Camden Response to HS2 Compensation Consultation Jan 2013 (1)

8/11/2019 Camden Response to HS2 Compensation Consultation Jan 2013 (1)

1/36

CAMDEN RESPONSE TO HS2 PROPERTY AND COMPENSATION CONSULTATION

THE LONDON BOROUGH

OF CAMDENRESPONSE TO

HIGH SPEED 2 LIMITEDCONSULTATION:

PROPERTY AND COMPENSATION

DATED 31 JANUARY 2013


2/36


2

Introduction

i. Camden is strongly opposed to High Speed 2. It is the Councils continued position thatany possible benefit to Camden, of a high-speed rail service from London to Birminghamand beyond, will be completely outweighed by the disadvantages and negative impactswhich will cause decades of blight on our communities, including the demolition of homesand disruption to business and local services. This blight will leave many residents andbusinesses out of pocket and the compensation proposals being consulted on exacerbatethat problem rather than alleviate it.

ii. The London Borough of Camden has considered the proposals set out in the Property andCompensation consultation paper issued by the government on 25 October 2012, andmakes the following general points in summary of its position:-

a) The consultation paper is lacking in detail sufficient to consider whether thecompensation proposals adequately address the impact caused by the HS2 schemeon the residents, occupiers and tenants living and working in this borough as well asbusinesses and non-commercial organisations that would be displaced or affected bythe introduction of HS2. At the very least before any decision is made thegovernment needs to reconsult on the next iteration of its proposals with sufficientdetail for the Council to fully understand the how the compensation schemes offeredwill operate in practice.

b) Because the London Borough of Camden will host the terminus station, will lose 80%of the total number of properties required in phase one to be demolished in order toaccommodate HS2, will lose a significant number of social housing units and has themost densely populated borough adjoining the line and station, it is essential that thegovernment create a Camden-specific compensation scheme in order to properlyaddress the severe impacts affecting a significant number of people created by theimplementation of the high speed line.

c) The current proposals are severely detrimental to those living and working in theLondon Borough of Camden. It is fundamentally unfair to promote a scheme whichrestricts the Voluntary Purchase Zone to rural areas. The result of that restriction isdeprive those who are likely to suffer the most as a result of construction of thescheme, namely those living in the urban areas close to Euston station, from theability to take advantage of the VPZ, or other suitable compensation measures.

d) In order to assist those affected by the HS2 proposals, a wholly independent advicecentre should be set up and funded by the government with a view to advisingresidents, business owners, charities and schools alike who require such a service

e) The eligibility of the additional compensation proposed is too restrictive to be effectivein not only compensating but mitigating blight. It needs to be extended to include non-residential landlords and larger business owners/operators as well as schools andother organisations that operate within the borough including various charities andsocial community groups.


3/36


3

f) It is wrong to restrict the advanced purchase scheme to the safeguarded areas. The

purpose of the advanced purchase scheme should be to provide protection for thoseadversely affected by the scheme proposals. Those affected are not restricted tothose owning properties in the safeguarded area.

g) The property bond scheme should be included in the package of compensationproducts available to avoid the blight that the Long Term Hardship Scheme creates.

h) The Voluntary Purchase Zone (or a version thereof) must apply to those living inurban areas. It is illogical and unfair that a differentiation is drawn between rural andurban areas given that the impact of a huge infrastructure project will impact on both.Nobody living in a rural or urban area would have bought their property in theexpectation of a major infrastructure project being built within metres of their home or

business.

i) To properly account for the impacts of the construction and operation of the stationand high speed rail line, zones of impact should be drawn up which accurately reflectthe impact created. To be effective impacts should include generalised blight and alsoperceived impacts, which add to blight. The zones should not be limited to meredistance from the line but account for all manner of impacts created by the operationalline and construction of both line and station.

iii. On the basis that the consultation paper issued in October reads more as a generalconcept paper rather than a detailed specification of the additional compensation and how

it is intended to operate, the Council submits that the government must reconsult once ithas considered the consultation responses to this Compensation and Property paper with amore technical and informed compensation package.

iv. The Council sets out below its detailed reasons for the issues set out above, which are ageneral summary only and must be read in conjunction with the remainder of this response.


4/36


4

PART 1

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Of the total number of homes required to be demolished to allow for the construction ofPhase 1 of the proposed HS2 scheme, 80% are located in the London Borough ofCamden. One of the terminus stations will be located in this borough and will create alarge construction site in Central London impacting not only on amenity but also on traffic,permeability of the city, public transport, delivery of health and education services and willcreate many environmental health issues. The high speed line requires the loss ofhistoric and protected parks and open spaces and will have long-term impacts on thebusinesses nearby, most especially those in Drummond Street. The local Maria FidelisSchool will also be severely impacted in that it will not be able to function next to the

construction site.

2. The size, scale, impact and length of construction time are all unprecedented for a nationalrail scheme. High Speed 1 did not require as many homes in a condensed area to bedemolished as St Pancras Station was large enough to accommodate the additional linesrequired to service the scheme. Therefore, it remains the Councils fundamental positionthat it is essential for the government to provide a separate Camden-specific compensationpackage to address the far-reaching adverse impacts experienced by vast numbers ofresidents, businesses and non-commercial organisations in the Borough, most especially inthe Euston area around the footprint for the proposed new station.

3. A compulsory purchase order should only be made where there is a compelling case in thepublic interest. An acquiring authority should be sure that the purposes for which it ismaking a compulsory purchase order sufficiently justify interfering with the human rights ofthose with an interest in the land affected. Regard should be had, in particular, to theprovisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rightsand, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the Convention. It is the Councils position thatthere is no compelling case in the public interest for HS2, certainly no case at all that

justifies interfering to such an extent with the human rights of those with an interest in theland affected.

Sedley Requirements

4. The Council does not consider that the Property and Compensation consultation papercomplies with the Sedley requirements, which are:-(a) that consultation is undertaken when the proposals are still in a formative stage;(b) that adequate information is given to enable consultees properly to respond;(c) that adequate time is provided in which to respond; and(d) that the decision-maker gives conscientious consideration to the response to the

consultation.

5. Consultation must be a time when proposals are still only at a formative stage, and thegovernment has not yet fixed upon a definite solution but is prepared to change course if

persuaded to do so. On the basis that the government has excluded the property bond


5/36


5

scheme without further consultation on the merits and demerits of the scheme it could besaid the proposal has gone beyond the formative stage and any decision to proceedwithout it may be liable to challenge on the ground of predetermination.

6. The October consultation paper does not provide nearly enough information for the Counciland the public affected by HS2 to provide an informed response. Only very limitedinformation is included and not enough detail is given to enable a consultee to properlyrespond.

7. There seems to be an expectation in the consultation paper that the Council should acceptHS2 Ltd will appropriately and fairly apply CPO legislation, valuations and assessmentswithout the need for checking or cross referencing and without establishing criteria toassess any given situation against. This, if implemented, would make for a veryinconsistent approach along the line to Birmingham and into the Y network.

8. Similarly, there is an unacceptable lack of detail on when compensation payment will bemade if compensation is agreed between the government and the applicant. There mustbe a commitment from the government as part of these compensation packages to makepayment within a set amount of time not exceeding two months of upon agreement of valueand sale of the home or business the subject of the application. A strict timetable must beset out in the consultation paper which would provide for prompt payment. To not do sowould only increase the blight of an area, but more importantly will add to the stress andpressures experienced by those affected by HS2 to an unacceptable degree.

Timing

9. Limiting the time for response to only three months on a complex matter such ascompulsory purchase is too restrictive for a comprehensive response to be provided. Thelegislation around CPO is complicated and would be difficult for a member of the public totraverse easily without professional assistance. Only allowing three months for the publicto familiarise themselves with CPO procedures and their application to the HS2 situation,and then becoming familiar with the proposals the government is offering under thisconsultation, is unfair. Even the Council with its professional advisers has found it difficultto respond within this timeframe due to the lead-in times for authorising this response underits Constitution.

Public engagement

10. The consultation paper breaches the Cabinets own guidance on consultation1, whichstates:- The governing principle is proportionality of the type and scale of consultation tothe potential impacts of the proposal or decision being taken, and thought should be givento achieving real engagement rather than following bureaucratic process.

1 The paper entitled:Consultation Principlespublished by the Cabinet Office on 17 July 2012

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Consultation-Principles.pdf


6/36


6

11. The consultation with the public undertaken by HS2 Ltd in relation to this Compensationand Property paper has been deficient and inadequate given the major impacts that will beexperienced by this borough from the construction and operation of a high speed rail. Tohold only one event day in the borough on a Saturday cannot possibly be seen to besufficient to inform the large number of constituents in Camden who will be severelyadversely affected by this scheme. The constituents of the borough are very worried aboutthe extent to which they will be able to continue to live in their homes, where and when theywill be re-housed, what advice and professional guidance they will receive when their homeis compulsory purchased, what Doctors surgery they will be able to attend, where theysource their groceries, where they will be able to enjoy outdoor space, where they will beable to send their children to school and what will happen to their neighbours andcommunity.

12. Further, there were also no meetings designed to inform the ethnic minority communities

that live to the west of Euston Station, many of whom do not speak English either at all orwell enough to understand the implications on their homes or businesses or life in thatcommunity purely from the consultation paper. The Council believes the government hasbreached its public sector equalities duty in this regard by not holding direct consultationengagement with these communities.

13. The government needs to ensure it has properly engaged the community on thisconsultation for compensation and it has failed on every level to date. One meeting toprovide information for the thousands of people affected does not meet the governmentsduty to engage the community in its decision-making process. The community in CamdenTown which will be affected by the current proposal to link HS2 to HS1 over the North

London Line have no ability to respond because they cannot know how they will beaffected given the government hasnt decided yet how the link will be created. In effect thegovernment is excluding this section of the borough from being able to provide an informedconsultation response through the lack of information it has provided on which to respondto. The Council reserves its position in this regard.

14. The Council sets out its position generally in Part I of its response and then responds to thespecific questions asked in the Compensation and Property consultation in Part II.

15. Under the Aarhus Convention arrangements are to be made by decision makers to enablethe public affected and environmental non-governmental organisations to comment on, for

example, proposals for projects affecting the environment or plans and programmesrelating to the environment. The current consultation document is so insufficiently detailedas to prevent the Council or the public from providing constructive comments on therespective compensation products or their administration.

16. The vagueness and lack of detail evident in the consultation document when complex andimportant details are being presented is unacceptable. The consultation document isineffective in delivering the information required to allow a proper informed response to theprinciples suggested. The missing information could turn what appears to be a reasonablesuggestion into something unviable, unsuitable or unworkable. It is essential that there is a


7/36


7

further round of consultation once the government has considered the responses submittedto the October 2012 consultation paper.

Statutory scheme is not fit for purpose

17. To date the other Hybrid Bill schemes, relating to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link andCrossrail projects, did not involve highly intensive, localised demolition of communities andtherefore cannot be comparable to the effects of HS2. Given the sheer scale, extent andnumbers affected by this national infrastructure scheme, the standard statutorycompensation is not considered to be fit for purpose and the government should look atextending the restrictions to properly and fundamentally address the blight andcompensation created as a result of the high speed rail scheme. As a small example, thefollowing highlights the inadequacy of the statutory minimum:(i) the restriction of only owner/occupiers being able to serve blight notices;

(ii) the application of compensation linked to operation only, not construction;(iii) the inability for those over deep-bore tunnels to serve blight notices; and(iv) the very limited financial constraints. To cap the home-loss payment at 10% and

4,700 and the cap on business loss payments for non-occupying landlords at75,000 does not adequately reflect the high property values in Central London.

The government has the ability in its compensation scheme to, and should, extend thestatutory minimums and maxima to better reflect the type of loss and blight experienced inthe borough.

18. On first examination it would appear that some considerably munificent products would be

available. Indeed, the government itself describes the package as generous. However,upon closer inspection the products promoted are only marginally more improved than thestatutory minimum providing only a light-touch approach which does not adequatelyaddress the issues that will arise as a result of HS2, especially in the London Borough ofCamden where there are such a large number of complicating factors to take into account.

19. The statutory minimum itself is, as already mentioned, inadequate and not designed toaddress the mitigation required for those affected by the construction and running of theHS2 line. Neither the statutory compensation nor the additional packages proposed fullycompensate an owner for the loss experienced by the introduction of HS2 in effect thegovernment is requiring those most adversely affected by the line to i) accept a loss on

their home or business; and ii) also pay towards its implementation through taxes. This isneither fair nor reasonable. The government should formulate a package that entirelycompensates those affected by the introduction of the high speed rail line and associatedstations so that they are in the same position as they would be in a no-scheme world.

20. It is recognised that a fully compensatory scheme may place a burden on the public purse,but on that basis the government should not be proceeding with HS2 until it has a soundeconomic case that proves that the line will pay for itself. At present the Benefit Cost Ratiodoes not show a sufficient business case for proceeding. To continue with this scheme onthis basis can only lead to the creation of a tension between the burden on the public purseand those adversely affected by the implementation of a high speed line.


8/36


8

Link to safeguarding

21. The safeguarding area is being consulted on separately to this compensation and does notin itself have a link to compensation. However, for the purposes of the additionalcompensation packages proposed by the government there is a link because they aretriggered by whether or not a property is located in the safeguarding zone.

22. This link creates an unfair anomaly for those in the London Borough of Camden becausethe government has, under current proposals, excluded the Voluntary Purchase Zonepackage from urban areas. Therefore, a property that is immediately adjoining thedevelopment in Camden, for example on Eversholt Street, Exmouth Mews or onDrummond Street or anyone remaining in a block on the Regents Park Estate that is notbeing demolished, will only be entitled to apply for compensation under the Long-Term

Hardship Scheme (LTHS).

23. As the LTHS stands, compensation will only be available if the occupier of that property isable to demonstrate eligibility under the personal hardship criteria. This is compared with aproperty in a rural area located up to 120m away from the construction of the line, whichwill be eligible for compensation related to depreciation in value of that property.

24. The result is a distorted and fundamentally unfair compensation scheme available to thoseclosest to the terminus station construction.

25. The Council suggests that instead of linking compensation to safeguarding, the

government needs to devise a series of zones around the development and link thosezones with compensation package(s) that properly reflect the actual impact of HS2experienced within each zone. This would be a fairer reflection of mitigation required andprevent the extent of blight in the borough

26. The safeguarding zone drawn around the scheme in Camden is not sufficient even as astarting point because safeguarding is designed to respond planning applications whichmay affect the construction of the scheme rather than to address the mitigation of blightand property values of those the scheme itself impacts. Because of this the safeguardingdrawn excludes those to the east of Euston Station and those immediately abutting the linethroughout the rest of the borough. This is also true for those who live alongside the

proposed link between HS2 and HS1. At the moment the proposal is to build the line onthe North London Line viaduct, creating a substantial amount of interruption for those livingalongside these works. For those living in very close proximity to the line their onlyrecourse will be the LTHS, the deficiencies of which are pointed out above, and discussedin Part II of this consultation response.

Property bond

27. The current compensation proposals exclude the Property Bond that was detailed in theoriginal consultation for the principle of HS2 in 2011. The Council considers that thisproduct should be reintroduced instead of the LTHS. The main benefit to this


9/36


9

compensation over the LTHS is the focus of removing blight. Whereas the LTHS looks atpersonal circumstances, the Property Bond considers the impact on property andovercomes blight. Avoiding the spread of blight in Camden is of significant concern to theCouncil as it should be for the government also because it helps in promoting a fairercompensation scheme and ensures the long-term property market buoyancy of a CentralLondon location.

No proposals for tenants

28. The consultation paper does not address Secured Tenants other than statutory home-losspayment under s29(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The Council considers thereshould be a requirement that the Government works with the Council to provide thesesecured tenants alternative accommodation both in the short and long term. It is presumedthat this is perhaps to be picked up in the sixth chapter of the consultation paper, entitled

Impact on social rented housing; however, there are no proposals from the government forthe Council to consider, which leaves the Council with nothing on which to respond.

29. The compensation scheme also makes no allowance for those on Assured ShortholdTenancies. While it is acknowledged that those on a shorthold tenancy do not havesecurity of tenure, there are families and individuals who have lived in their rented propertyfor many years. To require such tenants to move after a significant term of residence cancause immense stress and financial difficulty for those who live in the properties. Thegovernment should include a compensation product similar to the statutory disturbancecompensation to assist those who have lived in their property for seven years or more tofind and move to alternative accommodation.

30. Therefore the Council reiterates its statement above that a further round of Camdenspecific consultation is an absolute necessity.

No mitigation for those who remain

31. No mitigation measures are proposed or offered to those living and/or working near theproposed development whether inside or outside the safeguarding zone that wouldovercome the negative impacts of the scheme without requiring the resident to leave if theydont want to. For example, the installation of double glazing, moving entrances tobuildings (where appropriate and with any necessary consents) and any noise attenuation

measures available could mean the difference between an individual, organisation orcompany being able to remain or having to move away, unnecessarily severing ties to thearea and adding to the blight.

32. There is statutory provision for disturbance compensation, but this only applies either to thedisturbance experienced while moving property, or under Part I compensation, wherecompensation can be sought for physical impacts but only after the railway has been openfor one year. Neither of these options takes account of construction noise or impacts,which in Camden and especially around the Euston Station development, are going to beconsiderable and over a protracted length of time.


10/36


10

33. There will be considerable disturbance in the form of (as examples) noise, dust, vibrationroad closures created by the construction of the line as well as the station, the constructionperiod for which is estimated to take some considerable time. On that basis the Councilconsiders that statutory disturbance compensation should be made available tocompensate all those affected by HS2 by the construction as well as by the operation of theline and payment should be as the disturbance occurs, not after a year of operation of theline.

34. The mitigation referenced above would assist people in minimising the negative impactsexperienced by the HS2 scheme and allow them to continue living and/or working in thearea and maintain their links to any community that survives rather than moveunnecessarily. If properly and effectively run it would also go some significant way toaddressing the blight issues that have already arisen and will continue to worsen for thoseaffected areas along the proposed route and around the Euston station terminus. This has

the added benefit of limiting the number of homes the government would need to CPO.

Businesses

35. The additional measures over and above the statutory minimum do not extend to businessowners for no valid reason apparent to the Council. There are many businesses in andaround the proposed safeguarding area that could potentially be heavily impacted by theconstruction of the station and the operation of the line over the short and long term. Thereare many businesses in Camden that will be affected by HS2 if it goes ahead. Thesebusinesses range from small independent family run businesses to large major companies.

36. The consultation paper makes much of only owner/occupiers of residential propertiesexperiencing stress and upset at having to leave their homes. The stress, disruption andanxiety caused by the HS2 scheme will inevitably extend to business owners andoperators; large, medium and small sized. Therefore the limitation of the additionalcompensation package only applying to owner/occupiers of residential properties isconsidered to be flawed and unnecessarily restrictive.

37. Given that it can take 10 -15 years to build up a customer base, relocation could potentiallytake some businesses back to a start-up position, with the associated loss of turn-over,profits and employment. Similar to the loss of an individuals residential home, the loss of afamily business built up over many years would cause upset and distress. However, unlike

for residential property owners, the loss of commercial premises may also result in theindividual affected losing their only source of income. The discretion exercised in theapplication of blight provisions for residential property owners should therefore be extendedto businesses and include compensation for the loss of good will and compensationprovided for relocation of commercial tenants.

Landlords

38. For the same reasons as set out above in relation to the application of these compensationpackages to businesses, the compensation products should also be applied to landlordsand not just to owner/occupiers. Landlords do not necessarily avoid the stress and


11/36


11

concern of the impacts of the HS2 line the additional compensation package is designed toavoid merely because they dont live in the property itself. Many are an investmentproperty and may be the landlords only source of income, and/or acting as their pensionincome. It is foreseeable that blight caused by HS2 would render such investmentproperties unable to be tenanted; creating unnecessary loss for the owner of the property.The reasoning employed to distinguish between owner/occupiers and non-occupationalfreeholder/leaseholders is considered flawed and any additional compensation productshould be extended to include landlords of freehold and leasehold residential and businessproperties, whether or not they are in occupation.

Community organisations

39. Similarly, non-commercial organisations such as schools, charities, community centres ordoctors surgeries would also experience hardship of the impacts of HS2, including blight.

Proposed compensation for these organisations is not detailed in the compensationconsultation paper, presumably because they are not going to be subject to any directcompensation. Yet such organisations can provide essential services to the communitythat remains and assist in avoiding further blight. The less of theseinstitutions/organisations that remain, the less likely it is that the community that needs touse them can sustain a home or business without them. As a result full funding andsupport should be included in the additional compensation package to ensure that theseservices are able to continue operating effectively and able to service the community as awhole throughout the construction period and in the long term with the operation of the highspeed line.

Property Value

40. The majority of properties in the safeguarded area which are earmarked for demolition areCouncil owned housing blocks. There are a number of leaseholders living in theseproperties, many of whom will want to remain in the local area, where they are part of thelocal community and have existing support networks. Given the high property prices in thearea where the value gap between an ex-local authority flat and a private flat is estimatedto be around 200,000, the current compensation offer will not allow them to do this. Byway of example, the average current value of one to two bedroom flats in the Regents ParkEstate is in the region of 230,000 to 250,000. Whereas the current value of a basic newbuild flat in the Euston area, without balcony, with limited external space, with reduced

floorspace, is in the region of 400,000 to 450,000.

41. This loss of equity for right to buy properties is not addressed in the proposedcompensation arrangements and this should be rectified. The compensation arrangementsneed to be sufficient to allow the owners of these properties to afford like-for-likereplacement properties within the area close to their original homes.

42. Camden owned properties provide local housing and community facilities. These facilitieswill need to be re-provided in a seamless way to ensure continuity of service. This re-provision will require resourcing and direct funding before replacement premises can becreated an may in turn lead to the Council having to adopt CPO powers to acquire land.


12/36


12

Capital expenditure of this type is not currently programmed and consequently the Councilwould require advance funding (an early purchase payment) be made available by HS2 Ltdto fund works of this type.

43. The Council believes that the government has an obligation to fully consider the potentialrange of re-housing options for Camden residents, in a Camden-specific compensationpackage, allowing Camden leaseholders and tenants to remain Camden leaseholders andtenants.

44. Again, the above issues reflect the need for a Camden-specific compensation package.

Open spaces and Community Facilities

45. The Property and Compensation document does not take into account the removal of

crucial community resources such as open spaces, youth groups or support groups,nurseries and parks. Without such resources, the surrounding population will besignificantly affected with impacts on their mental health and general wellbeing, access toclean air and natural environments. This in turn adds to the blight already experienced asa result of any installation of the high speed rail line.

46. A number of key parks, open spaces and sites of nature conservation are within or are inclose proximity to the safeguarding area. The loss, disruption or disturbance to thesespaces would result in direct impacts which include but are not limited to: loss of use ofrecreation, play and sports facilities, loss of biodiversity, sites of nature conservation andhabitats, loss of trees, loss of heritage, reduction in air quality, reduction in health and

wellbeing, increased anti-social behaviour, increased pressure on other open spaces insurrounding areas and harm to the general appearance and amenity of the area. Thiswould be detrimental to the quality of life of Camdens communities.

47. Full compensation for Parks and Open Spaces should be included in the proposedcompensation package and should link to a comprehensive blight mitigation strategy. Thecompensation should include funding and provision for temporary or permanent relocationof parks and open space of at least equal area, quality, level of facility and ecological value.This should be available in advance of any existing facility being impacted upon to ensurethat user groups have a suitable alternative in place.

Council revenue issues

48. There are a large number of permit controlled parking spaces that will be lost with theconstruction and possibly during operation of the high speed rail scheme. The Councilsexperience with Crossrail shows that a significant revenue stream will be lost with thisproject that is essential to the Council in order to provide maintain and upkeep the roadnetwork in the borough. Provision needs to be made to ensure the Council receivescompensation for any loss of parking space income and revenue.

49. From 2013/14 the way in which local authorities are funded is changing and Camden willbe able to keep a share of any growth in business rates in the area. The long lead-in time


13/36


13

for the process of the proposed Hybrid Bill and the lengthy construction period will subjectthe area to considerable blight. It is likely to take some time to attract business and growthback to the area which will mean that the Council will lose a significant portion of fundingthat it would have otherwise received in a non-HS2 scheme scenario.

Need for independent advice service

50. There is a need for the provision of an independent legal charity advisory service forhelping people with information, assistance in understanding the compensation productsavailable to them, help in filling in the various forms required to apply for compensationfinding appropriate professional representation (e.g. solicitor or surveyor), resources inrelocating (not just financial but finding packing and removal firms and provision of cleaningfor example), and helping with basics like redirecting mail and transferring utilities, liaisingwith HS2 Ltd, assistance with mitigation measures and general help in dealing with the

impacts of HS2. This service would need to be wholly independent and funded by thegovernment, but not run by it or HS2 Ltd. This would need to apply to all of those affectedby HS2, including home owners and occupiers, businesses, charities and communityorganisations.


14/36


14

PART IIRESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

The responses set out below to the consultation questions must be read bearing in mind thecomments made by the Council under Part I of this response.

1 Question 1: What are your views on the proposed advanced purchase process?

1.1 In summary, the Council suggests the following amendments should be made to theadvanced purchase proposals, in addition to the comments made under Part I of thisconsultation response, in order to render the product acceptable to the Council:-i. there should be allowance for specific compensation to the Council as land-owner;ii. the advanced purchase proposals should not be limited to owner/occupiers who

have been the main resident for over 12 months;iii. eligibility should not be limited to the safeguarded area;iv. case-by-case analysis on partially affected properties creates adverse and

disproportionate results so a detailed criteria needs to be formulated within whichthis will operate;

v. larger businesses must be included in the eligibility criteria.

1.2 The Council very firmly believes that the government should provide a separate specificagreement that applies to the Council as land owner. The statutory compensationprovisions do not anticipate and therefore do not apply to the Council in this capacity.There are a large number of social rented housing units owned by the Council in the

Euston Station area, most notably on the Regents Park Estate. The government needs toprovide the Council with further information as to how it suggests it will deal with thismatter. Further consultation will be necessary.

1.3 By restricting the eligibility of those able to apply for the advanced purchase scheme toonly those who would be eligible under the statutory criteria the government unnecessarilyexcludes those who have not long purchased their property. If the intention is to extendthe statutory CPO compensation scheme to prevent stress and upset as far as possiblethe scheme needs to encompass all homeowners, no matter what length of time they havebeen the resident or owner of their property

1.4 The Council has a concern that, whilst there are some positives in the scheme in that itprovides more certainty for property owners, it could also result in increased blight andproperty vacancy rates and would lengthen the period of potential blight on the community(as it is carried out in advance). If significant proportions of those in the safeguarded areaopt to take up advance purchase this could change the character of the area and themakeup of communities. It could result in increased vacancy with an associated decline ininvestment and increased issues such as squatting and anti-social behaviour. There islikely to be a reduction in owner occupation, an increase in short term lets and a reductionin obtainable rent values as any previously established community moves away from the


15/36


15

area. This could change the character of communities within the safeguarding area and itssurrounds.

1.5 To avoid the harmful impacts outlined above the advance purchase scheme needs to beaccompanied by a comprehensive management strategy for advanced purchaseproperties. This should focus on blight mitigation, stabilising communities and preventingvacancy. The management strategy should be linked to a wider programme of blightmitigation.

1.6 A proper blight mitigation programme should be location-specific to address the particularissues arising in the area rather than a generic route-of-the-line catch-all. It should alsoconsider measures to avoid anti-social behaviour and crime impact assessments to ensurecommunity safety is maintained throughout construction and operation of the high speedline.

1.7 Under the statutory compensation measures non-occupying landlords are entitled to a losspayment of 7.5% of the value of the value of their property up to 75,000. The Councilconsiders the compensation to these non-occupying landlords should be the same asoffered to the owner-occupiers (possibly less the moving costs). This is a Camdenspecific problem and as such it reinforces the Councils view that the government shouldbe working with this borough to formulate a Camden-specific compensation package whichcomprehensively assesses and addresses the issues arising in this borough.

1.8 There are a number of homes and businesses in this central London location that aresignificantly higher in value than the 1,000,000 which would provide the 75,000 loss

payment ceiling currently provided under CPO legislation. Given the location of the bulk ofproperties which will need to be demolished to make way for HS2 in the Euston Stationarea generally, this ceiling will need to be revised upwards to accommodate thesignificantly higher values in London compared to the rest of the country.

1.9 The consultation papers state that HS2 Ltd will accept blight notices from all eligibleproperties within the safeguarded area. However, properties that are only partially withinthe area will be considered on a case by case basis. There is insufficient informationavailable to assess the acceptability of this proposal. A case-by-case basis leads to risk ofinconsistency of determination along the line and creates uncertainty for those with bothresidential and commercial properties along the safeguarded zone.

1.10 Paragraph 2.6 of the consultation documents state that where a very small part of a muchlarger property is within a safeguarded area the government would be more likely to servea counter notice. The Council is of the view that the decision making on the service of acounter notice should not be influenced solely by the relative surface area of the affectedpart of a property relative to the area of the property as a whole but on the actual impact onthe property. Otherwise this could lead to a situation where, for example, a bedroom areaof a property is substantially adversely affected by the project proposals but as this isconsidered a small area in relation to the property as a whole it would not fulfil the criteriafor the acceptance of a blight notice. Individual circumstances also need to be considered,


16/36


16

for example, elderly or disabled persons who may out of necessity only use certain areasof their home.

1.11 There is also no information as to who is the case-by-case decision maker, which hassignificant bearing on the acceptability of the process. Further, it is the responsibility ofHS2 to draw the safeguarding zone around the edge of its proposal. Presumably it willtake some considerable care to avoid exactly such a situation which would lead to this kindof problem arising. Further information should be provided in the safeguardingconsultation to show how this line will be drawn. As it stands the proposed process isneither transparent nor accountable.

1.12 The application of the Crichel Down Rules is essential. Whilst the Rules are non-statutory,and so might be thought to be voluntary, the courts have repeatedly held that theimportance of the Rules and the need to adhere to them cannot be underestimated. There

is no process set out in the consultation paper for assessing the current market value ofthe property at which the original owner should be offered to buy it back at under theseRules. The Council believes there should be three valuers wholly independent from thegovernment or HS2 Ltd, who assess the property for its market value, together with aformula that allows the market value to be properly assessed by those three valuers andthe average price taken.

1.13 The guidance about how unblighted open-market value is determined needs to be moreexplicit in order for the consultation paper to comply with the Sedley Rules.

1.14 A further fundamental issue the Council has from the advanced purchase process is that

larger businesses have been excluded from the process. Businesses with a rateable valueover 34,800 would be excluded by legislation. For businesses operating in CentralLondon this is an incredibly low threshold. In the current economic climate to create asignificant area of blight for commercial businesses already feeling the impact of therecession, without providing operators with options over and above the statutory minimum,will only exacerbate the harmful impacts of the HS2 scheme.

1.15 Given that businesses take time to build up and the significant costs associated withrelocation, some businesses are likely to be deterred by the short term nature of occupyinga property under threat of CPO or which has been purchased under the advance purchasescheme. This could limit the type of businesses prepared to occupy affected commercial

premises, make tenants more difficult to find, reduce rents or lead to increased vacancy ofcommercial premises. This reiterates the need for the advanced purchase scheme to besupported by a comprehensive management plan and blight mitigation strategy. Of furtherconcern for the Council is that the blight caused by the HS2 scheme imposes a doubleeffect on landlords as they will have to pay empty business rates and all the costsassociated with upkeep of empty properties. The Council considers that advancedpurchase should therefore be made available to all commercial premises.

1.16 Finally, when advanced purchases are made, it is not clear what managementarrangements are anticipated by HS2 Ltd for those properties. The Council will not acceptearly demolition of any properties and it is clear that some type of use needs to be made of


17/36


17

them to ensure the ongoing function of the Central London location. No information isprovided in the documents to date which makes it difficult for the Council to providecomprehensive and constructive comments on the proposals.


18/36


18

2 Question 2: What are your views on the proposed voluntary purchase zone for ruralareas?

2.1 In summary, the Council suggests the following amendments should be made to thevoluntary purchase zone proposals, in addition to the comments made under Part I of thisconsultation response, in order to render the product acceptable to the Council:-

i. The VPZ must also apply to urban areas;ii. The zone should carefully tailored to encompass those who will suffer loss and

impacts of HS2;iii. it should apply to business owners who have a rateable value over 34,500;iv. there should be more information provided to show the process for evaluating no-

scheme blight-free values

2.2 The Council believes that to limit the voluntary purchase zone (VPZ) to rural areas only ismisguided and fundamentally wrong. The VPZ should apply within urban areas as well asrural. The justification for this in the consultation paper is that lack of existing transportinfrastructure and low population densities mean that impacts in rural areas are likely to befelt further away than would be the case in more urban areas. It is understood2that HS2Ltd have adopted this approach because those who bought properties in rural areas arelikely to have bought for the areas unique character in that it is not near any railway norany other type of infrastructure (except, presumably, roads) whereas those living in urbanareas are used to more development. Another view, given by HS2 LTD advisors, was thatthe reason urban areas were excluded was because there were streets between properties

and the line. These reasons for excluding urban areas are reflected what is set out in theConsultation Paper itself and the Council considers this to be unsound reasoning. It doesnot allocate support equitably to those most likely to be affected and most importantly isnot supported by any evidence from the government that this is the case.

2.3 Whilst in some instances properties in rural areas may be more affected by the line than aproperty at the same distance in an urban area, this is will not always be the case. It willbe dependent on a great variety of factors including (but not limited to) topography,obstructions, prevailing wind direction and accessibility. Insufficient evidence has beenprovided to confirm that rural areas would be worse affected and the assumptions do nottake into account local variances or circumstances. Camden is a densely populated area

with a mixed urban form, differing building heights and a range of different uses withvarying sensitivities; therefore, the impacts are not likely to be experienced in a uniformway.

2.4 Under the current proposals, a property in a rural area which is 119 metres from the linewould be entitled to the voluntary purchase, whether or not in reality they are or willexperience any negative impacts as a result of HS2. Whereas a property in Camden, at10m from the line (due to the reduced safeguarding limits in urban areas) and that is very

2

From information provided by HS2 LTD officers at a public meeting and reported back to the Council


19/36


19

likely to experience a range of very negative impacts, would not be entitled to voluntarypurchase compensation.

2.5 The voluntary purchase scheme will lack credibility as formulated. A property owner living119 metres from the track outside the M25 is eligible; a property owner living within 61metres of the track in an urban area is not. Thus a property in say Clarkson Row orMornington Terrace facing directly on the line will not qualify. Yet HS2 property advisorsadvised residents of the borough that one of the reasons urban areas were excluded wasthat "there are other streets between them and the line". Greater flexibility is needed sothat the over-riding factor is "market loss" not distance from the line.

2.6 This results in residential property owners in urban areas that are very close to the line onlybeing able to access compensation once they are experiencing negative impacts. Thenthe routes of compensation are limited to compensation for construction related

disturbance, line operation related issues (which can only be claimed one year after theline has opened) or through the long term hardship scheme from which many of thoseaffected, other than residential owner occupiers, are excluded.

2.7 For example, commercial owners/ occupiers just outside of the narrow safeguarded zonein urban areas who experience issues relating to the blight of the property market such asinability to sell would not be able to access any compensation or additional blight mitigationmeasures.

2.8 The proposed system is unfair and does not compensate fairly those who would be worseaffected. The blanket approach to rural areas and exclusion of urban areas is an

irresponsible use of public funds. People who have bought homes or invested inbusinesses in this Central London location cannot be said to expect to have such a large-scale national infrastructure project to be built near their property with the anticipatedsignificant build schedule. The introduction of HS2 in its construction and its on-goingoperation would be as intrusive for those in urban areas as those living rurally and there istherefore no justification for preventing those living near the line from having the ability toserve a blight notice should they so choose.

2.9 The Council believes that a compensation product is required to help those in urban areasthat are affected by blight. However, an indiscriminate 120m VPZ applied within urbanareas is also not an appropriate solution. It would take in a vast area and many hundreds

of properties within Camden, some of which may be affected by HS2 and many others thatwould not. The designation of such a zone is likely to spread uncertainty with assumptionsthat properties within the 120m zone are likely to be affected by HS2. Properties over amuch wider area would potentially be purchased with the associated blight and costs to thecommunity. Properties just outside the boundary of 120m are also then likely to becomethe subject of uncertainty.

2.10 There is clearly a need for a compensation product sensitively applied for those that arelikely to be affected in urban areas. This might be a narrower, more carefully consideredVPZ or it may be an alternative tailored approach for Camden or a combination of both. Itwill be inevitable with a project of this size that blight will be extended to the areas just


20/36


20

outside of the VPZ, wherever it is located. It is therefore essential that a better VoluntaryPurchase Zone is created, which has been carefully drawn to account for those who willsuffer impact and loss in value due to the line, rather than an arbitrary geographic zone, tocover rural and urban settings and to compensate residential and commercial propertiesaffected by the HS2 scheme to mitigate blight created by the HS2 scheme.

2.11 At paragraph 2.18 there is reference to the un-blighted open market value, which will beassessed by taking the average of two valuations paid for by HS2 Ltd. There is no processset out for how those two valuers will be selected; will this be by HS2 Ltd? If so the abilityfor the valuation to be independent is lost and therefore this process is not acceptable.

2.12 Camden has concerns about the proposal to take two values. The problem with thismethod is that the valuations will be based on comparable evidence which is alreadyinfluenced by the direct and indirect impact of HS2. In a no-scheme world values would be

expected to rise strongly in the London Borough of Camden in line with the recent trends incentral London. This will affect existing property and development land values. How canthis trend be reflected to protect the growth that landowners would have enjoyed? The noscheme world should also factor in inherent development value. There is also noinformation as to what criteria will be used to assess the un-blighted value. Again, thisbreaches the Sedley requirements of consultation.

2.13 Finally, the Council considers that those living in a VPZ should be allowed to be eligible forthe statutory minimum compensation if they decide to accept this compensation package.


21/36


21

3 Question 3: What are your views on the proposals for a sale and rent back scheme?

3.1 In summary, the Council suggests the following amendments should be made to the saleand rent back proposals, in addition to the comments made under Part I of this consultationresponse, in order to render the product acceptable to the Council:-i. The product should not be limited to owner/occupiers;ii. Businesses must be included;iii. The focus is on value for money rather than overcoming blight this must be reversed;iv. There is not enough detail on what is meant by legal letting standardv. There must be an appeal process which is further consulted on;vi. Market rent should not be charged.

3.2 Generally the Council is supportive of the sale and rent-back scheme. However, as withmuch of the Property and Compensation consultation paper, there is little detail availableagainst which the Council can constructively assess the ability of the scheme to a) meetthe needs of those living and working in the borough; and b) achieve the aims sought bythe product.

3.3 In terms of eligibility the Council again considers that the government has not properlyaddressed the needs of the communities affected by HS2 in limiting those able to utilisethis product to those who are able to serve a blight notice and who are also anowner/occupier. The Council does not consider the eligibility criteria for this product to bein any way adequate given the enormity of the detrimental impacts that would be caused

by HS2, should it go ahead. As already mentioned in this consultation response, theapplication of the statutory minimum for compensation is not sufficient for a nationalinfrastructure scheme of this scale given the number of homes and businesses that willrequire demolition in this borough alone. The Council considers the sale and rent backscheme should be eligible for all those in the safeguarded zone, whether their property willbe demolished or not. This would assist in avoiding blight for the long construction periodas it would reassure those that bought in the area that if the construction of the stationand/or the line became too intrusive they would have an option to sell without suffering aloss.

3.4 The Council itself is a landlord in the area and there is a real opportunity available for

innovative schemes such as making the properties available on a rent-free basis to assistin enabling the practical re-provision of local services. Further, it is illogical that commercialpremises have been excluded from the sale and rent back compensation product.Camden is a central London area where commercial interests are significant and anintegral part of the community. Vacant commercial property would seriously blight theborough. Given the likely challenges for renting acquired commercial property it seemssensible to retain the existing, established businesses located around Euston Station andalong the line (for example, the mixed use development at Rowley Way) for as long aspossible.


22/36


22

3.5 Applying this product to commercial premises would benefit the community in that it wouldprevent blight caused by vacant properties appearing, it would enable the business tocontinue to provide goods and/or services to the local or wider community and the unitremaining economically active with the additional benefit of the government receiving thebusiness rates applicable with a going concern. There would be additional benefits to thecommercial occupier themselves in that the operator will have certainty of knowing theirproperty is sold but allowing them longer to find alternative premises or for alternative sitesto become available on redeveloped land. For businesses that rely on an established localcustomer base this could be equally significant as to residential occupiers as a businessmay take many years to build up and relocation could render their business back to start-up status, losing all the goodwill accumulated over the years of operation.

3.6 The rights of those who become tenants of the government as a result of this process mustbe safeguarded with respect to any environmental impacts of the proposed project. Should

the tenants be affected by, for example, noise, vibration or dust from the proposed schemethey are able to pursue action under the applicable legislation in the same way as anyother person. This should be an express term within the tenancy agreement.

3.7 There is the potential for the Councils environmental health department to receiveadditional complaints from tenants of the government who were previously homeowners inrelation to property enquiries, for example regarding disrepair, gas safety checks andgeneral tenant and landlord enquiries as a result of this process. This will place anadditional resource burden on local authority private sector housing departments.

The application process

3.8 Once it is established that a property owner wishes to partake in this compensation productan assessment is proposed to be undertaken, as set out in paragraph 3.11 of theconsultation document. The Council has concerns as to how this assessment will beundertaken on the ground and how the un-blighted market value will be established.

3.9 There is no mechanism for establishing this value and yet it is one of the most importantmeasurement tools; vital in ensuring that owners of property are not left in a worse positionthan they would be in a no-scheme scenario. This goes back to the Councils criticism thatthere is insufficient information for it to provide constructive comments on. The absence ofthis kind of detail does not lend itself well to the governments obligation to carry out a valid

consultation exercise.

3.10 The land within the London Borough of Camden is high value, to date relatively unaffectedby the drop in property prices felt elsewhere in the UK. That is especially the case aroundEuston Station where a lot of the land is either in or very closely adjoining the CentralLondon zone. The values here are high and measuring their un-blighted market value willbe a very important aspect of the process. To not be able to comment on this veryimportant aspect of the process because of absence of information is frustrating andultimately leads to the conclusion that the consultation process has not been undertaken ina fair and transparent manner.


23/36


23

3.11 It is not understood why the un-blighted market value is a factor for this compensationproduct in any event. If the property is within the safeguarded zone the owner will be ableto serve a blight notice (as per the eligibility section set out in paragraph 3.5) no matterwhat the un-blighted market value is. This therefore begs the question as to what factorwill HS2 attribute to the market value of a property when assessing whether it will beaccepted into this scheme.

3.12 It is also noted that it is intended to bring the property up to legal letting standard beforerenting it back to the property owner. It is assumed that the reference to a legal lettingstandard is to ensure that the usual landlords certificates are obtained, e.g. gascertificates and electricity checks. However, the standard that the government is expectingto achieve may be more encompassing and a list of criteria required to meet this standardshould have been part of the consultation.

3.13 There is mention in paragraph 3.12 of significant work and improvements which leadsthe Council to believe that more than purely minimum legal requirements are intended. Itseems at odds with the value for money argument. Why spend significant sums ofmoney on improving a property when it has not been required by the owner to date andwhere the property may be demolished in any case. To enable the Council to properlyrespond on this point, it needs information from the government as to what specificstandard the government will be adhering to when it refers to a legal letting standard.

3.14 The Council does not believe the test of this compensation product should be a value formoney one, as described in paragraph 3.13. Whilst the Council agrees that the use ofpublic money should be carefully administered, any additional cost incurred by the

government in administering this product must be incorporated and recovered from theHS2 scheme through the revenue received from running the HS2 line.

3.15 The ultimate aim of this compensation product should be to prevent and/or mitigate thespread of blight caused by the introduction of HS2 Ltd into localised areas. The covenantthat the sale and rent back scheme should pay for itself is an erroneous proposal andultimately renders what could be a useful tool to overcome blight and provide certainty forowners and occupiers of homes and businesses, to an unnecessarily insurmountableobstacle. Finally, there is no appeal process noted in the event that an application isrefused by the government. There needs to be a process for review and appeal for thosewho wish to take up this scheme.

The tenancy process

3.16 There is no indication of what reasonable notice might be. Because of the unique natureof the sale and rent-back scheme, in that people are living in properties they bought astheir home, or businesses they bought as an investment, there may be differentexpectations of what reasonable should mean. In terms of notice given by thegovernment it should be no less than six months. There is no mention of reciprocal noticerequired by the government from a tenant. The Council considers that one months noticewill be sufficient.


24/36


24

3.17 The imposition of market rental is not considered to be suitable for this scheme arising inthis situation. This presumably stems from the desire for value for money, which forreasons already set out above the Council does not consider appropriate. The rent shouldreflect that the property is located in a blighted area with a significant construction periodcovering almost a decade. The ultimate aim should be to provide certainty for theoccupiers (whether residential or commercial) and prevent the encroachment of blight.Rather than market rental, schemes should be promoted that encourage people to remainin the area in order to prevent empty properties and boarded up businesses, both of whichleads to anti-social behaviour and criminal activities.

3.18 The Government has reserved the right to access the land for survey purposes if and whennecessary. This would need to be subject to the usual caveats that give reasonable noticeto the tenant, ensures the tenants right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the property,that the property is not intrusively entered into and that the tenant will be properly

compensated.


25/36


25

4 Question 4: What are your views on the proposed approach to the application of thehardship criterion for the long term hardship scheme?

4.1 In summary, the Council suggests the following amendments should be made to the longterm hardship scheme, in addition to the comments made under Part I of this consultationresponse, in order to render the product acceptable to the Council:-i. The proposed criterion are inappropriately restrictive and should be amended;ii. The product should not be limited to owner/occupiers;iii. Commercial properties should be included in the eligibility criteria;iv. Owners within the VPZ are wrongly excluded this must be amended;v. The proposed guidance must be provided and further consultation undertakenvi. Hardship should not be restricted by the government; the scheme must apply to those

suffering loss caused by HS2.

4.2 In principle the Council considers the idea of this product to be positive; however, there arefundamental problems with the proposals that need to be reconsidered, overcome and re-consulted on before implementation of this scheme takes place. For example, the focus ofthis scheme to personal circumstances instead of loss in property value suffered by ownersis not considered to be appropriate. The product must look to avert blight and loss ratherthan individual personal circumstances. Without the amendments required below theCouncil would have to withdrawn its limited support for this scheme because the structureproposed entrenches the blight suffered by those living and working in the areas affectedby the HS2 scheme, both during construction and operation.

4.3 It is difficult to understand how the government intends to take account of the consultationresponse on this compensation product given that it is already running an exceptionalhardship scheme in relation to HS2. From HS2 Ltds website it can be seen that anExceptional Hardship Scheme (EHS) is already in operation. It is remarkably similar to thisLong Term Hardship Scheme (LTHS) product presented in the consultation paper,although in some parts the LTHS has stricter compliance terms and render the schemeworse than the EHS.

4.4 It tends to suggest that the government has already decided to proceed with the long termhardship scheme notwithstanding the responses, in breach of the Sedley requirements.The Council is concerned that the government propose to use this product notwithstanding

the consultation responses it receives.

CRITERIA4.5 The Council does not agree with the list of proposed criteria for eligibility of this

compensation product.

i. property type4.6 The Council has mentioned already that it considers the limitation of application of these

compensation products to owner/occupiers to be unacceptable. The same commentsapply to the long-term hardship scheme. Non-residential landlords may also experience


26/36


26

hardship resulting from HS2 if they cannot rent their properties or if rental valuessignificantly fall and as a consequence have to sell the property but are unable to.

4.7 The hardship scheme should also be available to commercial premises. There is nojustification for the exclusion of businesses from the scheme as inability to sell a businesspremises could be equally as likely to result in hardship as residential premises. Thescheme should be available to commercial premises of all sizes.

ii. location of property4.8 The exclusion of those properties within the safeguarded area and the VPZ from applying

for the long-term hardship scheme is not something that the Council finds acceptable. Thiscompensation product should be available for properties in the VPZ because thecompensation available to those under the voluntary purchase scheme is only in operationuntil one year after the railway had opened year, whereas the long-term hardship scheme

is available for a three year period.

iii. effort to sell

4.9 The EHS only requires a property to be on the market for three months without sale. Thereis no evidence provided by the government supporting the need to extend this requirementto 12 months. For the reasons set out below the Council considers three months is morethan fair and reflective of the market in London.

4.10 The standard all reasonable efforts is a high one to meet. Presumably the government isnot just referring to time spent on the market in which case further information is required

from the government in order for the Council to properly assess the criterion against whichthe efforts undertaken will be required to meet.

4.11 Further, it is stated at paragraph 4.8 of the consultation document that to take account ofthe difficult market conditions currently being experienced across the country the propertywill need to have been on the market for at least 12 months prior to the application beingmade. The Central London market has not experienced the same difficulty as the rest ofthe country and at the same time will be one of the areas most detrimentally affected byHS2.

4.12 It is not reasonable for those occupiers of homes and businesses in this borough to have to

wait for a year before they can apply for the scheme. In London this time should be threemonths or even less. In light of the fact that the property market for businesses and homesin this part of London is so unique compared to the rest of the country, the Councilsoverarching view that a special package of measures for this boroughs occupants shouldbe created is reinforced in respect of this requirement. In its current form, the criterion iscompletely unsuitable for London residents.

4.13 The last strand of this measurement is that the owner must not have received an offerwithin 15% of its un-blighted open market value. The Council considers that this is a lossthat an owner of a residential or commercial property should not have to suffer because


27/36


27

HS2 has blighted an area. It is fundamentally wrong to expect those who suffer thedecrease in value in their home to have to pay for the decision to proceed with HS2.

4.14 It is not clear how property owners can know what HS2 will accept as an unblighted openmarket price before they put a property up for sale. In written advice provided to residentsof the borough, HS2 Ltds property advisors have added that by the phrase "15% of itsunblighted open market pricewe mean within 15% of its realistic asking price"3.However, in common usage the concept of a "realistic asking price" is surely above whatmight be termed market value and whatever is assessed as market value will already havea margin of error calculation incorporated so in effect the government is imposing twicethe financial detriment on a property owner by adding this criterion.

iv. no prior knowledge4.15 It is not feasible to expect that a person is aware of HS2 when they bought their property.

There is not the public awareness of HS2 and the preferred route that the governmentexpects there is. This in part is attributable to the governments lack of interaction with thepublic and the inadequate consultation with those affected by the scheme itself and thepublic generally. Indeed, as mentioned above, HS2 Ltd has only held one consultationevent in the borough to explain these compensation products to those affected by them.

4.16 Rather than assist, this criteria will continue to add blight to the areas affected by HS2.Even though there is currently no certainty that HS2 will go ahead and, if it does, when itwill go ahead, this requirement will likely deter people from purchasing properties near theproposed route or station as they will not be entitled to benefit from the long term hardshipscheme even though at this stage there is not enough information publically available for

people to judge the impacts of the scheme for themselves.

4.17 The complexity of the CPO process and the additional products cannot be underestimatedand the public needs to have more information provided to them by the company that isintending to run the scheme so that their queries can be properly answered. This is anexample of why people cannot be expected to know about HS2 just because it is the focusof the government, especially the Department for Transport. While the Council is awarethat people may have a vague knowledge that HS2 is proposed, they cannot be expectedto be aware of the details such as the exact location of the preferred route. Furthermore,there has been no requirement on vendors to advise a purchaser of the HS2 line whenselling their property.

4.18 A further concern is how a person would be able to prove to HS2 that they were not awareof the proposals when they bought the property in question. The consultation paperseems to stipulate that any person who bought a property after 2010 is deemed to havethis knowledge and is immediately disqualified from eligibility for this product. For thereasons set out above this is not acceptable it excludes people who genuinely were notaware of the HS2 proposal when they bought a property post 2010. If there is to be a priorknowledge criterion (which the Council fundamentally believes should not be included inthe list of requirements for this product), there needs to be a low standard of proof with as

3

In a letter from HS2 Ltd to Camden Cuttings


28/36


28

little as the applicant confirming in writing that they were not aware of the scheme whenthey bought the property.

4.19 In any event, the requirement for no knowledge to apply for this scheme is artificial. Itassumes blanket knowledge of every person in the country of the scheme and the linesexact route. It also assumes that the applicant should have known that the introduction ofHS2 could create blight in relation to that property and therefore known that in buying theirproperty they were risking hardship in selling it again. Even if a purchaser did know ofHS2 and that it could potential blight the property they were buying but went ahead andbought it anyway, there is no possible reason why the government shouldnt rectify anyhardship actually caused by this scheme. This is another example of the governmentfocussing on financial considerations rather than limiting blight caused by the scheme.

v. hardship

4.20 The Council has concerns as to how hardship is to be assessed and by whom. There is acontradiction in the consultation paper in that the suggestion is made in paragraph 4.10that no definitive list of circumstances that an applicant needs to qualify but then atparagraph 4.25 the suggestion is made that the government produces a detailed guidancedocument for applicants so that they are given as much information as possible as to whattype and detail they should submit as part of their application. That information should bedetailed in the consultation paper so that it can be properly scrutinised.

4.21 In any event the Council does not consider that hardship needs to be as extreme as theexamples given at paragraph 4.10 of the consultation paper. It is reasonable to expectpeople to want to move without having a need to move or to experience a hardship as a

result of not moving. There is no reason why these people have to sell their homes orbusinesses at a loss because of HS2. It is the Councils view that if a person can showthat they are unable to sell their property for market value because of HS2 they should beable to qualify for this compensation scheme. A structured process needs to be developedfor this product against which an assessment can be made of what could reasonably betaken into account when determining whether HS2 has affected the ability of a vendor tosell their property at market value. Further consideration and re-consultation is required inthis regard.

4.22 Hardship does not necessarily always stem from financial factors. If the governmentproceeds with hardship criteria, it should also include health effects as a result of the

proposed developments, for example a worsening of asthma or other breathing conditionsas a result of the project, a deterioration in hearing conditions (for example tinnitus) as aresult of the proposed development and psychological impacts and stress as a result of theproposed development. These examples are no exhaustive and should be considered byHS2 in further detail with the assistance of medical expertise.


29/36


29

5 Question 5: What are your views on the proposed process for the operation of thelong term hardship scheme?

5.1 In summary the Council suggests the following amendments should be made to the longterm hardship scheme , in addition to the comments made under Part I of this consultationresponse, in order to render the product acceptable to the Council:-

i. The panel must be wholly independent from HS2 LTD and the government;ii. The terms of reference that the panel will operate under must be created and consulted

on;iii. The final decision must be taken the Panel, not a civil servant;iv. A process for appeal must be created and consulted upon;v. A site visit must be made instead of relying on aerial photographs;

vi. There is a fundamental lack of detail;

Six month offer5.2 The intention is that once an un-blighted market value price for the property has been

agreed the governments offer to purchase remains open for six months.Purchase offersshould not be limited to six months. This is too short a period and it should be extended toat least twelve months.

Limited consideration of reapplications5.3 Further, when an unsuccessful applicant reapplies for the scheme the governments

proposal is to limit the consideration of reapplications to the criterion that the applicant

failed to meet during the previous application. This is unacceptable given the ease ofcircumstances to change significantly in a short period of time.

The Panel5.4 The Council has serious concerns with the proposal for assessment of the hardship

applications by this panel. The terms of reference for the panel are to make assessmentsof hardship without a proper examination of the applicants situation, for example it issuggested that site visits are not required nor are applicants able to appear in person.

5.5 The panel can only make recommendations to a senior civil servant and there is noinformation as to what department the civil servant will work for (presumably the

Department for Transport), there is no criteria against which the civil servant will apply inassessing the application in light of the panel recommendation.

5.6 There is no process for appeal; the members of the panel, as described in the consultationpaper, do not have independence or autonomy suitable for assessing hardship. Theprocess is not transparent and has implications of bias. A fundamental issue with the useof the panel is that, notwithstanding any issues with the composition of the panel itself, thedecision as to grant an applicant access to the LTHS ultimately rests with an unknown civilservant working directly to the SoS promoting the HS2 scheme.


30/36


30

5.7 The government itself in its consultation document acknowledges at paragraph 4.21 thatConfidence in the independence and fairness of a long term hardship scheme will becrucial to its successful operation. The final decision being taken by a member of theSoSs team undermines any veneer of independence established by the Panel. Thiselement of the process should be eliminated entirely and the recommendation of the Panelshould be the final decision (subject to an appeal process see below).

5.8 Given the potential impacts that HS2 can have on a business or residential property owner,the decision in relation to the LTHS, whether it is made by a civil servant or the Panel itself,should be subject to a de novo appeal process4. A non-bureaucratic cost effectiveprocess similar to the written representations forum currently used in planning appealswould give the applicant the ability to challenge the decision made and the Panel (or SoS)the ability to defend their decision. It is totally unacceptable to deny an applicant the abilityto appeal a decision taken which directly affects them. A situation could easily arise where

the Panel has wrongly taken a factor into consideration, or indeed not taken a factor intoconsideration which they should have, leading to a flawed recommendation and ultimatelya flawed decision. This is more especially the case if the Panel does not undertake sitevisits or refuses to hear the defendant support their application in person.

5.9 The composition of the Panel itself does not give any confidence that it will operateindependently. The consultation proposes three people on the panel, two independentmembers recruited through open competition who sit alongside a senior member of HS2Ltd member of staff. While this may have all the appearances of independence, the actualappointment of the independent members is run by HS2 Ltd; the terms of reference of thepanel will be drafted by HS2 Ltd. Presumably the detailed guidance that is planned to be

issued alongside this compensation product will also be drafted by HS2 Ltd.

5.10 Given the companys interest in the outcome of panel deliberations, it should not have amember on the Panel. Instead an officer from the local housing authority and/orregeneration department should sit on the Panel. Given the Councils duty to providehousing and its function liaising with the business community to facilitate regeneration, ithas a better insight than HS2 Ltd into hardships suffered by applicants. If HS2 Ltd is tohave a place on this Panel at all (which the Council does not think it should), that memberof the panel should not sit as Chair and should not have any casting vote/overridingdecision make abilities. To allow the Council to properly consider the LTHS it needs to seethe detailed guidance and the terms of reference of the competition to recruit independent

members and also the terms of reference for the operation of the Panel in assessing LTHSapplications.

Aerial photography, site visits and personal appearances

5.11 The proposal is that the panel assess the application using aerial photos as well as maps.The Council believes this is inappropriate and a site visit must be part of the panelsassessment as a minimum. They can be grouped for more efficiency if appropriate but tomake an assessment from photos alone does not allow a proper understanding of the

4Where the new decision maker re-hears the case without any reference to the rulings of the prior decision maker or limits on

the evidence presented


31/36


31

site/area. Further consideration should be given to hearing an application in person shouldthe applicant feel they would be better able to present their situation.

5.12 The decision by the government to exclude these because of the extra time taken reach adecision as well as making the process overly bureaucratic demonstrates a lack ofcommitment by the government to properly administer compensation product. To see thesite, experience the sound, feel the ground shake, note the property market situation, seethe impacts caused as a result of the scheme both in construction and operation can onlyassist the Panel in reaching the right decision in the first place. Inspectors at the PlanningInspectorate ordinarily make site visits for planning appeals and it is difficult to see why thePanel should be excluded from doing the same. This will ultimately save time as it willassist and avoid further bureaucracy of reapplication and appeals. Production of detailedguidance for applicants is essential but the Council should be consulted on the contents

thereof.


32/36


32

6 Question 6: What are your views on the Governments proposals to restoreconfidence in properties above tunnels?

6.1 In summary, the Council suggests the following amendments should be made to how itproposes to treat properties above tunnels, in addition to the comments made under Part Iof this consultation response, in order to render the proposal acceptable to the Council:-i. Settlement Deeds should be available to those within 50m on plan of tunnelling

work

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	salvador-schenone
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Camden Response to HS2 Compensation Consultation Jan 2013 (1)

Documents