Decision Nº ACQ 91 2011. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 03-04-2014
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson Mr Peter McCrea FRICS |
| Date | 03 April 2014 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) |
| Judgement Number | ACQ 91 2011 |
|
UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER) |
|
|
UT Neutral citation number: [2014] UKUT 0109 (LC)
UTLC Case Number: ACQ/91/2011
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – land adjoining widened A-road – whether land should be valued in isolation or as part of retained land – principle of equivalence - whether elements of disturbance caused by the acquisition of land or by works – whether claim extinguished by betterment – compensation awarded at £67,008.26
IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE
BETWEEN RAMAC HOLDINGS LIMITED Claimant
and
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Acquiring Authority
Re: Land to the Eastern side of Ramsgate Road, Sandwich, Kent, CT13 9NQ
Before: Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson and P D McCrea FRICS
Sitting at: 45 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3AS
on
13 -17 and 21 January 2014
Christopher Boyle QC instructed by Lawrence Graham LLP for the claimant
Richard Honey instructed by Kent County Council for the acquiring authority
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Bishopsgate Parking (No.2) v Welsh Ministers [2012] UKUT 22 (LC)
Budgen v Secretary of State for Wales [1985] 2 EGLR 203
Cooke v SSE (1974) 27 P&CR 234
DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852
Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung [1995] 2 AC 111
Emslie & Simpson Ltd v Aberdeen City District Council [1994] 1 EGLR 33
Harris v Welsh Development Agency [2000] RVR 49
Harvey v Crawley DC [1957] 1 QB 485
Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26
Lancaster City Council v Thomas Newall [2013] EWCA Civ 802
Optical Express Southern Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2005] RVR 230
Newall v Lancaster City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 802
Pattle v SSfT [2009] UKUT 141 (LC)
Welford v TfL [2010] UKUT 99 (LC)
Wildtree Hotels Ltd v London Borough of Harrow [2001] 2 AC 1
The following cases were referred to in argument:
Bolton MBC v Waterworth (1981) 42 P&CR 289
Cotswold Trailer Parks v SSE (1974) 27 P&CR 219
Cowper Essex v Acton Local Board (1889) 14 AppCas 153
Esso v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] RVR 351
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Clay [1914] 3 KB 466
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Gray [1994] RVR 129
Leicester City Council v Leicestershire County Council (1995) 70 P&CR 435
London County Council v Tobin [1959] 1 WLR 354
Mountview Estates v Enfield LBC (1969) 20 P&CR 729
Penny v Penny (1867-68) LR 5 Eq 227
Pentrehobyn Trustees v National Assembly for Wales [2003] RVR 140
Priestman Collieries v Northern District Valuation Board [1950] 2 KB 398
Pyrah (Doddington) v Northants CC [1983] RVR 240
Railtrack v Guinness [2003] RVR 280
Rugby Joint Water Board v Foottit & Shaw-Fox [1973] AC 202
Transport for London v Spirerose [2009] 1 WLR 1304
Trocette Property v GLC [1974] RVR 306
Urban Edge v LUL [2009] UKUT 103 (LC)
Walton v IRC [1996] RVR 55
Waters v Welsh Development Agency [2004] 1 WLR 1304
Wrexham Maelor BC v MacDougall [1993] 2 EGLR 23
-
This is a reference to determine the compensation payable by Kent County Council, (the acquiring authority), to Ramac Holdings Limited (the claimant) following the compulsory purchase of land to the Eastern side of Ramsgate Road, Sandwich, Kent, CT13 9NQ. The claimant ‘owned’ (see paragraph 2 below) the freehold interest in a site of approximately 61.5 acres to the east of Ramsgate including the rights land Road (the site). The site can be conveniently split as being that which was acquired (the reference land), that over which rights were proposed to be acquired (the rights land), and the remainder (the retained land). The reference land and the rights land were subject to the Kent County Council (East Kent Access Phase 1C) Compulsory Purchase Order 2004 (the CPO). The Order was confirmed by the Secretary of State on 10 March 2005. Notice to Treat and Notice of Entry were given on 4 August 2005. The acquiring authority took possession of the reference land on 18 August 2005, which is the valuation date.
-
Although the claimant is Ramac Holdings Limited, the freehold of the reference land was owned by Ramac Holdings (Trading) Limited and part of it was let to Ambrosetti (UK) Limited (Ambrosetti). All three companies are under common control and ownership, the precise details of which it is not necessary to explore. The parties entered into a deed dated 9 January 2014 (the deed) pursuant to which they agreed that the claimant could recover compensation as if the reference land had been owned by the claimant and for losses suffered by Ramac Holdings (Trading) Limited and Ambrosetti as if they had been losses suffered by the claimant, clause 1.2.
-
Mr Christopher Boyle QC of counsel appeared for the claimant and called Mr Michael Hart who gave evidence of fact, and three expert witnesses: Mr Ian Roberts MCIHT (highways), Mr Huw Edwards MSc MRTPI (planning), and Mr James Winbourne BSc MRICS (valuation).
-
Mr Richard Honey of counsel appeared for the acquiring authority and called Mr Christopher Hatcher who gave evidence of fact, and also three expert witnesses: Mr Gary Heard MSc BEng (highways), Mr Michael Goddard BA DipTP DMS MRTPI (planning), and Mr Colin Cottage BSc MRICS IRRV (valuation).
Facts
-
The parties produced a statement of agreed facts and issues in dispute, and three expert witness statements of agreed facts: between Mr Roberts and Mr Heard (the highways experts’ agreement), between Mr Edwards and Mr Goddard (the planning experts’ agreement), and between Mr Winbourne and Mr Cottage (the valuation experts’ agreement). From these together with the evidence and our accompanied inspection of the reference land, retained land and some of the comparables on 29 January 2014 we find the following facts.
-
The CPO was made to enable construction of Phase 1C of the East Kent Access Project (the scheme). The environmental statement for Phase 1C summarised the principal objectives and benefits of the scheme, which in so far as relevant to this reference, were:
“i….
ii To provide a safer route on the A256 between Thanet and Sandwich by providing a roundabout at the accesses to the Richborough Port area and the former power station site together with left in, left out access only to other businesses and property along the route.
iii To provide an improved route to existing businesses and vacant sites along the route of the A256 along the Sandwich Corridor, which will attract new businesses to the area.
iv To provide a dedicated route for cyclists and pedestrians either side of the A256 to encourage cycling and walking to work as well as encouraging an increase in such leisure activity.
v Improved visual improvement (sic) to the corridor consistent with the access to a major business like Pfizer, entry to Sandwich and to encourage development of the corridor.”
-
The site comprised an area of land of 61.5 acres or thereabouts, the majority of which was flat, and surfaced with asphalt, concrete or colliery shale. The northern end of the site was occupied by a relatively large modern commercial building that provided offices, workshops and storage accommodation. There was a smaller storage building with ancillary office accommodation situated to the central section. Along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the A256 there was a strip of landscaping comprising trees and shrubs about 10m in width.
-
The reference land (as amended by agreement) comprised land extending the full length of the western edge of the site, adjoining the A256 Ramsgate to Dover Road. Almost the entirety of the reference land lay outside the fenced area of the site and comprised either access roads to the site or land covered by scrub and trees forming part of the 10m landscaping strip. There remains on the western boundary of the retained land adjacent to the reference land part of the strip of landscaping of varying width.
-
The parties agreed that the reference land was to be those parts of the site to be acquired under the CPO, together with other land to be acquired, but that some of the original CPO land had not been acquired and had been retained by the claimant. The deed gave effect to this agreement, amending the area of the reference land. For the purposes of this reference the original plot numbers have been retained. The reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial