Decision Nº ACQ 430 2007. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 16-07-2009
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Andrew J Trott FRICS |
| Date | 16 July 2009 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | ACQ 430 2007 |
|
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) |
|
|
UT Neutral citation number: [2009] UKUT 135 (LC)
LT Case Number: ACQ/430/2007
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
COMPENSATION compulsory purchase Green Belt land – conservation area – hope value – comparables – price indices – claimant’s own time – surveyor’s fees – VAT – compensation determined at £102,000
IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE
BETWEEN WEYBRIDGE MANAGEMENT LIMITED Claimant and SPELTHORNE BOROUGH COUNCIL Acquiring
Authority
Surrey
Before: A J Trott FRICS
Sitting at Procession House, 110 New Bridge Street, London EC4V 6JL
on 12-13 March 2009
Guy Williams, instructed by direct access by Michael Rogers, Commercial Property Advisers of Reigate, for the claimant
Meyric Lewis, instructed by Spelthorne Borough Council Legal Services, for the acquiring authority
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
D B Thomas v GLC [1982] 1 EGLR 197
IRC v Gray [1994] STC 360
Ryde International Plc v London Regional Transport [2004] EWCA Civ 232
IRC v Clay and Buchanan [1914] 1 KB 339
Transport for London v Spirerose (in administration) [2008] EWCA Civ 1230
The following cases were referred to in argument:
Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565
London County Council v Tobin [1959] 1 WLR 354
Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation [1957] 1 QB 485
Prasad v Wolverhampton Borough Council [1983] 2 WLR 946
Waters v Welsh Development Agency [2004] 2 EGLR 103
-
This is a reference by the claimant, Weybridge Management Limited, to determine the amount of compensation payable by the acquiring authority, Spelthorne Borough Council, following the compulsory purchase of 3.65 acres of land at Orchard Meadow, Thames Street, Sunbury on Thames, Surrey (the reference land).
-
The acquiring authority acquired the reference land under the Borough of Spelthorne (Orchard Meadow, Sunbury on Thames) Compulsory Purchase Order No.1 1999, the purpose of which was to enhance the lower Sunbury Conservation Area by landscaping and laying out an open space to perform the functions of a village green. A general vesting declaration was made on 18 March 2001 and the acquiring authority entered onto and took possession of the reference land on 3 July 2001, which is the valuation date.
-
The claimant was represented by Mr Guy Williams of counsel who called Michael David Garson as a witness of fact and Nigel Amos BSc, MRICS, a salaried partner in the firm of Michael Rogers, as an expert valuation witness.
-
The acquiring authority was represented by Mr Meyric Lewis of counsel who called Richard Clay as a witness of fact, Dion Anthony Scherer FRICS, a director of Orchard and Shipman Professional Limited (trading as Campsie), as an expert valuation witness and John Brooks BSc, Dip TP, DMS, MRTPI, MCMI, Deputy Head of Planning and Housing Strategy at Spelthorne Borough Council, as an expert planning witness.
-
With the agreement of the parties I made an unaccompanied inspection of the reference land and relevant comparables following the hearing.
Facts
-
The reference land, which measures 3.65 acres, has a frontage of approximately 260 ft to the north of Thames Street in Sunbury on Thames, a short distance to the west of its junction with The Avenue. To the east of the site are the rear of the properties in The Avenue, to the north east is a council owned car park, to the north is Sunbury Park (public open space) and to the north west is a wall garden to which the public also has access. To the west are the properties and gardens known as Orchard House and Pantiles Court. Facing the reference land along the south of Thames Street are mainly residential properties to the rear of which lies the River Thames.
-
At the valuation date the reference land was an open, grass meadow with an area of trees and shrubs to the rear of Orchard House and Pantiles Court. It formed part of the Metropolitan Green Belt and was within the Lower Sunbury Conservation Area.
The case for the claimant
-
The claimant sought compensation in the sum of £182,500 for the open market value of the reference land. In addition it sought payment for the time spent by Mr Garson in dealing with the compulsory purchase of the reference land and the reference to this Tribunal. Such payment was estimated on the basis of an hourly rate charge of £200 per hour excluding VAT. Mr Garson estimated that he had spent 80 hours on behalf of the claimant subsequent to the confirmation of the CPO, ie £16,000 plus VAT. Surveyor’s fees were also claimed. As at 28 July 2008 these were said to be £15,125 excluding VAT but including disbursements.
-
The claimant purchased the reference land at a public auction on 2 February 1998 for £82,000. Mr Garson explained that the claimant was a nominee company of which he was a director and that only his family had any beneficial interest in the company. He funded the purchase from his own monies and from family loans. He said that bidding at the auction had started at around £50,000 and that the acquiring authority were bidders until the price reached around £67,000. From there until around £79,000 there were at least two other bidders apart from the claimant and thereafter just one until the claimant made its successful bid.
-
Mr Garson explained that he was well acquainted with the site. He is a solicitor and in 1998 his practice, Philip Hodges and Co, Solicitors and Estate Agents, occupied 7 The Avenue, a property that overlooked the reference land. He had carried out a Commons Registration search before the auction and had been aware that the reference land was in the Green Belt. He had bought it for use as recreational amenity land for his family and friends and as a long-term investment with the possibility of it being “redesignated for a number of feasible alternative usages”. However at the valuation date he said that he had no aspiration or intention to develop the reference land but thought “over time my aspirations might have changed”. He considered that there was always the potential to develop at some (unspecified) future date when local and/or Government planning policy changed since it was “a prime piece of land for development”. Mr Garson thought that the reference land was of interest to other local landowners and immediately after the auction he had been approached by two parties wanting to buy it. Later in 1998 Mr Griffiths of 24 Thames Street had offered to buy the property for £100,000.
-
The precise area of the reference land was not important to Mr Garson. He knew what he was buying and the fact that the original sales particulars had overstated the area did not matter; he had not based his bid upon a figure per unit of area.
-
Mr Amos took the price of £82,000 paid by the claimant at auction as the starting point for his valuation. He adjusted this to the valuation date by “building up a picture” using three sources of evidence; comparables, discernable trends in values and the history of transactions affecting the site itself. He acknowledged that there were no similar sites in the locality of the reference land either before or after the valuation date. It was a unique site without any direct comparables.
-
Mr Amos said that the reference land had hope value for development both at the time the claimant...
To continue reading
Request your trial