South Ruislip &
Manor Branch Labour Party.
This is are our recorded submission:
HOW ADVANCED AND VOLUNTARY PURCHASE WILL WORK FOR HS2
Q1: What are your views on the proposed advanced purchase
process?
People must be
free to move or re-mortgage over the next 15+yrs, as they normally would. Your
proposals don’t allow for this. We are particularly concerned for residents who
live near the proposed tunnel entrances in South Ruislip/Northolt and West
Ruislip/Ickenham who locally will be most blighted if the proposals go ahead
for the duration of the tunnelling and when the line becomes operational.
Advanced purchase should be for all owners (not just
owner-occupiers)
For people affected by both phase 1 and phase 2 of the
HS2 e.g. in Ickenham, these proposals fail to account for the unique situation
they face and offer no reassurance of fair and comprehensive compensation for
the total impact of the project on those affected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2: What are your views on the proposed voluntary
purchase zone for rural areas?
Our response:It’s unfair to have different compensation rules for rural and urban areas. It is not true that urban areas will be less affected. If HS2 causes a loss in property values the owner should be compensated. It is also unfair to treat rural areas e.g. Harefield, within the M25 as urban.
It is unfair that there is no compensation for
construction – disruption, losses, residential issues, impact on families etc.
All people and communities who suffer blight should be
compensated. Voluntary purchase should be for the thousands of blighted
properties that can prove they lose value due to HS2 – not just the few very
near the line.
Compensation should be determined by loss in property
value – not hardship scheme rules such as distance from the rail line, or
hardship, or ignoring blight for properties with tunnels nearby or underneath.
Moving costs and home loss payments should be covered too (as HS1 did).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALE AND RENT BACK SCHEME
Q3: What are your views on the proposals for a sale and
rent back scheme?
It is unfair that there is no compensation for
construction – disruption, losses, residential issues, impact on families etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONG TERM HARDSHIP SCHEME FOR LONDON TO WEST MIDLANDS
Q4: What are your views on the proposed approach to the
application of the hardship criterion for the long term hardship scheme for
Phase 1?
Our response:
The Government is
breaking its promise to compensate everyone suffering a significant loss
The Hardship Zones are much too tightly defined. Many
people near construction sites but outside the Hardship Zones will find it
difficult to sell their homes without significant loss during the construction
period. The definition of hardship is very narrowly defined. Bearing in mind
the 12+ year duration before construction works are complete there are many
reasons why households may wish to relocate within this period such family
changes, retirement. The limitations are likely to blight many others’ life opportunities
in many comparable ways.
Compensation should be determined by loss in property value – not hardship scheme rules such as distance from the rail line, or hardship, or ignoring blight for properties with tunnels nearby or underneath. Moving costs and home loss payments should be covered too (as HS1 did).
If HS2 really is in the national interest, individuals
misfortunate enough to suffer the inconvenience should not have to bear an
unfair share of the cost of HS2 by suffering a loss in value of their property.
I support the principle that if (a big if) the nation is going to benefit then
the nation should meet the loss in property values due to HS2 and should be
included as a cost of the project.
Rules like needing to have your property up for sale for a year before applying for compensation, are unfair. A loss of 15% in property value before anyone can even apply for compensation is too high.
It’s not just home-owners who suffer for years while HS2
is built, but tenants, whole communities and small businesses too – yet they
are not being offered any compensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROPERTIES ABOVE TUNNELS
Q6: What are your views on the Government's proposals to
restore confidence in properties above tunnels?
It is unfair that there is no compensation for
construction – disruption, losses, residential issues, impact on families etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------IMPACT ON SOCIAL RENTED HOUSING
Q7: What are your views on how the Government should work
with local authorities, housing associations and affected tenants to agree a
joint strategy to replace any lost social rented housing?
Our response:
The proposals
address the issue of replacing lost social housing but the statutory homeloss
payments do not go anywhere far enough address the needs of the individual social
housing tenants who will be either be displaced or inconvenienced during
construction or left living in an inferior environment.
The fact that private sector tenants (who are not all
young and mobile) will be equally inconvenienced or displaced, are airbrushed
out of this whole process shows the Government’s real contempt for people who
do not own their home and put secondary to the interests of reducing costs at
their personal expense.
No comments:
Post a Comment