Property Compensation Hilary Wharf, Director HS2AA 28 October, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

property compensation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Property Compensation Hilary Wharf, Director HS2AA 28 October, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MPs Compensation & Mitigation Forum Property Compensation Hilary Wharf, Director HS2AA 28 October, 2013 1 Overview DfT offer : safeguarded area, rural area, long-term scheme, Part 1 LCA. Verdict : DfT say : its generous ;


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

MP’s Compensation & Mitigation Forum

Property Compensation

Hilary Wharf, Director HS2AA 28 October, 2013

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Overview

DfT offer: safeguarded area, rural area, long-term scheme, Part 1 LCA. Verdict:

  • DfT say: it’s ‘generous’; they recognise ‘HS2 is exceptional project’;

follows ‘HS1 & Crossrail precedents’; they are including a bond option.

  • We say: ‘rehash of statutory rules/past failures’; ignores true extent of

blight, Gov. promises, c.£6bn+ losses, effectively uses ‘means tested’ rules unrelated to blight; misrepresents the truth about property bonds.

Vast majority suffering losses stay trapped for 15yrs+ & get nothing; c. 2,500 will qualify (under 2%). Need a fairer deal. Strategy: policy change for infr. projects that span Parliaments; fairer

deal; use media; challenge misrepresentations; mass response campaign …….If the Government can’t afford fair compensation, then it can’t afford HS2!

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

The Headlines

  • 1. Human rights: private enjoyment of property is removed without proper compensation.
  • 2. Blight: its real, extensive & severe; goes far beyond 60m or 120m from the line; typically

averaging 20% loss out at 1 km. Agents quote 30% and more. It paralyses the market.

  • 3. Freedoms: people must be free to move home and re-mortgage over the next 14yrs+

and not be trapped, unable to get on with their lives as they normally would.

  • 4. Property Bond: should replace the Hardship Scheme (not Voluntary Purchase Scheme).
  • 5. Long-term scheme: should not have hardship rules - these are about a person’s

circumstances and unrelated to the blight.

  • 6. Property market support: DfT say property values recover once HS2 arrives so DfT must

support the market ‘til then; its loss in market value not distance, or location that matters.

  • 7. Full loss: Government must put the full value of the loss suffered in HS2 business case
  • 8. DfT misrepresent the facts: on Property Bonds – both HS2AA’s & Central Railway

…….half a million properties are within 1km of HS2, Government must play fair

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Scale of HS2 blight

  • Severity:
  • Average loss = 19.5%, but rurally more:

Agents say up to 30%, or even 40%

  • Extent:
  • Av. outer limit = 1 km; rurally more: agents say 1-3 miles
  • Phase 1: 172,000 properties (or within 250m of tunnel). In total

within 1km on full Y there are 486,000 properties.

  • Cost
  • Blight (est. loss): Phase 1: £6bn (£4-7bn); full Y: £12bn?
  • Compensation (bdgt)*: Phase 1: £1.5bn; full Y: £2.5bn
  • Long term: Government say values recover when HS2
  • perating – even if true its unreasonable to have to wait 15/20yrs

*before money back on sales ……….so what is being offered?

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

What’s on offer?

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

DfT’s five criteria

DfT say the decisions will provide in “Government’s reasonable

  • pinion” the “best balance” between the five criteria:

1. Fairness – now redefined to “most directly & seriously affected” 2. Value for money – for the taxpayer 3. Community cohesion 4. Feasibility, efficiency and comprehensibility – or simplicity 5. Functioning of housing market

Nothing about the ‘polluter pays’ Nothing about fairness to all those suffering blight Nothing about the weightings of the 5 criteria given to Deloitte ……the decision depends on weightings that are not given

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Express purchase

Proposal Issue/comment

  • For those in Safeguarded Area (60m from

centre line on surface).

  • Excludes those over tunnels.
  • Owners (homes, small bus., & Agric units)

can require HS2 Ltd to buy their property before its needed (serving a blight notice).

  • For compulsory purchase: your legal rights!
  • For others: stay or ask to be bought early.
  • No purchase scheme over deep tunnels.
  • Waved the need to prove efforts to sell.
  • Recognises the impossibility of a sale.
  • Unblighted price; + 10% ‘home-loss’ payment

(capped at £47k); + moving costs.

  • Nothing extra on top of your legal rights.
  • 10% and cap inappropriate. CLA say 30%.
  • Property partly inside Safeguarded Area

qualifies unless small part of large property.

  • Lack of clarity.
  • Rural homes have a-typically large gardens.
  • ‘Sale and rent back’ option for homeowners

(for 300+ homes demolished). Also now an

  • ption for all HS2 ltd purchased properties.
  • Many will be hard to rent out, so win win.
  • Need to help those failing VfM test but who

want to stay.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Long-term hardship scheme

Proposal Issue/comment

  • For outside Safeguarded area

& any scheme in rural area .

  • The main scheme for the thousands who are blighted.
  • Unreasonable rules given long timescales for HS2 (15yrs+)
  • 1 person under Crossrail equivalent scheme qualified in 8 yrs
  • Unblighted price.
  • No additions.

Eligibility: strong personal reasons for selling, but can’t do so other than at ‘significant loss’

  • Property: only owner-occupiers
  • Excludes all 2nd homes, rented properties (even sole home)
  • Location: ‘substantially

adversely affected’ .

  • An unnecessary criteria. Should just be if blighted.
  • Eligibility should instead be set by ‘market loss in value’.
  • Effort to sell: 6m. on market;

no offer <15%; HS2 is cause.

  • Worse than EHS (3months): unreasonable to be double.
  • 15% threshold should be lower – it’s an unreasonable loss.
  • No prior knowledge of HS2.
  • New buyer can’t qualify (buys at lower price, bakes in blight)
  • Hardship rules: as EHS, but

now includes future hardship.

  • Retaining hardship rules means most people get nothing.
  • Linking downsizing to financial hardship – is means testing

the elderly.

…….the property bond should have been the alternative

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Recap: so what’s wrong with a ‘hardship’ basis?

  • Only helps a minority: the majority who lose ££ are excluded.
  • It’s like a property tax: on those who happen to be near the line.
  • Unjust: individuals should not bear the loss (‘polluter pays’).
  • Inappropriate for HS2 timescales: for 15/20yrs involved.
  • Traps people: loss of freedom to move, re-mortgage.
  • Exacerbates blight: no prior knowledge clause guarantees a new

purchaser doesn’t qualify – and will only pay a blighted value.

  • Paralyses the market for 15/20yrs: need the surety of full

compensation if the market is to have confidence restored.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Voluntary purchase scheme (VPS)

  • ption for Rural Zone

Proposal Issue/comment

  • Rural Zone : north of

Bucks/Hillingdon boundary to joining WCML; not over tunnels

  • Unfair to exclude urban blight or over bored tunnels.
  • Better Zone than last consultation, but still crude limit.
  • VPS is 120m from centre line

(NB same as HS1 used)

  • Arbitrary cut-off – ignores topography, HS2 construction
  • VPS should be based on ‘market loss in value’.
  • Distance is too limited – no blight evidence provided to

show all ‘significant’ loss is inside the area, and it isn’t.

  • HS2 more environmentally damaging than HS1.
  • Owner-occupiers (homes, small
  • bus. & Agric units) 788 covered
  • Wrong to exclude second homes, rented out homes,

and even when sole property a person owns.

  • Unblighted price (average of 2

valuations (3 if >10% apart).

  • No other costs (as DfT say owner chooses to move).
  • Worse than HS1 that paid other costs.
  • Property partly inside qualifies

unless small part .

  • No clarity; rural homes have a-typically large gardens

……….so what’s the other option being offered?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

The property bond option for Rural Zone

Proposal Issue/comment

  • For Rural Zone only
  • Unfair to restrict. Should be for urban &over tunnels too.
  • Distance based boundary limit;

not top-up compensation.

  • Deloitte say a 120m distance;

DfT say undecided at present.

  • Arbitrary cut-off – ignores topography, HS2 construction.
  • Should be based on a material ‘market loss in value’.
  • No blight evidence provided. Yet EHS distances paid
  • ut to 1.1km; CBRE blight report (consistent with

average 20% loss at 1km, and more in rural areas).

  • Property valuation done at
  • utset when Bond is issued.
  • Represents up-front scheme cost & admin burden.
  • HS2AA proposed this step only when a sale is activated

(like EHS); seller could pay & re-imburse if qualify.

  • Bond passes to private owner
  • OR if can’t sell privately, HS2 Ltd

purchase when trigger passed.

  • Allows purchaser and mortgage company to have a

tangible guarantee and so supports property market.

  • Much emphasis on untried,

untested, uncertain, unused

  • The facts are not correctly presented

……the option is narrower than back in 2011 (property bond v hardship)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

So why is a property bond better?

  • Property Bond: a “win-win” solution:
  • Should replace Hardship scheme not Voluntary Purchase Scheme!
  • Fairly compensates those affected by blight (and not up to 120m)
  • Restores market confidence and reduces blight itself (by providing

reassurance to owners, prospective purchasers and mortgage lenders of protection against losses)

  • Can avoid opposition to the project driven by fear of a large

uncompensated losses (by saving the indirect cost of objections and resultant concessions)

  • Can cost nothing if HS2 is cancelled – like Central Railway
slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

How property bonds are misrepresented in consultation

  • Central Railway scheme: DfT/Deloitte claim:
  • Not targeted on property blight : UNTRUE
  • Just for line-side homes needed for construction : UNTRUE
  • No evidence of effect of bonds on property market: UNTRUE
  • And all explained to HS2 ltd/DfT in a meeting back in 2010
  • HS2AA: DfT/ Deloitte claim
  • High up- front cost from getting valuations: UNTRUE
  • No one has had a scheme without a distance limit as HS2AA’s: UNTRUE
  • Our scheme included statutory add-on sums: UNTRUE
  • Again all explained in our consultation responses, even in court

……a fair Q? An option between a certain sale within 120m or less certain one?

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Could a balance be struck?

  • Government fear unlimited liability-

blight is small until they come to pay it!

  • Fairness requires compensating all material

losses, and they are not neatly clustered within so many metres of the line. The property bond could consider a mixture of:

  • a base distance limit eg 500m or
  • being able to demonstrate a minimum threshold loss

.…it’s surely time to take a step forward in modernising arrangements?

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Consultation questions

The 7 questions ask for your views on the: 1 The Criteria put forward to assess options for long-term discretionary compensation? 2 The proposals for an express purchase scheme? 3 The proposed long-term hardship scheme? 4 The sale and rent back scheme? 5 The alternative proposals for renting properties to their previous owners? 6 The proposals for a Voluntary Purchase Scheme in a “Rural Support Zone”? 7 The option to introduce a time-based Property bond scheme within a Rural Support Zone as an alternative to the Voluntary Purchase Scheme? There are Maps, Consultation Document, a Deloitte report on HS2 Ltd website: HS2AA have published some guidance to consider www.hs2aa.org .

……remember the 4 December 2013 deadline

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

The Postcard campaign

As before we have postcards to get a mass response. It’s a simple PR tool to get the message across. In Jan. 2013 consultation we had 26,000 returned. They were all included in the DbD summary. There are 540,000 properties within 1 mile of phase 1 and phase 2 – that’s over a million people affected.

….everyone can help, and they won’t be ignored.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Summary: our agenda for change

  • 1. New policy: We must modernise compensation arrangements for national infrastructure
  • projects. Compensation must reflect the real extent & severity of the blight, not

60/120m limits that are not grounded in evidence; or ignore huge construction disruption.

  • 2. Property Bond approach:
  • To replace the Hardship Scheme (not Voluntary Purchase Scheme, VPS).
  • To apply to properties beyond any VPS area /Safeguarded area.
  • A possible balance between a distance-based limit and a minimum threshold loss.
  • 3. A long-term scheme: should not contain hardship rules - these are about a person’s

circumstances and are unrelated to the blight.

  • 4. A Voluntary Purchase Scheme: should be driven by the blight (not 120m or just rural).
  • 5. The loss suffered: Government should put the full value in the HS2 business case.
  • 6. DfT corrections: of false statements on Property Bonds – HS2AA’s & Central Railway.

…….half a million properties are within 1km of HS2, Government need to play fair