British Rail (Hansard, 15 February 1994)

§ Mr. Freeman

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to Tonbridge and Mailing borough council for making available a copy of the counsel's opinion.

The passages quoted from the opinion were concerned with the interpretation of section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Among other issues, that section provides in appropriate circumstances for claims to be payable in respect of compensation for depreciation in the value of properties arising as a consequence of certain railway works. These works fall into two categories: works which have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used—dealt with in subsection (1)(b) of the section—and works in respect of which there has been a change of use—dealt with in subsection (1)(c). Subsection (7) of the section goes on to state that references in the section to a change of use do not include references to the intensification of an existing use.

Counsel made the point that it follows from these provisions that changes of use which are limited to intensification of the use of existing lines do not give rise to compensation, whereas reconstructions, extensions and other alterations may do so. The Government see no reason to dissent from this interpretation. In the debate, my right hon. Friend sought to suggest that a contrary view had been taken by Ministers in previous debates in Parliament. More specifically, he referred to what I said in the debate on 19 June 1991 about provisions in the 1973 Act not applying if the amount of the traffic on a road or railway were to increase. Those comments need to be read in the context of my statement as a whole. This related to a proposal to introduce a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to pay compensation in cases of injurious affection arising from the intensification of operations by the British Railways Board. I went on to stress the clear distinction between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works".—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 345–46.]

As reflected in that statement, I fully recognise that compensation may be payable where existing railway lines are reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have first been used and where it can be shown that 729W depreciation has resulted from physical factors, such as noise and vibration, caused by their use. It is for individuals to make claims where they consider that such depreciation has occurred and for the responsible authority, currently British Rail, to address those claims. In the event of a dispute, there is provision for reference to the Lands Tribunal, and the possibility thereafter of appeal to the courts.

On the question of the British Rail leaflet, the board is studying the issues which have been raised so as to determine whether to amend the leaflet. Department of Transport officials will keep in close touch with BR on this and I will make a further statement on this matter shortly.