o Opportunities and challenges experienced by the business within the Cray Valley
Minutes:
The Chairman invited Liz Timms, Director – Treval Engineering Ltd (“Director”) to the meeting to provide an overview of the company.
Members of the Partnership were advised that Treval Engineering Ltd was a structural steel fabricator, working in the construction industry and energy sector across the UK and Channel Islands. Established in 1968, Treval Engineering Ltd was a third-generation family business – the site they work from, a former riding school near the boating pond on Cray Avenue, had been in the family since the 1940’s.
In terms of the challenges faced by businesses in the manufacturing and construction industries, it was considered that increased costs, for utilities, consumables and materials, were having a huge impact. Steel prices had increased 120% within three months and had increased more than 200% over an 18-month period. Cost basis was particularly difficult and as a small business this had a big impact. There was also a potential slowdown of the economy looming – they were seeing a slowdown on the residential side of the market, but the main contractor business was currently still strong.
Another potential challenge was the ULEZ expansion – as the business was located on the boundary they had had to update their fleet of vehicles, which had a huge financial impact and took away from any other forms of investment. This was a major concern for staff – they were young people, with young families, who had moved out of the borough. They could not afford to change or upgrade their cars, or pay the proposed ULEZ charge. This created a challenge in terms of staff retention. Treval Engineering Ltd had considered relocating their premises to a site they owned in Tunbridge Wells, but at the moment they did not want to move out of the borough.
The Director said that the company had weathered the storm of the COVID-19 pandemic well. Steel prices were starting to reduce, and it was hoped that this would make things more competitive, and the market would start to pick up. The company had always tried to look at apprenticeships and other avenues for training. This had been difficult, as the work was quite specialist – however their first welding apprentice was due to graduate at the end of March, which was a positive step. It was good to see that colleges were taking on more industry-focussed apprenticeships. The Director said the company felt extremely lucky – they had a young workforce, who were eager to learn and a joy to work with.
In response to questions from the Chairman, the Director said that the company had 18 full time employees, but they also employed subcontractors for various jobs. Their customer base was national, and they worked with oil terminals all over the country and the Channel Islands. The company used to feel that it was connected to other local manufacturers, and had attended the Cray Valley Partnership, where local businesses met every few months. However lots of these businesses had now gone, and the use of the buildings had changed, and there was not necessarily the interest to meet and share information.
A visiting Member enquired about the impact that the ULEZ expansion could have on staff retention. The Director said it was felt to be a serious threat, and the company would need to do something for their staff. The staff were reasonably well paid, all above the working living wage, but a number did not qualify for the means tested grant. The staff were very open about this being a concern. In response to a further question, the Director said she believed that the company could get more out of the local economy. They had a good succession plan in place, bringing in youngsters with enthusiasm and motivation, and giving them the flexibility to drive the business themselves. The last three years had been difficult, with lots of uncertainty, but there was definitely room to get more out of the local economy.
In response to questions from Lee Thomas, Fairlight Group, the Director said that other than the traffic on Cray Avenue being very slow, the part of the borough that their site was located in provided good access to road and rail networks. It was not known if they would find an alternative site that was suitable in the borough – they were likely to look outside of the borough, and noted that they did already own two other sites. The Chairman enquired if Treval Engineering Ltd had any plans to expand. It was highlighted that, as part of the new Local Plan, officers would be assessing the commercial space requirements across the borough. There appeared to be a demand for more, and approaches had been received from other developments along Cray Avenue. The Director confirmed that the company would like to expand.
Mike Humphries, Handelsbanken, emphasised that ULEZ was becoming a big issue. People were concerned that they would not be ale to afford to go to work and businesses were looking to relocate outside of the borough. In response to a question, the Chairman advised that the Council had made representations against the proposed ULEZ expansion. The Conservative Group were fully opposed as they were not convinced of the need for it in Bromley and considered that the scrappage scheme was insufficient. A visiting Member said that Bromley had more than 350,000 residents – in comparison the consultation had only received 30,000 responses for the whole of outer London. A Council campaign would be shared in the public domain, and they would oppose this as far as they could – in addition to affecting people personally, it would also have an impact on trades. There was thought to be around 30,000 non-compliant vans in London and significantly fewer were available on second-hand market. Chandra Sharma advised that the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) had launched a ULEZ campaign #myULEZconcern and were interested in hearing from small businesses.
Bruce Walker, Lansdown Asset Management enquired as to what percentage of the workforce at Treval Engineering Ltd would be affected by the ULEZ expansion. The Director said that it would affect approximately 50% of their workforce. Mr Walker noted that Lansdown Asset Management was trying to recruit junior positions within the borough however there was lack of interest due to ULEZ. Some businesses were looking to move just outside of the borough in order to continue with their existing workforce – consultants and trades that they used were saying they could not service sites unless they were paid more. The Chairman said that the local MPs were fighting this proposal all the way through the system – they would do what they could to stop, or mitigate, what was being imposed.
Mr Thomas said that embracing change was always difficult, but highlighted that when the original zone had been introduced, people had been given a reasonable period of time to change their vehicles. The important thing was being able to plan and manage the issue. The LBB Head of Economic Development informed members of the Partnership that the Local Authority had put out a joint statement with Bexley, Harrow and Hillingdon Council’s which demonstrated that the outer London voice was not being heard in policy making. The Local Authority had issued a number of communications in relation to ULEZ and the lobbying voice had been strengthened by the connections made with other outer London boroughs.
The Chairman thanked the Director for her presentation to the Partnership.
RESOLVED that the update be noted.