EVERY YEAR increasing numbers of road haulage firms are forced
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to consider the vital matter of premises. Fleet expansion, bringing with it the need for improved maintenance facilities, is one probable reason; another is the growing tendency of local authorities to exercise their planning powers to influence the siting of transport depots well away from heavily built-up or residential areas.
Quite apart from the natural desire of local authorities to improve amenity values—thousands of city-based road hauliers must have shrugged-off wordy householders' petitions in the past 20 years— there are good economic reasons for siting transport depots near city boundaries or in municipally or privately owned industrial estates. Land is cheaper, away from the centre; sometimes the site value of central premises can be large enough to pay for a larger, better .equipped depot on the outskirts with "all mod cons". Road links from new outlying depots to new or projected trunk roads are usually much better. The staff amenities provided by firms play some part in getting and keeping good workers, of both sexes, and it is easier to incorporate an "amenity block"—however simple—in a new building than to find adequate space in an old one.
Even stronger arguments could induce road transport concerns with central town premises to move. Industry and population is never static; areas zoned for development, many of them attracting substantial government grants, are slowly changing industrial "centres of gravity". Road hauliers, for obvious reasons, must be concerned not only with today's traffic but tomorrow's.
Of course, by no means all road transport premises are in heavily built-up central areas. Many transport depots built between the wars are on sites allowing room for expansion—subject, of course, to planning consent being obtained. The BRS companies, who inherited a very mixed bunch of premises after the passing of the 1947 Act, have been able to extend and improve on some sites, though others have been sold.
Staff amenities
At Acton, for example, BRS Parcels Ltd. occupied a former Carter Paterson depot built some 40 years ago. The site area was large enough to permit extension of the transit shed in both directions, lengthwise. At one end a new office block is being built; at the other end new extension bays are coming into use shortly. A very neat job has been made in the joining up of the loading platforms and the new roof sections. Showers are among the amenities being provided at Acton for drivers and platform staff. This type of amenity, spreading from the coal industry and the ports, may penetrate through road transport quite rapidly. I can think of many busy transport managers and clearing house operators whose days are spent cooped up in wooden huts or poky offices who would also appreciate such amenities as showers!
Much higher standards of office and warehouse accommodation are, of course, mandatory today as a result of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Often called "The White Collar Workers Charter", it was enacted in 1964 and now covers Sm. workers. The most recent report of the Minister of Employment and Productivity, Mrs. Barbara Castle, notes advancing standards in general but stresses that heating deficiencies in some shops and warehouses are being reported. "For example, a novel but ineffective form of heating was provided in the loading bay of a large retail shop where work was only occasionally carried out. It took the form of six large candles stuck to a dinner plate; the staff took turns to warm their hands over the flames while unloading goods from a van. After discussions with the firm full central heating was installed."
To illustrate how infuriating planning requirements can be to the transport operator, the experience of BRS Parcels at Acton can be cited. The extended transit shed there almost reaches a service road giving access to Western Avenue. The road is used by the council's own lorries and by other lorries needing to travel to an adjacent council site, but BRS were banned from using the road though another firm has access to Western Avenue within yards of the service road exit. If BRS had been able to use the service road in addition to their existing right of way farther along Western Avenue, better traffic circulation arrangements within the depot could have been devised.
Another problem at Acton which is probably typical of the situation in other areas is that the local council, the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Transport are all concerned in the possible construction of a flyover, entailing the surrender of some land from the depot site. One of the Acton improvements Called for the building of a new fuel island and this, I gather, may have a limited life of seven years, if the flyover project is proceeded with.
This major depot improvement at Acton would have been difficult enough to live with on an ideal site; part of the new building foundations were flooded at the time of my visit in December due to shallow springs beneath the site. But the point I wish to stress is that, throughout the extensive building programme, operations have continued normally.
Public amenity factors are increasingly in evidence. At Croydon where BRS Parcels have another major depot improvement project under way a long strip of land was surrendered for residential amenities. At some depots tree preservation orders are enforced; woe betide any enthusiastic new broom branch manager who tells the yardman to cut down such a tree! At Exeter, a j oint development by two BRS companies has required an agreement for the landscaping and permanent maintenance of a 20ft strip of land for the whole frontage of the two depots. This will involve a very substantial outlay during the life of the lease-99 years.
Some local authorities anxious to develop central areas set aside equivalent areas of land on a more convenient site. If this is made available on advantageous terms—as was the experience of BRS Parcels with Plymouth Corporation both parties are happy.
Planning problems
Mr. J. Roney, projects officer, BRS Parcels Ltd., has had much experience of depot planning problems. Depot planning in any national concern is much more than a local matter. A submission by branch and area managers that extended facilities are required
has to be vetted before being put to the directors. If they agree, an expensive project would have to be authorized by the Transport Holding Company—or its successor in law. Liaison with a local surveyor, with the company's architectural team, with HQ officers responsible for traffic, commercial, accounting and personnel functions would be maintained. The area engineer and the company engineer would be particularly concerned to see that maintenance and servicing facilities are adequate for the higher standards enjoined by law. No doubt small building firms in all parts of the country are already profiting from improvements to maintenance bays in transport depots.
Parcels depots are much more costly to build than most types of general haulage depot because enclosed transit sheds are required. Partly as a result of much higher building costs, but also because of the improved amenities and equipment provided, modern parcels depots cost up to five times as much as those built between the wars, For obvious reasons while capital is scarce building costs need to be kept down to the lowest possible figure, but the annual property charge in relation to the depot's operating costs would not represent more than one or two per cent. So that if the cost of a new depot was subject to a variation of 10 per cent it would amount to not more than 0.2 per cent of depot operating costs. Looked at in this light, any skimping on depot equipment specification seems rather shortsighted. Building costs in future are not likely to fall; there is also an inevitable element of "keeping up with the Joneses". If your competitors decide to build in good contemporary 1970 style, does it make sense to build a 1938-style depot today?
Marginal cost savings?
Nevertheless, BRS Parcels are currently checking on the possible savings were unit-built transit sheds to be specified. Mr. Roney is doubtful if savings would be other than marginal. One factor is that unit modules designed for general building construction may not be appropriate for a transport depot. For instance, if backing-up spaces 9ft wide are called for, with an acceptable range between 8ft 10in. and 9ft 3in., unit construction methods incompatible with this basic requirement are ruled out. (Of course, a unit-built shed of larger area than is really needed could be bought, but this would nullify the object of the exercise—building economy—unless the additional space provided for a given cost could be profitably used.)
Car parking provision for employees is a costly factor at many new transport depots. It is difficult to generalize about the number of parking spaces that should be provided. A rule-of-thumb method— not suggested by an Irish transport manager!—is to take an intelligent guess and then add '50 per cent. The Greater London Council, I understand, looks favourably on one car parking space for every three employees for new buildings. Clearly, the matter needs very careful consideration. There may be adequate public parking space near the depot—though this is relatively unlikely today. The whole tendency of local authorities seems to be opposed to providing at public expense all-day parking facilities for the staffs of ratepaying firms. By the same token, street parking within convenient distance of a transport depot is a luxury that may soon vanish.
Partial answers to the car parking problem have been met in recent years by the use of roof car parks, integral with the building, and basement or "under-building" car parks. An example of the latter is a feature of the new J. Sainsbury warehouse, now fast approaching completion at Charlton.
Having seen the Sainsbury distribution warehouse at Btmtingford I was glad of a recent opportunity also to see the latest huge building being erected. Basingstoke, Buntingford and soon Charlton underline rapid expansion of the Sainsbury business compelling decentralized distribution methods because of the limited facilities and growing congestion in and around the company's headquarters in Blackfriars.
I was specially interested to find that lessons learned in building each of these huge distribution warehouses have been applied promptly. I3untingford drew on the experience of Basingstoke and Charlton is a more advanced design then either. The erection of such vast buildings costing in the region of Ezlin is very much a team exercise. Building productivity is often criticized as is road haulage productivity, but the erection of the 650ft by 350ft Charlton warehouse in a mere seven months is an extraordinary achievement. The designers have made extensive use of Lightweight concrete in the roof structure and wall cladding. Such rapid progress would not have been possible without highly efficient transport programming— the arrival of vehicles on site to a regular timetable is just as impressive as is the shuttle service of a components maker with car production lines.
An interesting feature of the Sainsbury depots is that, broadly, the same team has been concerned in their design over the past eight years, and that the team is led alternately by an architect and engineer. The views of such men, trained in very different disciplines, seldom coincide, but given the enthusiastic teamwork such as the Sainsbury depot building programme has generated the result has proved gratifying.
The GLC's fire regulations are very strict; if they were not rigorous the task of fire fighting in large warehouses or transport depots would be extremely hazardous. At the Charlton depot the roof structure incorporates walkways of full height so that electricians and plant engineers can inspect the extensive services provided initially or subsequently to be installed—for warehousing technology is advancing fast. In the event of fire the outbreak could be tackled from the roof walkways. If flames spread horizontally under the roof they would escape through fusible-link ventilators.
Do-it-yourself ventures
It is possible to quote a few instances of road transport depots which have been built almost single-handed by the proprietor and his immediate family or employees. Particularly in remote areas if the local planning authority surveyor is well disposed a do-it-yourself project can be attempted. Professional assistance to install such things as under-floor heating—in garage workshops—or central heating or plumbing can always be obtained.
In general, however, the small operator would be well advised to seek professional assistance if (a) he is under pressure from local authorities to move his premises, or (b) he needs to get bigger premises to cope with expanding business. I suspect that the road transport industry's problems really call for a corporate approach, perhaps by means of joint representations from the RHA and the own-account operators to local or area planning authorities.
If planning authorities were assured that road transport interests in particular areas would jointly take up leases in specially zoned road transport estates or in sections of existing industrial estates some interesting package deals might result. Residential ratepayers would probably be overjoyed to get rid of all road transport businesses from central areas. To that extent, councillors would be well disposed to consider a corporate approach for generous land zoning for purely road transport purposes.
Shared sites
I shall perhaps be told that the average small haulier would be very loath to share a site with his bitter trade rivals. If everyone needing a new depot makes own arrangements, piecemeal, no such embarrassment is possible.
This argument is not a runner, in my view. In the first place, the successful, highly competitive firms do not shrink from close proximity of rivals. Look at the shoe shops, and the chain stores and supermarkets! They flourish because they are close together. The ones that go it alone often come to grief. Group training activities are forging friendships and working associations in road haulage undreamt of two or three years ago. The logic of the industry's present organization, on the verge of containerization, is that wider groupings, and many more examples of shared facilities particularly in the fields of vehicle maintenance, mechanical handling and telecommunications are called for. Would not the planning authorities take the industry more seriously if the owners of transport businesses recognized their common problem and demanded allocations of land on the scale called for by last century's railway builders?
It would be strange if the private sector of transport has to learn of the benefits of co-operation from the State sector. The "twinning" of parcels and general haulage depots at Hull and Exeter shows that it can be advantageous to both companies to share sites, canteens and communications facilities. The railways' National Carriers Ltd. may be more concerned with disposal of premises than with acquisition, though when expansion is called for it would make sense for the State concerns to share sites where possible.
Pending some clarification of official policy relating to the future siting—with or without grouping—of road transport depots, it would be quite wrong to ignore the contribution already made by estate developers, both municipal and private. Taylor Woodrow Industrial Estates Ltd., for example, have developed a number of admirable sites already housing transport and distributive organizations. The huge BRS Parcels depot at Glasgow is on the Dixon's Blazes estate developed by Taylor Woodrow. Another BRS Parcels depot is being built on a Taylor Woodrow estate at Ipswich. Arrangements can be made for premises to be rented on long lease; Taylor Woodrow is a good example of the organization which can provide a full range of professional services, not excluding the allimportant matter of finance.
The fast-approaching '70s will require of road haulage not only its customary vigour but also the vision to provide an infra-structure of premises and communications and mechanical handling aids in keeping with its importance to economy. It's time to start planning, now!