How easy is it for Network Rail to reclaim property from the Arch Company?

[BRX]

As I understand it, Network Rail has the right to reclaim (for example) railway arches from the Arch Company when it's necessary for maintenance of the infrastructure or for things like improving railway stations.

Can anyone pint me to an explanation of how that process actually works? For example is there some kind of formula that determines how much compensation needs to be paid?

Can they reclaim any property that they want to (subject to paying compensation) or do they first have to demonstrate that it's necessary and that alternatives have been ruled out?

If the arch company invests a lot of money into improving a property that they know might be earmarked for something like a station enhancement, do they do that at their own risk, or does it lead to the cost that Network Rail will have to pay, rising?

 

[kaiser62]

It is entirely dependent on the terms of the contract which is likely to be commercially sensitive and therefore confidential.

As a very experienced landlord, I would be stunned if Network Rail don't have access to their own structures as required, in a commercial lease covering same. That could come with notice periods or termination or leases, or even grants of compensation.

The lease will also set out what changes can/cannot be made and at whose (financial) risk. It is likely to be a full repairing lease, so the tenant would be expected to return the property to the same condition in which they were granted it. For example, if they erected internal walls, they would be expected to remove them at their own cost at the end of the lease. If we are just talking about access during the term of the lease, then this not the case.

 

[BRX]

It is entirely dependent on the terms of the contract which is likely to be commercially sensitive and therefore confidential.

As a very experienced landlord, I would be stunned if Network Rail don't have access to their own structures as required, in a commercial lease covering same. That could come with notice periods or termination or leases, or even grants of compensation.

The lease will also set out what changes can/cannot be made and at whose (financial) risk. It is likely to be a full repairing lease, so the tenant would be expected to return the property to the same condition in which they were granted it. For example, if they erected internal walls, they would be expected to remove them at their own cost at the end of the lease. If we are just talking about access during the term of the lease, then this not the case.

Well, as I understand it, it's a 150 year lease, so I guess that costs of returning to original condition are not an immediate concern.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

They'll have several different methods.

First, contractual obligations in the lease or covenants in the property deeds.

Second, statutory basis - various powers in legislation exist for Network Rail that grant access, but not necessarily ownership, in various circumstances.

In terms of taking them back completely, compulsory purchase orders approved by the relevant secretary of state are not unusual in rail infrastructure, if it's absolutely necessary and no other solution can be negotiated.