Exceptional Hardship SchemeBy the Editor
One of the effects of the Government’s announcement of its preferred (and alternative) routes for high speed rail (HS2) is the uncertainty it creates for house prices in the affected areas.
At the time of the announcement, the Government therefore also opened a consultation period on what is known as the “Exceptional Hardship Scheme” (EHS). It is intended to address the issue of house price uncertainty during the period of debate before a final decision is made on the proposals. The consultation period is due to close on 20th May, after which (assuming the Government gets re-elected) it will confirm exactly how the Scheme will work.
It is imperative that you comment on these proposals in the next few weeks. You do not need to apply to the Scheme but simply to state your views on who should be eligible, what kind of compensation should be paid, etc.
Information on where to find further details is given at the end of this article.
Vague and unreasonable
Chiltern District Council’s elected member for this ward and a Member of the Council’s Cabinet, Nick Rose, has commented as follows:
“The problems with the consultation are fairly basic. The first question “should there be an EHS scheme at all?” is easy as yes of course there should be. There are now several accounts of house sales that have fallen through during the last two or three weeks.
Then it gets more difficult. The detail of who qualifies is vague, i.e. those on the actual route? Those within 100 meters? Those further afield? We simply do not know because the consultation is vague in this definition. All the document says is “people owning property on or adjacent to the preferred route... anybody else with an interest”.
Then the consultation goes on to state that eligibility would be limited to those “who had a pressing need to sell” but this is not precisely defined either. Various examples are listed – change in employment, extreme financial pressure, medical condition – but again all rather vague. Applicants would have to demonstrate that that they had made reasonable efforts to sell their property, that it had been on the market for at least three months (from when? from the 11th March the announcement date or from whenever their circumstances changed?) and that no offer had been received within 15% of its existing open market property price.
This is the unfairest part of all the proposals as it implies that under the EHS people would only receive a maximum of 85% of the property value. Also properties above tunnels would not be eligible although there might be risks of subsidence and subsequent cracks. This again is unreasonable.
CDC is a statutory consultee and is taking professional advice and is preparing a comprehensive response to the consultation and will make this available when ready but this will not be until about the beginning of May. In the meantime I would not wish to deter anyone from making their own response.
The EHS consultation is only the start of the process; HS2 will be starting the Public Consultation in the autumn but already it is clear that they only want to consult on the preferred route and not the alternatives, the community will have to persuade them otherwise. The HS2 scheme can be seen off but only by volume of numbers and above all determination and stamina.”
We need a fairer approachSouth Heath residents Hilary Wharf and Bruce Weston have also produced a number of leaflets on the EHS. They have commented on the principles involved:
“1. Where works are done in the national interest, it is wrong that particular individuals should bear any loss in value of their property. The costs of reducing property values should be an element in the cost of the works, with individuals who are adversely affected fully and fairly compensated.
It may be the case that there is an excessive reaction to proposals, and that in the fullness of time far fewer properties are adversely affected, and that those that are affected suffer smaller value losses than the interim reactions. However, this is not the doing of those adversely affected, and it is still a consequence of the project.
If the builders of HS2 believe that the detriment they create is more limited than is reflected in the market, they could choose to hold a portfolio of properties that are currently adversely affected, selling them later. If the government is right, they lose no money; but the evidence is that areas stay blighted for years.
2. It is inherently unreasonable to compensate only those people who want or need to move for reasons on an arbitrary list. People should be free to move where and when they wish without suffering a financial penalty imposed by HS2.
3. Property owners are the victims of government actions, and while some of the consequences on property values may be unintended they are anticipated, consequently it is right that the individuals be entitled to full and timely compensation.
4. The threshold of a 15% loss in value is justified on the basis of requiring a discernable difference from the unblighted market value. It is hard to believe that so large a difference is required for ‘discernability’. Even a 10% loss in value will generally considerably exceed the annual income of a property owner.
If compensation was perceived as adequate for those affected, then governments would find much less negative reaction to major infrastructure proposals.”
Editor’s notes: a copy of Hilary and Bruce’s leaflet, which contains details on how to respond to the EHS consultation, is available at the Shop and on the District Council’s website www.chiltern.gov.uk/highspeedtwo.
Readers can make use of the bullet points contained within the leaflet and respond by 20th May. Rather like responses to the NATS consultation, letters should be individualised in order to have an effect (i.e. not just photocopied and signed).
Nick Rose has also offered to assist any reader who wishes to respond individually to the scheme and readers are welcome to contact him confidentially on 01494 837688 or at nick.rose.hs2@chiltern.gov.uk.