Letter from Hutchison Ports (UK)
| Date | 02 July 2010 |
| Section | DBS Regulation 29 appeal regarding access to the Port of Felixstowe |
Hstchisan
PortsIUK)
Limited
fRag/stefed
It,
fj};]land
No,
3484StOJ
Tcmfine
The
FeJixstov,<'e
$;JHtlk.
Pi1
United
Hatchison Ports
(UK)
re!:;
-M
j0)1394
676665
Pax
+44
toH3:S4
604'948
'0t,~""".hptltDrn
02 July 2010
Kara
Johnson
Executive, Track Access
Office
of
Rail Regulation
One
Kemble Street
LONDON
WC2B4AN
Email: kara.johnson@orr.gsi.gov.uk
Dear
Kara
Appeal
Under
Regulation
29
of
The·
Railways
Infrastructure
(Access
And
Management)
Regulations
2005
(the
"Regulations")
by
DB
Schenker
Rail
(DK)
Limited
("DBS")
regarding
the
Port
of
FeIixstowe
("PoF").
Thank
you for your letter
of
16
June
that included a copy
of
the
DBS letter dated 8
June
2010
and
a presentation made to the Freight Transport Association Rail Council
on
27
April 2010, a meeting that was also attended by Paul McMahon.
We
wanted
to
point
out
for completeness, given the
point
made
by
DB
Schenker,
that
FDRC
does
not
agree that
the
information provided by DBS is inconsistent with
FDRC's submissions in this appeal for
the
reasons set
out
below.
By way
of
background,
Hutchison
Ports
UK
(HPUK) were asked to attend the meeting
in April to present to the members to help
them
understand why
HPUK
had
made
applications to the local planning authorities (Suffolk Coastal District Council
and
Ipswich Borough Council) for an extension
of
rime
on
the
planning permission for the
Felixstowe Branch Line
and
Ipswich Yard works (the development). Previous to this
meeting
and
prior to the applications to
the
planning authorities detailed discussions
had
been
held with
both
the
D IT
and
Network
Rail to explain the requirement for an
extension to the backstop date for the Remote Rail Works.
In early 2009 as a consequence
of
the global economic crisis container volumes declined
drastically and freight rates collapsed.
In
response shipping lines took drastic action to
manage capacity in the market place
and
it became clear to
HPUK
that the riming
of
the
yet to be developed phase 2
of
FSR should be delayed.
When
reviewing the obligations
and
riming commitments linked to phase 2 it also became clear that in order to maintain
alignment between implementation
of
phase 2
and
the
Remote Rail Works a rime
extension would be required.
Coned
...
/2
To continue reading
Request your trial