Railway Development Company (RDC) was considering two options for a new railway line connecting two towns. Route A involved cutting a channel through an area designated as being of special scientific importance because it was one of a very few suitable feeding grounds for a colony of endangered birds. The birds were considered to be an important part of the local environment with some potential influences on local ecosystems.
The alternative was Route B which would involve the compulsory purchase and destruction of Eddie Krul’s farm. Mr Krul was a vocal opponent of the Route B plan. He said that he had a right to stay on the land which had been owned by his family for four generations and which he had developed into a profitable farm. The farm employed a number of local people whose jobs would be lost if Route B went through the house and land. Mr Krul threatened legal action against RDC if Route B was chosen.
An independent legal authority has determined that the compulsory purchase price of Mr Krul’s farm would be $1 million if Route B was chosen. RDC considered this a material cost, over and above other land costs, because the projected net present value (NPV) of cash flows over a ten-year period would be $5 million without buying the farm. This would reduce the NPV by $1 million if Route B was chosen.
The local government authority had given both routes provisional planning permission and offered no opinion of which it preferred. It supported infrastructure projects such as the new railway line, believing that either route would attract new income and prosperity to the region. It took the view that as an experienced railway builder, RDC would know best which to choose and how to evaluate the two options. Because it was very keen to attract the investment, it left the decision entirely to RDC. RDC selected Route A as the route to build the new line.
A local environmental pressure group, ‘Save the Birds’, was outraged at the decision to choose Route A. It criticised RDC and also the local authority for ignoring the sustainability implications of the decision. It accused the company of profiting at the expense of the environment and threatened to use ‘direct action’ to disrupt the building of the line through the birds’ feeding ground if Route A went ahead.
Required:
(a) Use Tucker’s ‘five question’ model to assess the decision to choose Route A. (10 marks)
(b) Discuss the importance to RDC of recognising all of the stakeholders in a decision such as deciding between Route A and Route B. (8 marks)
(c) Explain what a stakeholder ‘claim’ is, and critically assess the stakeholder claims of Mr Krul, the local government authority and the colony of endangered birds. (7 marks)