DOCSLIB.ORG

Mp/8/C.1 Appendix 1 Background Note

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mp/8/C.1 Appendix 1 Background Note MP/8/C.1 APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND NOTE: THE CHARGING REGIME FOR DISCHARGES TO THE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL 1 Introduction 1.1 This note explains the charging regime for discharges to the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC). It first summarises relevant history in relation to the finances of The Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited (MSCCL) (section 2), outlines the capital costs (section 3) and then outlines the current income in respect of the operation of the MSC (section 4). 1.2 MSCCL operates a system of discharge agreements with third parties wishing to discharge into the MSC. The basis of this regime is set out in section 5 and the calculation of its application to Eccles Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) is found at section 7. 1.3 In its Statement of Case1, United Utilities Water Limited (UUWL) refers to the fact that MSCCL demands the payment of money for a right to discharge into the MSC, describing this as a ‘ransom’. This note sets out MSCCL’s position by reference to the commercial market for discharge agreements, and explains the approach adopted to the appropriate charge to apply to the right to discharge that UUWL wishes to acquire. 2 History of the Manchester Ship Canal Company Limited 2.1 It is of relevance to this matter that the Inspector understands the historic context of the financial model of the MSCCL and how this now operates as a commercial entity in the 21st Century despite the framework in which it exists. To that end, this note sets out some of the history to the finances and management of MSCCL which form the background to the current operations. 2.2 MSCCL is a statutory company, incorporated by the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885 (the 1885 Act). As such all of its rights, powers and duties are derived from that and subsequent Acts and Orders (and general legislation which applies to all companies). For example, MSCCL’s ability to borrow money was limited to any specific money raising powers in its constitution and subject to limits set by that and subsequent Acts. 2.3 Under the 1885 Act, MSCCL was given a specific power to borrow up to £2M to help fund the construction of the Canal. In reality, due to the scale and size of the project this money soon ran out and further borrowing powers were passed in later acts of 1890, 1891, 1893, 1904, 1913, 1925, 1 Paragraph 10.12 of CD/CPO/7 MP/8/C.1 1949 and 1956. Money was particularly needed during the construction phase of the Canal which went on until 1894. MSCCL created various debentures and these were largely supported by the then Manchester Corporation (which later became Manchester City Council). 2.4 The Manchester Corporation had long supported the proposed Ship Canal and the Corporation lent at first £3M and then a further £2M during the construction phase. This loan of £5M became permanent and irredeemable by virtue of the Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Act 1904 (the 1904 Act) which also provided for the issue of £1.06M preference stock to the Corporation in satisfaction of unpaid interest on existing stock. 2.5 From a constitution and management perspective, the 1904 Act also made permanent the Corporation’s power, first conferred in 1893, to appoint a majority of the directors of MSCCL including the Deputy Chairman. Therefore although MSCCL remained listed on the Stock Exchange, its Board of Directors were not appointed solely by shareholders but a majority appointed by the Manchester Corporation giving MSCCL a quasi-public body outlook. Its role therefore encompassed, in addition to its commercial interests, consideration of the greater good for the prosperity of the North West in attracting businesses to the area and improving public services such as the drainage network. 2.6 Over the years, the Manchester Corporation continued to provide significant financial aid to MSCCL. In 1914 they lent a further £0.7M and in 1951 lent support to interest payments on £5M borrowed to fund the construction of the QE II Dock at Ellesmere Port at that time. 2.7 In the late 1980s, after the Peel Group had become the majority shareholder in MSCCL, discussions were held with Manchester City Council and agreement reached for all of its debentures to be repaid at par which amounted to £7M, and the City Council gave up its powers to appoint directors to MSCCL. This was enshrined in a Harbour Revision Order passed in 1990. In many ways, therefore, MSCCL only began to take on a fully commercial outlook from this time onwards and particularly after all the minority shareholders has been bought out in 1993. 3 Capital costs 3.1 There are substantial capital costs associated with the MSC’s long term maintenance and upkeep. As set out in Steve Gavin’s evidence (section 5 of MP/6/A), the canal banks and Barton Lock are significant and sensitive assets. 3.2 Over the period March 2012 to March 2017, the average cost of maintenance excluding labour has been £1.4M. Annual running costs were, broadly speaking, c£12M per annum from 2014 to 2017 with additional capital expenditure on assets owned by the MSCCL ranging from £2M to £5M in the same time period. 2 MP/8/C.1 3.3 Details of dredging requirements and maintenance are set out in Joe Blythe’s evidence (section D of MP/7/A). The costs associated with dredging and maintenance are variable year on year however, they can be summarised as follows: 3.3.1 Dredging varies from £1.2M to £1.9M per annum in the main due to variations in weather and traffic. These costs include related costs (in the region of £20,000 to £50,000 per annum) such as licences and permits for landfill at Frodsham / Woolston for disposal of dredgings and discharge consents for run off from the deposit grounds and related surveying. 3.3.2 Over the period March 2012 to March 2017, the average cost of dredging has been £1.5M per annum. 3.3.3 Maintenance work ranges from £1.3M to £1.5M per annum. This excludes engineers’ salaries and any apportionment of overhead costs and relates to direct maintenance expenditure only i.e. spare parts, tools and consumables. The labour cost averages approximately a further £1.3M per annum. 3.3.4 Other costs associated with operating the MSC are largely in the form of third party labour. This includes Pilotage at c£1.6M per annum, Towage at c£1.2M per annum and operation of the various locks along the canal at c£1.2M per annum. 4 Other income 4.1 As set out in the MSCCL Schedule of Port Charges 2018 at MP/8/C.1.1, a number of considerations affect the setting of port charge rates levied upon canal users (including rates for the utilisation of the MSC, available services and associated infrastructure): 4.1.1 MSCCL cannot charge commercial traffic using the MSC more than a competitive, commercial rate (as such traffic would go elsewhere). 4.1.2 In respect of Ship Dues, Good Dues and Passenger Dues (the latter two being called Canal Tolls by MSCCL), persons having a substantial interest in those charges may object to the Secretary of State if they believe that the charges should (in general) not be levied at all or should be levied at a lower rate. Section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 (the 1964 Act) details the process which is followed in respect of such objections. 4.1.3 Pilotage charges have to be reasonable and are subject to the same right of objection to the Secretary of State as Ship Dues, Good Dues and Passenger Dues. Sections 10(1) and 10(6) of the Pilotage Act 1987 refer respectively. 3 MP/8/C.1 4.1.4 Charges other than those in respect of Ship Dues, Good Dues, Passenger Dues, Pilotage, operating ferries and certain water licensing charges issued by a Statutory Harbour Authority must be reasonable in accordance with s.27 the 1964 Act. 4.1.5 In respect of MSCCL and the Harbour and Port of Manchester, s.178 of the 1885 Act states that MSCCL may make reasonable charges for work done, services rendered and facilities afforded. 4.2 MSCCL publishes its Port charges annually, subject to a right to review the charges more often if necessary. Charges are generally increased on an annual basis in line with inflation (RPI all items). However, if for example MSCCL assesses that costs are increasing or are likely to increase at a level exceeding inflation, then charges may increase by a percentage exceeding that of the current rate of inflation. 4.3 Pilotage charges are assessed in the same way. By way of example, the cost of providing the underlying Pilotage service generally increases in line with inflation, albeit that is kept under review. However, MSCCL now has additional liabilities in terms of contributing towards the Pilots National Pension Fund (PNPF) shortfall. As such, since 2013, Pilotage charges have increased by more than the prevailing rate of inflation and more than the underlying increase in the cost of providing the day-to-day service to take account of the additional PNPF liabilities. 4.4 Ship Dues, Good Dues and Passenger Dues are in effect a form of taxation and the charges issued do not have to be in proportion to the service/facility which a particular customer enjoys directly. In essence, the general costs of managing, maintaining and improving the Port are spread amongst all port users on the basis of size of vessel entering the Port and tonnage of cargo imported/exported.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property Useful Links
    PROPERTY - USEFUL LINKS Property - Useful Links 1300 Home Loan 1810 Malvern Road 1Casa 1st Action 1st Choice Property 1st Property Lawyers 247 Property Letting 27 Little Collins 47 Park Street 5rise 7th Heaven Properties A Place In The Sun A Plus New Homes a2dominion AACS Abacus Abbotsley Country Homes AboutProperty ABSA Access Plastics AccessIQ Accor Accord Mortgages Achieve Adair Paxton LLP Adams & Remrs Adept PROPERTY - USEFUL LINKS ADIT Brasil ADIT Nordeste Adriatic Luxury Hotels Advanced Solutions International (ASI) Affinity Sutton Affordable Millionaire Agence 107 Promenade Agency Express Ajay Ajuha Alcazaba Hills Resort Alexander Hall Alitex All Over GEO Allan Jack + Cottier Allied Pickfords Allied Surveyors AlmaVerde Amazing Retreats American Property Agent Amsprop Andalucia Country Houses Andermatt Swiss Alps Andrew and Ashwell Anglo Pacific World Movers Aphrodite Hills Apmasphere Apparent Properties Ltd Appledore Developments Ltd Archant Life Archant Life France PROPERTY - USEFUL LINKS Architectural Association School Of Architecture AREC Aristo Developers ARUP asbec Askon Estates UK Limited Aspasia Aspect International Aspinall Group Asprey Homes Asset Agents Asset Property Brokers Assetz Assoc of Home Information Pack Providers (AHIPP) Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA) Assoufid Aston Lloyd Astute ATHOC Atisreal Atlas International Atum Cove Australand Australian Dream Homes Awesome Villas AXA Azure Investment Property Baan Mandala Villas And Condominiums Badge Balcony Systems PROPERTY - USEFUL LINKS Ballymore
    [Show full text]
  • Trafford Park Masterplan Baseline Assessment
    Trafford Park Masterplan Baseline Assessment A Report for the Trafford Economic Alliance By EKOS, CBRE, URBED and WSP August 2008 EKOS Consulting (UK) Ltd 2 Mount Street Manchester M2 5WQ TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES............................................................................................ 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 12 2 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY CONTEXT ..................................................................... 23 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 23 STUDY CONTEXT.................................................................................................................... 23 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................ 24 STUDY CONTEXT AND MASTERPLAN OBJECTIVES .................................................................... 29 STUDY AREA.......................................................................................................................... 31 BASELINE REPORT OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE.................................................................... 31 3 REGENERATION AND PLANNING POLICY REVIEW.................................................. 33 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 33 NATIONAL POLICY
    [Show full text]
  • Barton Upon Irwell Conservation Area Appraisal SPD5.6A
    TRAFFORD COUNCIL SPD5.6: Barton Upon Irwell Conservation Area Appraisal SPD5.6a: Barton Upon Irwell Conservation Area Management Plan Consultation Statement March 2016 Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Consultation Statement Trafford Council Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2. Statement of Community Involvement Review .............................................................. 1 3. Public Consultation ........................................................................................................ 1 4. Consultation Responses and Main Issues .................................................................... 3 5. Main Changes to the SPD ............................................................................................. 4 Appendix 1 – List of Consultees ........................................................................................ 13 Appendix 2 – Local Advertisement – Conservation Management Plan ............................. 17 Appendix 2 – Local Advertisement – Conservation Area Appraisal ................................... 18 Supplementary Planning Document Conservation Area Appraisal Consultation Statement Trafford Council 1. Introduction 1.1. In preparing Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), the Council is required to follow the procedures laid down in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, and its adopted Statement of Community Involvement
    [Show full text]
  • The Intu Difference Intu Properties Plc Annual Report 2016 Welcome to Our Annual Report 2016
    The intu difference intu properties plc Annual report 2016 Welcome to our annual report 2016 Our purpose is to create compelling, joyful experiences that surprise and delight our customers and make them smile. We are a people business and everything we do is guided by our culture and our values. We’re passionate about providing people with their perfect shopping experience so that our retailers flourish. And it’s this that powers our business, creating opportunity for our retailers and value for our investors; benefiting our communities and driving our long-term success. Contents Overview Governance Highlights of 2016 2 Chairman’s introduction 58 Our top properties 4 Board of Directors 60 Executive Committee 62 Strategic report The Board 63 Chairman’s statement 6 Viability statement 68 Chief Executive’s review 8 Audit Committee 69 Our growth story 10 Nomination and Review Committee 74 Investment case 12 Directors’ remuneration report 76 Directors’ report 94 The intu difference Statement of Directors’ responsibilities 96 Making the difference 14 Understanding our markets 16 Financial statements Optimising asset performance 18 Independent auditors’ report 98 Delivering UK developments 20 Consolidated income statement 106 Making the brand count 22 Consolidated statement of Seizing the growth opportunity in Spain 24 comprehensive income 107 At the heart of communities 26 Balance sheets 108 Our business model 28 Statements of changes in equity 109 Relationships 30 Statements of cash flows 112 Strategy overview 32 Notes to the financial statements
    [Show full text]
  • Our Story, the Peel Group, 2017
    Our Story Project 1 OUR STORY 2 The Peel Group Our Story Project 3 4 The Peel Group Our Story The Peel Group 1 OUR STORY 2 The Peel Group Our Story Contents 3 4 JOHN WHITTAKER Foreword 8 14 18 26 HOPE POLLARD GRAEME BRIDGE JOE ROBERTS TAMMY SILCOCK BEN GREENAWAY Bridgewater Canal JERRY LYNCH EventCity Wirral Waters LEE CUNNINGHAM MEGAN PICKERING Peel Ports – CONTENTS – 30 36 40 44 IAN PATRICK PAUL MADDISON THE CUMMINS’ CHRIS FARMAKIS Land Doncaster Sheffield Airport Homes STEPHEN FARMAKIS Liverpool John Lennon Airport 50 58 64 70 MIKE FLANNERY ARCHIE GRAHAM OBE SAMANTHA HAWKINS PROFESSOR AVRIL YAQUV BOB JAMES BRENDA DEANE ALAN REED intu Trafford Centre Glasgow Harbour MediaCityUK Chatham Waters 76 80 84 88 STEVE JONES JOHN MAHER DARREN LUSTED SOPHIE MAHON Falmouth Port Liverpool Waters Gloucester Quays Communities 4 The Peel Group Our Story John Whittaker 5 JOHN WHITTAKER Chairman and Founder of The Peel Group “ Every morning, as a boy growing up in my home, ‘Tor Hey’ in Greenmount, Lancashire, I would gaze out of my bedroom window and look up at the tower on Holcombe Hill. It’s more than just a tower to me; it’s a tower of strength, which, throughout rain, hail and storms, remains resilient, immovable and resolute. ” 6 The Peel Group Our Story John Whittaker 7 have one central theme; it’s about the multitude of opportunities we The Peel story will never end. We extracting value from God’s given have delivered, creating economic still have a lot to achieve and our “...PEEL DOES assets of land, air and water.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intu Difference Intu Properties Plc Annual Report 2016 Worldreginfo - 8E4943b6-Fa4a-40D5-Abcb-Fc207366b72c Welcome to Our Annual Report 2016
    The intu difference intu properties plc Annual report 2016 WorldReginfo - 8e4943b6-fa4a-40d5-abcb-fc207366b72c Welcome to our annual report 2016 Our purpose is to create compelling, joyful experiences that surprise and delight our customers and make them smile. We are a people business and everything we do is guided by our culture and our values. We’re passionate about providing people with their perfect shopping experience so that our retailers flourish. And it’s this that powers our business, creating opportunity for our retailers and value for our investors; benefiting our communities and driving our long-term success. Contents Overview Governance Highlights of 2016 2 Chairman’s introduction 58 Our top properties 4 Board of Directors 60 Executive Committee 62 Strategic report The Board 63 Chairman’s statement 6 Viability statement 68 Chief Executive’s review 8 Audit Committee 69 Our growth story 10 Nomination and Review Committee 74 Investment case 12 Directors’ remuneration report 76 Directors’ report 94 The intu difference Statement of Directors’ responsibilities 96 Making the difference 14 Understanding our markets 16 Financial statements Optimising asset performance 18 Independent auditors’ report 98 Delivering UK developments 20 Consolidated income statement 106 Making the brand count 22 Consolidated statement of Seizing the growth opportunity in Spain 24 comprehensive income 107 At the heart of communities 26 Balance sheets 108 Our business model 28 Statements of changes in equity 109 Relationships 30 Statements of cash flows 112
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Touch up the CV? Beeb Launches Search for New Director General
    BUSINESS WITH PERSONALITY PLOUGHING AHEAD 30 YEARS LATER THE WIMBLEDON LOOK LAND ROVER DISCOVERY TO HEAD BACK TO HITS A LANDMARK P24 MERTON HOME P26 TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2020 ISSUE 3,553 CITYAM.COM FREE HACKED OFF US ramps up China TREASURY TO spat with fresh Equifax charges SET OUT CITY BREXIT PLAN EXCLUSIVE Beyond Brexit, it will also consider “But there will be differences, not CATHERINE NEILAN the industry’s future in relation to least because as a global financial cen- worldwide challenges such as emerg- tre the UK needs to keep pace with @CatNeilan ing technologies and climate change. and drive international standards. THE GOVERNMENT will insist on the Javid sets out the government’s Our starting point will be what’s right right to diverge from EU financial plans to retain regulatory autonomy for the UK.” services regulation as part of a post- while seeking a “reliable equivalence He also re-committed to concluding Brexit trade deal with Brussels. process”, on which a “durable rela- “a full range of equivalence assess- Writing exclusively in City A.M. today, tionship” can be built. ments” by June of this year, in order to chancellor Sajid Javid says the “Of course, each side will only give the system sufficient stability City “will no longer be a rule- grant equivalence if it believes ahead of the end of transition. taker” and reveals that the other’s regulations are One senior industry figure told City ministers are working on compatible,” the chancel- A.M. that while a white paper was EMILY NICOLLE Zhiyong, Wang Qian, Xu Ke and Liu Le, a white paper setting lor writes.
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Gateway Technical Report, the Peel Group, October 2009
    Technical Report October 2009 Version 2 2 Contents One Introduction 1 Two A functional geography 5 Three Strategic context 11 Four 50 Projects 21 Five Society and economy 27 Six Transport and accessibility 51 Seven Environment and natural economy 75 Eight Establishing the Guiding Principles 89 and Objectives 4 oneIntroduction 1 2 Introduction This Technical Report provides an analysis of the context and rationale This Report cuts across a number of major themes, reflecting the wide ranging for Ocean Gateway. It should be read in conjunction with the main and large scale nature of Ocean Gateway. Sustainability – economic, social and Ocean Gateway Prospectus. environmental – is the principal cross-cutting theme which underpins the Ocean Gateway, both for projects individually and as a headline concept and strategy. The Technical Report is structured as follows: Broad topics considered include economic growth and investment, housing • Chapter 2 – setting out the functional geography of Ocean Gateway; growth, regeneration priorities, social and economic well-being, transport for freight and people, environmental resources and capital, technological • Chapter 3 – a review of the strategic context of the area; innovation and climate change. • Chapter 4 – presents the 50 Projects, and the synergies and linkages In preparing this technical analysis underpinning the Prospectus for Ocean between them; Gateway, spatial boundaries were a key early consideration. As with all major • Chapter 5 – the social and economic context, challenges and spatial initiatives, Ocean Gateway has a footprint that differs depending upon opportunities, and an analysis of key outputs; which particular aspect is being considered. The spatial basis for Ocean Gateway, and a fresh policy approach in its support, are explored in Chapter 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Commemorative Brochure
    COMMEMORATIVE BROCHURE THE HILTON HOTEL MANCHESTER DEANSGATE SATURDAY 10TH JUNE 2017 Running Order 6.30pm Reception drinks 7.35pm Welcome Claire Hewitt, Head Mistress 8.00pm Grace Liz Spence, Chair of Governors 8.05pm Dinner 9.10pm Coffee and dessert 9.40pm Update on ‘NeverOver100ked’ bursary campaign Claire Hewitt, Head Mistress 9.50pm Bursary impact statements Jennifer and Nicola Stockdale 10.00pm Live auction and raffle Darren Proctor, Key 103 Presenter Jenny Powell, TV Celebrity 10.45pm Dancing and disco 1.00am Carriages Head Mistress’ Welcome It’s been another action-packed year for Manchester High School for Girls, making it somewhat difficult to pick out highlights! Last term alone, our globe-trotting pupils visited the Opal Coast, Berlin and Andalucía on Modern Foreign Language trips; a group of Sixth Formers attended the Business Live conference at Disneyland Paris, and I hope none of you missed the fabulous social media posts “Live from Las Vegas” as part of our joint Geography and Physics trip. I also mustn’t forget that at the same time we had a group of students taking to the ski slopes of Austria! When there has actually been some pupils in Manchester (!), we’ve also welcomed over 300 students from across the region to our hugely successful Model United Nations Conference, enjoyed a sold-out production of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and celebrated success on the sports field with our under 16 hockey team being crowned champions of Greater Manchester and our At this event last year we launched our ‘Never Prep girls securing silver in the Wilf Richards Over100ked’ campaign; a push towards our Primary School Cross Country League.
    [Show full text]
  • Max Steinberg CBE Ellen Cutler CEO, Liverpool Vision Director, Invest Liverpool Max Steinberg CBE CEO of Liverpool Vision
    Building on Good Practice Max Steinberg CBE Ellen Cutler CEO, Liverpool Vision Director, Invest Liverpool Max Steinberg CBE CEO of Liverpool Vision Global Partners Summit 2 March 2017 Building on Good Practice Working in partnership to promote the City Region, create business and investment opportunities and enable growth in key sectors. • Liverpool China Partnership • International Festival for Business • MIPIM 2017 • Place Marketing for Investment Project • Liverpool in London Liverpool China Partnership • long tradition of working with China: Shanghai twinning 1999, Shanghai World Expo 2010, Liverpool Shanghai Partnership • new Steering Group established late 2014: positive impact 2015/16 attracted wider public – private sector membership • Objective: to expand, strengthen and deliver greater benefit from the Liverpool City Region and Isle of Man’s trade, investment, tourism, education, cultural, civic and other links with China. Liverpool China Partnership - Membership • China Britain Business Council, DiT, Edge Hill University, Equiom (Isle of Man),Hill Dickinson, Isle of Man Department for Economic Development, Liverpool and Sefton Chambers of Commerce, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool City Region LEP, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool Vision, Marketing Liverpool, The Peel Group, Quilter Cheviot, Red Sports, Signature Living, University of Liverpool and Wirral Council Liverpool China Partnership – outcomes • More focused and coordinated approach • Higher profile • Economic-focused Partnership
    [Show full text]
  • White Papers 08/Client Intelligence
    WHITE PAPERS 08/CLIENT INTELLIGENCE A PRODUCT WHITE PAPERS 08/CLIENT INTELLIGENCE 1/CONTENTS 2/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 7/TOP CLIENT LISTS 25 7.1 Top 50 public and regulated sector clients 3/INTRODUCTION 5 7.2 Top 50 private sector clients 3.1 Methodology 3.1.1 Public/private split 8/ TOP 15 PUBLIC AND REGULATED SECTOR CLIENT PROFILES 27 3.1.2 Surveys Birmingham City Council 3.1.3 Top client tables and profiles Crossrail EDF Energy 4/MARKET OVERVIEW AND KEY SECTOR BREAKDOWN 7 Essex County Council 4.1 Housing Glasgow City Council 4.1.1 Private housing Highways Agency 4.1.2 Public/social housing Homes and Communities Agency 4.2 Public sector building Hounslow Council 4.2.1 Education Kent County Council 4.2.2 Health London Legacy Development Corporation 4.2.3 Other central and local government Ministry of Defence 4.3 Private sector building Network Rail 4.3.1. Office Rushmoor Borough Council 4.3.2 Retail Transport for London 4.3.3. Industrial Transport Scotland 4.3.4 Leisure and other private sector building 4.4 Infrastructure 9/ TOP 15 PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENT PROFILES 42 4.4.1 Transport Able UK 4.4.2 Energy, airports and communications Berkeley Group 4.4.3 Water, harbours and flood defence British Land 4.5 Repair and maintenance Crown Estate 4.5.1 Residential Jaguar Land Rover 4.5.2 Non-housing Land Securities 4.6 Regional spending predictions Legal and General London & Continental Railways Menta 5/CEO SENTIMENT SURVEY 11 Peel Group 5.1 Economic threats and opportunities Sainsbury’s 5.2 BIM Schroder Property Investment 5.3 Government policy St
    [Show full text]
  • Committed to Our Communities
    The Peel Group - Committed to our communities The Peel Group has a long history of working with communities to enhance the wealth and prosperity of the areas in which we operate. We invest for the long term both in our developments and in our communities. Our vision is built around leaving a legacy for communities who can benefit from, and grow with, our transformational developments. At Peel we look to be creative and innovative in the ways we engage with our communities. Since 1996 we have supported our communities through providing in excess of £30m of in-kind support and assistance. The diversity of our engagement includes gifts of land, the use of our “Peel is more than land to create facilities that benefit the whole community, events at our operational sites to attract local people and extensive engagement with a corporate entity, schools and colleges to assist in education and training. there is an emotional attachment to what we do” Examples of our commitment span the UK. John Whittaker, Chairman The Peel Group For example, as part of Peel's Glasgow Harbour development, land valued at £18m was donated to build the multi-award winning Riverside Museum. The museum is home to over 3,000 objects that detail Glasgow’s rich past from its days as a maritime powerhouse to a glimpse into daily Glasgow life in the early to mid 20th Century. The Museum attracts over 1.1 million visitors every year. Peel often uses its land holdings to create community facilities and resources. Land adjacent to Liverpool International Business Park, on the banks of the River Mersey in Speke and Garston, was transformed into a coastal reserve as part of Peel’s work to support Liverpool Sailing Club following years of decline and increasing vandalism in the area.
    [Show full text]