd, Thames Gateway South Division Berkeley Homes (South East London) Berwood Homes Bidwells LLP Bioscan (UK) Ltd BNP Paribas Real Estate Boyer Planning Limited bptw Partnership BRE Brian Barber Associates British Land Company PLC Broadlands Planning Broadway Malyan Planning Burnett Planning & Development Limited Cala Homes Calfordseaden LLP Capita Symonds Castlefort Properties Ltd Cathedral Group CBRE Ltd CgMs Consulting Chart Plan (2004) Limited Chase & Partners Clifford Rance Associates Cluttons LLP Colliers International Conrad Phoenix Properties Ltd Correct as of 21/07/2016 Conrad Ritblat Erdman Co-Operative Group Ltd., Countryside Strategic Projects plc Cranbrook Home Extensions Crest Nicholson Eastern Crest Strategic Projectsl Ltd Croudace D & M Planning Daniel Watney LLP Deloitte Real Estate DHA Planning Direct Build Services Limited DLA Town Planning Ltd dp9 DPDS Consulting Group Drivers Jonas Deloitte Dron & Wright DTZ Edwards Covell Architecture & Planning Fairclough Homes Fairview Estates (Housing) Ltd Firstplan FirstPlus Planning Limited
    [Show full text]
  • Markets and the Structure of the Housebuilding Industry: an International Perspective
    Urban Studies, Vol. 40, Nos 5–6, 897–916, 2003 Markets and the Structure of the Housebuilding Industry: An International Perspective Michael Ball [Paper first received, November 2002; in final form, December 2002] Summary. This paper sets out to examine why the modern housebuilding industry is organised in the ways it is and to identify some implications for the wider operation of housing markets. It concentrates on advanced economies and the impacts of market conditions, regulatory con- straints, production characteristics, institutional structures and land supply. Widespread differ- ences occur across countries in the ways in which housebuilding is institutionally structured. It is argued that these differences are generally explicable in economic terms and that regulatory practices determine much of the variation. Introduction This paper sets out to examine why the mod- neatly into the standard economics lexicon as ern housebuilding industry is organised in a competitive industry. The well-known the ways it is and to identify some implica- results for a competitive industry from tions for the wider operation of housing mar- the structure–conduct–performance paradigm kets. It concentrates on advanced economies would, therefore, seem to be reasonable hy- and the impacts of market conditions, regula- potheses to apply to housebuilding: namely, tory constraints, production characteristics, that long-run risk-adjusted returns are low institutional structures and land supply. and that housebuilding costs closely reflect At first sight, the discussion seems simple the marginal costs of inputs. In a dynamic and straightforward. Housebuilding is char- framework, there is a cyclical effect with acterised by the existence of a large number supply constraints pushing up builders’ mar- of relatively small firms.
    [Show full text]
  • Housebuilder & Developer
    Housebuilder HbD & Developer August 2016 EDI’s Edinburgh mixed use scheme reinvents former brewery site Croydon MP takes on Housing and Planning Call for more creativity from centre on housing Features in this issue Supplement Plus the latest Eco & Green Products Doors, Windows & Conservatories news, events and Interiors products Landscaping & External Finishes Also this month Rainwater & Greywater Products HBD speaks to HBF’s John Stewart Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Exclusive column from Brian Berry www.hbdonline.co.uk Reader Enquiry 401 HbD Contents August 2016 23 HEADLINES Gavin Barwell appointed as 5 Housing and Planning Minister Brian Berry discusses an 7 SME housebuilding renaissance Government quality push backed 9 by LABC ALSO IN THIS ISSUE... Industry news 4 - 27 Events 19 Industry Movers 22 Product Focus 26 Doors, Windows & Conservatories Supplement 29 - 39 41 Choose high efficiency insulation, naturally Duncan Voice from Insulation Superstore looks at the reasons why construction specifiers are increasingly investing in the benefits of eco PRODUCTS insulation products. Appointments & News 26 Building Products & Services 28 Eco & Green Products 40 - 42 45 Smart looks, smart operation Finance & Insurance 42 - 43 Fires & Fireplaces 43 The ‘wow’ factor can be achieved in new homes combined with cost- Floors & Floor Coverings 43 effective smart lighting and audio control to provide the best of both worlds Glass & Glazing 44 for developers. One company is realising the benefits in several new schemes. Interiors 45 - 46 Kitchens & Appliances 46 - 47 Landscaping & External Finishes 46 - 50 Rainwater & Greywater Products 51 - 53 48 Roofing 53 - 54 Safe, secure and sustainable Smoke & Fire Protection 54 Paul Garlick of green wall systems company Mobilane looks at the challenge Stairs, Balustrades & Balconies 57 of installing boundaries that satisfy safety and security requirements, as well Stonework & Masonry 57 as being eco-friendly.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Portfolio
    Structural Composites Engineered for the 21st Century Version 2.0 Project Portfolio Contents RECENT PROJECTS 1 Stadiums + Arenas 2 Buildings 3 Bridges 4 Maritime 5 Offshore 6 Special Applications 7 Production RECENT PROJECTS 1 Stadiums + Arenas University of Delaware Project Type Terraces (bleachers) Whitney Stadium Renovation July 2019 Location Newark, Delaware, US Team HOK, EDiS, FEI Corporation, Barton Mallow SPS terrace (bleacher) units were used to re-profile the existing stands of the University’s nearly 50 year old stadium, using SPS’ innovative system of ‘overdecking’ the existing precast concrete rakers with newly designed and prefabricated modular bleacher stool sets. The rapid erection cycle saw 60-80 bleachers installed in a working day, at the rate of roughly 5-8 minutes per bleacher. Included in the project were 3,625 seats including wheelchair spaces, as well as prefabricated ADA platforms. SPS bleachers and components were delivered in eighteen 40ft open top containers – 28 bleacher units per container pre-stacked in building sequence. A long-reach high capacity crane was used to lift the SPS bleacher units over the upper bowl and installed from each side onto new steel beams. spstechnology.com Stadiums + Arenas USTA Billie Jean King Project Type Terraces (bleachers) Grandstand redevelopment National Tennis Center Location Flushing Meadows, New York, US Grandstand Stadium Team ROSETTI, WSP Global (NY), AECOM Hunt September 2017 The 2016 US Open Tennis Championship marked the formal opening of the USTA’s new grandstand stadium at Flushing Meadow’s USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. In partnership with Walters Group, SPS won the contract with AECOM Hunt to supply and install bleachers for the 5,800 seat grandstand.
    [Show full text]
  • CHANGING LANDSCAPES REPORT to SOCIETY 2005 Tarmac Artwork2.Qxd 24/2/06 3:28 Pm Page 2
    Tarmac artwork2.qxd 24/2/06 3:28 pm Page 1 ® CHANGING LANDSCAPES REPORT TO SOCIETY 2005 Tarmac artwork2.qxd 24/2/06 3:28 pm Page 2 BIODIVERSITY HEALTH & SAFETY WATER USE COMMUNITY & EDUCATION CASE REPORT 1 04 - 05 CASE REPORT 2 06 - 07 CASE REPORT 3 08 - 09 CASE REPORT 4 10 - 11 A look at some of the In 2005 Tarmac invested Our new ‘reservoir Tarmac’s Millennium many ways in which we heavily in new equipment pavement’ technology – Eco-Centre near Wrexham are helping to encourage and devised innovative ways Tarmac Aquifa™ – is set to is helping to promote biodiversity and restore of working to ensure that reduce the risk and costs of sustainable living and natural habitats across hand arm vibration doesn’t flash flooding through its raise awareness of the UK. compromise the health of environmentally friendly environmental issues across our workforce. drainage system. the wider community. Tarmac artwork2.qxd 24/2/06 3:28 pm Page 3 CONTENTS WELCOME TO TARMAC’S REPORT TO SOCIETY FOR 2005. AS A BUSINESS, WE INTRODUCTION 01 PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN PROVIDING ABOUT TARMAC 02 - 03 SOCIETY WITH THE RAW CONSTRUCTION CASE REPORT 1 04 - 05 MATERIALS WHICH MAKE UP THE FABRIC CASE REPORT 2 06 - 07 OF OUR DAILY LIVES. CASE REPORT 3 08 - 09 CASE REPORT 4 10 - 11 As well as our commercial considerations, we are guided by a strong sense of responsibility for the health and safety of our SAFETY 12 - 14 employees, for the environment and for the communities we HEALTH 15 - 16 work in and society as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1: Parker Review Survey Results As at 2 November 2020
    Annex 1: Parker Review survey results as at 2 November 2020 The data included in this table is a representation of the survey results as at 2 November 2020, which were self-declared by the FTSE 100 companies. As at March 2021, a further seven FTSE 100 companies have appointed directors from a minority ethnic group, effective in the early months of this year. These companies have been identified through an * in the table below. 3 3 4 4 2 2 Company Company 1 1 (source: BoardEx) Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did 1 Admiral Group PLC a 27 Hargreaves Lansdown PLC a 2 Anglo American PLC a 28 Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC a 3 Antofagasta PLC a 29 HSBC Holdings PLC a InterContinental Hotels 30 a 4 AstraZeneca PLC a Group PLC 5 Avast PLC a 31 Intermediate Capital Group PLC a 6 Aveva PLC a 32 Intertek Group PLC a 7 B&M European Value Retail S.A. a 33 J Sainsbury PLC a 8 Barclays PLC a 34 Johnson Matthey PLC a 9 Barratt Developments PLC a 35 Kingfisher PLC a 10 Berkeley Group Holdings PLC a 36 Legal & General Group PLC a 11 BHP Group PLC a 37 Lloyds Banking Group PLC a 12 BP PLC a 38 Melrose Industries PLC a 13 British American Tobacco PLC a 39 Mondi PLC a 14 British Land Company PLC a 40 National Grid PLC a 15 BT Group PLC a 41 NatWest Group PLC a 16 Bunzl PLC a 42 Ocado Group PLC a 17 Burberry Group PLC a 43 Pearson PLC a 18 Coca-Cola HBC AG a 44 Pennon Group PLC a 19 Compass Group PLC a 45 Phoenix Group Holdings PLC a 20 Diageo PLC a 46 Polymetal International PLC a 21 Experian PLC a 47
    [Show full text]