High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report stage: House of Lords
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

14: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“For protection of Park Village Limited
(1) The Secretary of State shall make compensation to Park Village Limited and its successors and assigns in respect of any loss or damage (including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, loss of profits and damage to tenant’s fixtures and fittings and stock in trade) which it may sustain to its business, being the business now or hereafter carried on at No. 1, Park Village East, London NW1 7PX by reason of and during—(a) the exercise by the Secretary of State of his or her powers under this Act; and(b) the execution of works connected therewith by statutory undertakers being road works within the meaning of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall preclude the making of compensation under any other enactment or rule of law but compensation shall not be made in respect of the same loss or damage both under that subsection and that enactment or rule of law.(3) Any dispute arising on a claim for compensation under subsection (1) above shall be determined by the Upper Tribunal.”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, my colleagues will know that I am a very strong supporter of this imaginative and important project. I proposed this new clause to highlight the unfairness of the compulsory purchase compensation code, which does not provide an adequate means of addressing the very real and present unfairness and inadequacies concerning the lack of access to compensation or suitable redress, in particular for small and medium-sized businesses greatly affected by the extent and duration of public works—in this case, phase 1 of the HS2 project as set out in the Bill—but which do not necessarily have any property interests. I believe it should be the promoter’s objective that no business is financially disadvantaged by significant loss of income or business as a direct result of the severity of impacts arising from construction activity.

I take this opportunity to say how strongly I believe, in the absence of such adequate compensation generally, that the promoter, in pursuit of fairness, should either agree a regime of compensation for the reimbursement of business and consequential losses in special cases where construction impacts are likely to be most severe, or accept a protective provision in the Bill for special cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, there is a case for ensuring adequate compensation in special circumstances, and one such case is outlined in the proposed new clause. I understand that the company, Park Village Ltd, is and has always been acknowledged as a special case but is not necessarily being treated as such. It is a matter of public interest that this issue should be addressed during the progress of the Bill.

I am satisfied that Park Village Ltd is seriously under threat from the HS2 works. No adequate solution for the company’s plight has yet been agreed following the appearance of the company before both parliamentary Select Committees. I was very pleased that the Select Committee of this House referred to its sympathy so far as the company was concerned, but I am pleading for more than just sympathy.

The company suffers the dual misfortune of being sandwiched directly between the proposed utility and construction works in the street directly facing the premises and the demolition, excavation and construction works for the proposed new tunnel portal, head house and barrette wall, making it potentially the single most affected business in the street, in Camden and perhaps ultimately on the entire HS2 route. Without assessing any blame, I believe there has been a failure to grasp the seriousness of the impact of the extent and duration of the HS2 works on the viable operation of this distinctive and exceptionally sensitive business, which relies on the special character of the property and its peaceful and accessible location.

Compensation proposals put to the promoter in the event that mitigation cannot adequately resolve the impact of the HS2 works on the viability of the business have so far been ignored, leaving the company effectively at the mercy of HS2. There is the very real possibility that this exceptionally renowned family business will be unnecessarily lost to the scheme unless special measures are put in place to ensure its continuance.

Let me explain. Park Village Studio is a valuable local asset with a business that has attained international recognition for its exceptional work, but it is nevertheless a family-run, father-and-son business with only limited capacity to withstand externally undermining impacts on its viability brought about by the HS2 works. The studios provide an accessible, high-quality, characterful, tranquil and creative environment where films can be made in necessary peace and quiet, notwithstanding the proximity of the existing railway, which is in deep cutting.

The highly intrusive and lengthy programme of demolition, street utility diversions and construction works proposed by HS2 on virtually all sides of the property, including impacts above and below, will cause the business to suffer significant noise, vibration and pollution impacts. Of particular concern is the proposal by HS2 to deny vehicular access for months at a time to either or both of the studios’ main access doors from Park Village East, which will render the studios incapable of use or hire. No compensation is offered from the promoter.

Indeed, this sort of problem has already arisen. HS2 I understand has subcontracted Thames Water to carry out a major utility diversion now. Park Village Ltd has already lost business before the Bill has even been passed. In essence, the statutory compensation code compensates for the loss of property value, but not for the loss of business income or damage caused to business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

Where, as in the case of Park Village Ltd, no land is taken, albeit that the property may be immediately adjacent to HS2’s major construction works with resultant significant impacts, the position is different. The only compensation ordinarily payable comes after completion of the works—in this case, perhaps in excess of eight years and then only in respect of some aspects of the operation of the project—not their construction. Paradoxically, greater loss can be suffered by being adjacent to works than by being in their way.

Relocation of the studios on a temporary basis for short periods of time at HS2’s cost remains a possibility but it is highly unlikely that the promoter or the company would be able to find a comparable location offering the distinctive qualities of the Park Village Studio. Just to give an example, the dry hire business would be lost, for which there would be no compensation; nor would there be any compensation for the disruption to the in-house production part of the business.

The assurances offered to Park Village Ltd set out a regime in which mitigation, but not compensation, might be taken forward, but then only on a conditional basis. What has been offered provides no guarantee that the business will be able to remain in the property on a viable basis. More especially, the company remains rightly concerned that in the event that its expectations are borne out and any mitigation that might be provided fails to enable it to carry on its normal activities and continue to attract custom as now, there is no right of redress or recompense. The promoter now needs to act to ensure that, in the acknowledged special case of Park Village Ltd, this business can continue to operate viably throughout the lengthy period of works.

The special report of the House of Lords HS2 Select Committee states at paragraph 196 that,

“the owner-occupiers of Park Village East are among those who will be most severely affected by the works, and to whom we recommend that the Secretary of State should provide further compensation going beyond what is at present proposed”.

I believe the same should apply to the business at 1 Park Village East but this is not currently the case. In the absence of sufficient consideration being offered by way of an agreement that provides for the reimbursement of business and consequential losses arising from the impacts of the HS2 works, a new clause giving such protection should be included in the Bill on a similar basis to the protection provisions given to businesses in similar circumstances in another example of public works. I have done some research. I found Section 16 of the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act 1983, which is an example of what I am arguing for. Parliament considered it necessary to do this then; it is open to Parliament to do it again.

Through no fault of its own Park Village Ltd, which is a highly reputable and respected company within the UK’s film and recording industry—it is on its own at the top; it is not in a dead heat with anybody else: it is an incomparable and outstanding company—may unnecessarily become a casualty of HS2’s works and the inadequacy of the compulsory purchase compensation code to provide sufficient remedy should mitigation fail.

If I can go back into the history books, having been a Minister for 16 years without a break and without ever having been sacked, I have immediately to stress that I believe the Government’s reluctance to depart from the statutory compensation code is understandable, but they should nevertheless be willing to deal fairly with a recognised special case. When the Bill was first introduced the then Transport Minister said that compensation should be full and fair. More recently, the current Transport Secretary said:

“Where compensation is due, it’s right that we pay, and that we are generous”.

Park Village Ltd is asking only for fair treatment through me, not generosity. For these reasons, I plead with the Minister to acknowledge properly and substantively that Park Village Ltd is a special case. It is a very important provider of jobs locally and significant on the international scene. As no adequate fallback arrangements have been offered, please would he agree to this proposed new clause, because it would give the company the protection it needs and deserves? I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will say a few very brief words in strong support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I live in Camden. I know the location of Park Village very well. I can quite see how the works associated with HS2 would effectively put the company out of business. That is quite apart from the disfiguring of a particularly attractive corner of what is not always the most attractive borough.

I have also worked with Park Village over two decades or so. My companies and their clients have been enthusiastic users of the studio, which plays an important part in London’s creative industries. It generates significant revenue. It has an international reputation. It contributes to Camden’s creative life and its stock of jobs. London is quite rightly seen as the leading creative city when it comes to advertising and perhaps photography. Park Village Studios is part of this. It would be a very bad idea to lose the studio. It would be a bad and quite unjust idea to lose it without appropriate compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to my noble friend that his reply to my points raised more questions than answers. While I recognise that he quite rightly quoted from the report of the Select Committee, he did not actually quote the point that the Select Committee made when it said:

“We are sympathetic to Mr Webb”,

but he did raise the point about relocation.

The problem, as I understand it and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also mentioned, is that sadly it is not possible to transport this business easily to another location. Although the Select Committee may well have hoped that it would be possible, I understand now that it is impossible without very substantial cost and expense to a company that could not possibly manage that cost and expense. As the noble Lord pointed out, it has a marvellous location, offering jobs and a business that has been built up and is of international repute. Therefore, there is a need to revisit this issue. I hope my noble friend will agree to hold some further discussions in an effort to find a solution.

With the latest action of Thames Water, the business is effectively going to have to close. Before we allow that to happen, there should be some way of negotiating a solution, and I once again plead with the Minister to see me, Park Village and other noble Lords who have already indicated to me their support for this amendment, to see if there is a way through before this goes back to the other place.

No doubt the local Member of Parliament, Sir Keir Starmer, who has already taken up the cudgels on behalf of Park Village East, will want to be involved in any such discussions. There must be a solution, and perhaps before I move to a decision my noble friend the Minister could indicate whether his door is open.

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

One of the problems with this whole Committee today is that there are only four or five of us here who know exactly what happened, what exactly the atmosphere was and how we dealt with particular circumstances. This was certainly one which we spent a lot of time on. It might help take some of the heat out of this question if people actually read through the verbatim report of that day, which I am sure is available. It is just an idea, but I feel as though we are being accused of doing down—

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

No.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

There is the suggestion that we should have come up with a solution. But we came up with the only practical solution at that stage and did not rule out there being another practical solution. When it comes to the tenor of the conversation, I am sure other members of the committee will agree with me when I say people should not be too harsh. It happened on one or two occasions earlier in this meeting today and I decided not to talk about it, but I think we were all really striving to deal with this, and I am sure the people from Park Village East realised that. I just wanted to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

Is the noble Lord aware of proposals for altering the routes of the tunnels under Park Village East to try and avoid that awful birdcage structure, which I believe can be done without an additional provision? I have heard that they are looking at it. I do not know enough about it to know whether that improves the situation or not, but I know there are moves afoot, because that birdcage is a very tricky structure to build and could put all those houses and Park Village East at risk due to settlement, because it is a tricky piece of construction.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion he makes, which rather reinforces my plea to the Minister for an assurance that his door is open.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I say to my noble friend and indeed to all noble Lords that doors are always open. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain made a very appropriate and pertinent point in this respect. I deliberately listened in to the live deliberations of the committee and the tone that was set on certain issues, including this one, was not just sympathetic but—I have used this word repeatedly because I have seen it in action not just in writing—exhaustive when it came to considering the concerns raised by petitioners. The Government fully acknowledge the areas of concern that the Select Committee raised. If we can explore other areas further in discussions or meetings with appropriate parties without impacting any of the additional provisions, I am of course willing to listen and hear more—as I say during the passage of any Bill.

I do not want to give false hope that I can give any new commitments, but I reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who also raised concerns, that we are live to the issues of this particular business—other petitions have been raised as well—and we will, as I articulated in my response to his amendment, be looking to ensure that we not only minimise and mitigate the effects but seek to work with the company to address any issues on an ongoing basis. This is not a fait accompli in the sense that the decision has been taken and there is nothing more that can be done.

I reiterate that we will continue to work with the company to ensure that its concerns can be addressed head-on. I asked officials briefly about the issue around Thames Water which he raised and I will seek an update on that. I have yet to sign the letter: perhaps we can reflect on those comments in it as well. I fully accept that my noble friend will not be totally reassured by what I have said, but I hope that at this juncture he will be partly reassured by the fact that the Government are live to this issue and respect the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee in this regard.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That was also a reflection of the issues raised by the report about residential properties that are impacted. As I said, if the noble Lord will bear with us, the Government’s response will be available in a week’s time.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to my noble friends who sat on the Select Committee. The solution they were hoping for has not proved to be possible and that is why I am so pleased that not only is the Minister’s door open but he is determined to find a solution to the problem that I raised. This will come as a great relief to all those in the area. Perhaps we can now look at all possibilities and, however big his office is, ensure that everyone who is affected is able to hear from him directly on the sort of solution that he would propose. Those of us who are raising this are very strong supporters of the project and I am grateful that the noble Lord who is a director of HS2 has been here listening to the discussion. I would have thought that HS2 itself would want to ensure that a case as special as this is not ignored. In the light of the Minister’s kind agreement to take this further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.