Back to index of Nerve 18 - Summer 2011

Peel under the spotlight

Peel Holdings describes itself as one of the leading infrastructure, transport and real estate companies in Britain with assets in excess of £5 billion. Much of its activity is concentrated in the North West, including Liverpool. Katy Brown, of Ethical Consumer, puts Peel under the spotlight.

Corporate Control of our City?

Much attention on the ownership of our city has focussed on the Duke of Westminster / Grosvenor family over the development of Liverpool One, and its ownership of large areas of the city centre. Less attention however has focussed on Peel, which also owns large parts of the city. Its 'investment portfolio' includes Liverpool International Business Park, Boulevard Business and Leisure Park and other office space at Speke; Princes Dock, King Edward Industrial Estate, Tower Quays Business Centre in Birkenhead, Woodside Business Park, Birkenhead, Twelve Quays at East Street in Wallasey and various other sites across Merseyside. It also includes two of Liverpool's key transport assets - Liverpool's John Lennon Airport* and the Port of Liverpool. The company has recently received planning permission for the development and improvement of both the Liverpool and Wirral Waterfronts in a project it calls 'Peel Waters'.

Peel Waters

The North Liverpool part of ‘Peel Waters’ is to be enclosed by the dock wall, and built on land from the Pier Head to Sefton. It will take 30 years to complete this massive development of thousands of homes, shops, hotel and leisure facilities, business units, drinking establishments and a cruise liner terminal.

National buildings watchdog English Heritage is currently refusing to support the scheme because of its potential impact on the World Heritage Site.(1) According to a Daily Post article, permission was granted with only the 'flimsiest of planning restrictions restraining the developer.' Peel, it says, can now go ahead as it pleases concerning the detail of the schemes, unless its plans affect wildlife spots or listed buildings.(2)

For an insightful article on how industry in Liverpool’s north docks are causing health problems in the local community see, Docks, Dust and Dirt by Brian Ashton.

A lasting social legacy?

This is what Peel claims to leave under the community heading of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) section of its website. The company states that its shareholders are committed to ploughing all profits and shareholder value into the regions and communities in which it works, thereby increasing economic activity and environmental and social benefits. Peel is registered in Guernsey(4), and its ultimate holding company, Tokenhouse Limited is registered in the Isle of Man.(5) Subsidiary Peel Ports Holdings (CI) Ltd is registered in the Cayman Islands(4) and the company has overseas investments in Bermuda and the Bahamas. All of these territories are widely regarded as tax havens. While it may be true to an extent that Peel's investment in Merseyside benefits the local economy, it would appear that the company's profits are being siphoned off elsewhere.

Dirty Energy, Dirty Tricks

'Central to our future plans and aspirations is a commitment to measure and manage our environmental impacts and promote sustainable development and sustainable economic growth', claims Peel, on the glossy pages of its CSR brochure. Worryingly, and almost unheard of for a company of its size, as a private rather than publicly listed company, Peel is not obliged to and chooses not to produce an environmental report quantifying its environmental impacts. While the company has invested in much welcomed and genuinely low-carbon impact wind generation in the region, its environmental credentials are fairly dubious. For starters the company is involved with four airports apart from our own John Lennon here in Liverpool. Aviation is an intensely high climate impact sector and given that the company has been involved in actively seeking to expand its airports, a few wind turbines artfully placed next to the runways will do little to redress the company's climate impacts through its operation of these sites.

In Manchester, where the company owns the Trafford Centre, Peel led the successful campaign against the introduction of congestion charges. According to the Salford Star, Peel was engaged in dirty tactics to try and influence local elections in Salford over the same issue.(7) Its 28.3% stake in UK Coal,(1,8) and operation of a coal and biomass fired power station in Ayrshire1 would also seem to contradict its claimed commitment to low-carbon growth. Its grand statement that 'carbon capture and storage (CCS) allows carbon dioxide to be collected from fossil fuel power stations, transported and then stored safely underground so that it does not enter the atmosphere', gives cold comfort once you realise that this technology is yet to be proven other than in small-scale pilot projects. Critics argue that CCS is being used as a diversion by energy companies to slow down the necessary shift to renewable energy, which could interfere with their profit margins, by holding out an unrealistic promise of 'clean coal'.

Peel claims its biomass power stations are renewable because they rely on fuel 'sourced from plants and trees', and they are considered carbon neutral, as the carbon dioxide released during combustion is equivalent to the amount absorbed by the plant during its growth cycle. A stark rebuttal to these environmental claims is the fact that palm oil is now being used as an ingredient in fuel for power stations. The development of oil palm plantations is one of the biggest causes of rainforest clearance. In addition to habitat and species loss tropical deforestation is responsible for up to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions - so this is hardly a green fuel. The development of oil palm plantations also often benefits large companies at the expense of local communities who lose their land and access to important forest resources. The move towards biomass energy generation has also raised general concerns that land used for growing food will be used to grow fuel crops instead.

Engaging with communities

According to its website, engaging with the communities in which it operates has always been central to its approach to sustainable growth. Speke residents however tell a different story. They have been concerned about expansion at Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the impacts of this on the area it has increasingly encroached upon. Noise and air pollution, from both the planes and increased traffic in the area, and worries that a new road would be built that would bring traffic closer to the housing estate, have all been raised as issues for local residents. Those affected by the airport's expansion have expressed concerns about Peel's power, claiming it had undue influence on decision-makers, particularly through the planning process, where locals felt the company received special treatment because of its economic importance to the region. Residents felt their concerns were not listened to in the same way, taken as seriously or given the same weight. They felt that the position of the authorities was that what was in the interests of Peel was in the interests of the estate, the city and beyond. Residents believed it was much more difficult for them to register their concerns when their interests did not align with Peel's and did not feel that they were treated on an equal basis. Peel, they say, failed to consult with them in any meaningful way but rather tended to present its plans as done deals. There was lack of dialogue and residents felt they never knew what Peel was planning in terms of ventures that would directly affect them.(3)

A barrage of environmental damage

Peel is also working with the North West Development Agency on a pre-feasibility study, 'Power from the Mersey', to consider the viability, technology and options for building a tidal barrage to generate electricity from the Mersey's ebb and flow. Cheshire and Lancashire's Wildlife Trusts along with the RSPB have raised concerns over the plans, which they say could cause significant damage to the estuary, and have a devastating effect on the internationally recognised populations of birds, and other wildlife. They are disappointed that less environmentally damaging options have been discounted, probably due to the longer research and development time required, but believe that any form of barrage across the estuary is likely to permanently alter the daily tidal systems which provide thousands of hectares of calorie-rich mud for resident and migratory birds.(9)

Habitat destruction just down the road

Habitat destruction and further carbon emissions are paid for by Peel's various tenants at Salford Mosses, which the company owns, and are home to some of the last remaining lowland peat bogs in the UK. These companies stand accused of the unauthorised extraction of peat, with the associated loss of precious biodiversity as well as the ‘carbon sink’ which peat acts as. Thanks to Peel and its tenants, vast amounts of carbon dioxide which has been locked away in these bogs for centuries is now being released into the atmosphere.(8) One company, William Sinclair's, restarted illegal peat extraction at Chat Moss just weeks ago. The company's permission to extract peat expired at the end of last year and a new application for permission to continue is currently under consideration by both Salford and Wigan Councils. Around 1,000 objections to the proposals have been submitted by concerned individuals and organisations. However, with blatant disregard for due process, on Good Friday William Sinclair's started illegally extracting peat at the site. The Lancashire Wildlife Trust has expressed its anger and disgust at the company's action and has called on both Salford City Council and Wigan Council to take enforcement action against the company.(10) Given that Peel’ has plans for a racecourse, Forest Park, Port Salford rail and freight terminal, Salford City Reds stadium, more roads and more railways on the mosses it is presumably quite happy to let its tenants remove this precious habitat as once the damage has been done it will be so much easier for Peel to gain the necessary planning permission.(11) There has been opposition, with locals forming the Save Our North West Greenbelt campaign group and last April two climate activists chained themselves to a digger and delivery lorry at the site of two other tenants of Peel, Joseph Metcalfe Horticultural Ltd and AW Jenkinson Forest Products Ltd.(12) In 2004 officers at Salford Council recommended that enforcement action be taken against Peel for “clear breaches of planning permission”… .that are “seriously undermining the new policies relating to the Mosslands Heartland”. The enforcement action never happened, instead the council passed planning permission for Peel to extract not only 50,000 cubic metres of peat every year for 13 years but also almost three million tonnes of sand and gravel, which lies underneath the peat, for 18 years.(10) The government has proposed to phase out the use of peat in the amateur horticultural sector by 2020 and was looking for voluntary action and responsible behaviour from the peat producers. Given Peel’s total disregard for this, and the local council's apparent inability to date to do anything other than give Peel and its tenants exactly what they want, it seems more local campaigning and direct action is the only thing that could stand in Peel's way.

Time to target Peel?

Apart from protests over its activities at Salford Mosses, Peel has not attracted much attention from the environmental movement, perhaps because its activities are focussed far away from the offices of campaign groups such as Greenpeace. Given Peel's huge influence on our local area, maybe it's time it started receiving its share of the flak...

*In June 2010 Peel sold a 65% stake in the company to Canadian company Vancouver Airport Services.

References:

1. Peel website www.peel.co.uk viewed 15/04/2011
2. Residents should still be heard, Liverpool Daily Post, 6/04/2011
3. Speke community volunteer
4. Hoovers Company information database, www.hoovers.com viewed 15/04/2011
5. www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk, Peel feels the crunch in annual port results, December 22nd 2010
6. Reference withdrawn
7. Peel Holdings Salford Election, Salford Star, Issue 7
8. All Hands on Deck? Ethical Consumer 116, January/February 2009
9. www.wildlifeextra.com, Mersey barrage plan barracked, December 2010
10. www.lancswt.org.uk, Illegal Peat Extraction On Chat Moss, April 2011
11. Peel Holdings and the Plight of the Salford Butterfly, Salford Star, Issue
12. Chat Moss climate activists found not guilty, Manchester Mule July 2010

Printer friendly page

Sorry Comments Closed

Comment left by rrenosto on 22nd November, 2011 at 21:54
I read the article, I had a meeting yesterday in brookhouse (eccles-salford) commetee social center in which peel representative+salford city council members were presenting the eco-monster called salford port + new rugby stadium, I am very concerned about it, our health will be in danger due to huge pollution of trucks moving to and from the port. Peel members and city council memebers said all permissions arrived, what is missing is a huge amount of money to bild the port. (which I personally wish they will never found). What can we do as a community to avoid this abomination? Thanks for your suggestions .

Comments are closed on this article