PROPERTY COMPENSATION CONSULTATION 2013

For the London-West Midlands HS2 route

Response form
Rt Hon Sir John Randall MP Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA

3 December 2013 Dear Sirs HS2 Property Compensation Consultation 2013 The Governments fresh consultation on this issue provided an opportunity to rethink some of the proposals set out in the original consultation and this the Government has done. I support the principle that the proposals for compensation must go above and beyond statutory compensation for the reasons the Government has outlined. I further welcome the steps that have been taken in this consultation to improve compensation upon the original 2012 consultation. Unfortunately the proposals do not go far enough for my constituents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I set out reasons in the response. Yours sincerely

Rt Hon Sir John Randall MP

Consultation questions
1. What are your views on the criteria we have put forward to assess options for longterm discretionary compensation? a. The consultation does not reveal the weighting that will be applied to each of the five criteria. b. The fairness criterion under which only those owner-occupiers whose properties (and property values) are most directly and specifically affected by the proposals are compensated (according to the description in Paragraph 3.1.2) is too narrow. It is fair that help is afforded to all residents who will be affected by HS2, in proportion to their blight. c. The value for money criterion seeks to ensure that any risks relating to the costs of property schemes can be effectively managed within HS2s long-term funding settlement (Paragraph 3.1.3). This is the wrong way round. HS2s long-term funding settlement must be determined by the costs of the property schemes, and not vice-versa. 2. What are your views on our proposals for an express purchase scheme? a. I welcome the Governments recognition that the Blight Notice/Counter-Notice process can be stressful and time-consuming and thus its proposal to accept Blight Notices from all eligible property owners within the safeguarded area and to not require property owners to make all reasonable endeavours to sell their property on the open market before accepting a Blight Notice. However there is a concern that, beyond the statutory compensation, the Government has introduced no proposal to address compensation for property owners who are ineligible under the statutory system, namely large businesses and landlords of properties. For many people, rental properties can be an alternative source of income and act as a pension fund. Some may have invested in property instead of a corporate pension. To exclude these groups arguably punishes hard-working people who have done the right thing by saving for their future. b. Paragraph 4.2.19 notes that the approach to express purchase would not normally apply in those areas where safeguarding had been put in place to protect land above deep-bored tunnels or any other sub-surface works. It is not explained when the express purchase scheme would be applied in those circumstances. This is of particular importance to constituents in Hillingdon where tunnelling will be extensive. c. There is no clarification on the deadline after which no Blight Notices can be served. 3. What are your views on the proposed long-term hardship scheme? a. Underlying the principle behind 2a, it is similarly unfair to restrict the LTHS to residential owner-occupiers excluding landlords and businesses that may have a pressing need to sell or relocate. A landlord may, for instance, require funds for their retirement, whilst a business may need to relocate to meet changing business needs. b. The reduction in the marketing period to satisfy the effort to sell criterion from 12 months to 6 months is welcome. Despite this, a 6-month marketing period is potentially at odds with the hardship criterion in which an applicant must show a need to sell. c. There is no description of the duration of LTHS or the commencement and end dates of the scheme.

d. Paragraph 4.3.30 notes the proposal to produce a detailed guidance document for applications to the LTHS. To reassure and respond more effectively to residents who are in hardship, the Government may wish to consider the provision of a helpline. e. There is no description on the rules by which panel decisions are made particularly whether they require unanimity or a majority. 4. What are your views on the sale and rent back scheme? a. The Government proposes not to extend the scheme to second home owners or landlords yet reserves the right to make exceptions under certain circumstances. There is no clarification as to what these circumstances might be. b. The value for money test must take into account the risk of vacancy (lost market rent) in the case where a tenant gives notice. c. Paragraph 4.5.11 notes that sale and rent back tenants would not be allowed to sub-let the property. It is unclear if tenants would be able to sub-let part of the property. 5. What are your views on our alternative proposals for renting properties to their previous owners? a. The underlying principle that the rental of properties to their previous owners need not be restricted to those properties that the Government expect to demolish is welcome. 6. What are your views on our proposals for a voluntary purchase scheme within a rural support zone? a. Residents in Hillingdon will be understandably very concerned that the rural support zone currently excludes all but the boundary of the London Borough of Hillingdon. It is arbitrary to exclude areas of a clearly rural character. b. I reiterate the concern in 2a: landlords and large businesses will be ineligible for the voluntary purchase scheme under the proposals. 7. What are your views on the option to introduce a time-based property bond scheme within a rural support zone as an alternative to the voluntary purchase scheme? a. I again reiterate the principle behind 2a: the property bond scheme proposal is restricted to residential owner-occupiers. This excludes businesses and landlords. b. The voluntary purchase scheme includes various eligible property owners (not just residential owner-occupiers) and, as stated in paragraph 5.2.28, would not require property owners to offer their properties for sale in the marketplace preferred by many eligible property owners because it would be likely to offer them a quicker and more certain sale process. In these respects a voluntary purchase zone is more favourable than the proposed property bond scheme. However, it is difficult to choose a scheme when the boundary for the property bond scheme remains undecided. If, for instance, the boundary turns out greater than the 120m proposed boundary for the voluntary purchase scheme, this would at least offer support to one group not addressed by the voluntary purchase scheme: the residential owner-occupiers affected by remote (i.e. over 120m) blight.

End