England and Wales Lands Tribunal

[2004] EWLands ACQ_59_2003 (18 May 2004)

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

COMPENSATION – Compulsory Purchase –– house in rural area on 11.465 acres fronting two lane road – 4.996 acres acquired for new four lane road closer to main house – value of house – effect of acquisition on value – whether value of land taken fully reflected in diminution in value calculation – whether prospect of successful appeal against outstanding enforcement notice relating to part of site to be reflected in valuation – compensation of £288,750 awarded.

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE

BETWEEN

MRS LOU BARLOW

Claimant

and

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

Acquiring

Authority

Re:

4.996 acres of

undeveloped land to the

north, east and north east of

Huntingfields House, Stortford Road,

Little Canfield, Dunmow,

Essex, CM6 1TG

Before: N J Rose FRICS

Sitting at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JR

on 26 March and 19 April 2004

The following cases are referred to in this decision:

Horton and Griffin v Worcestershire County Council, LCA/64 and 66/2001, unreported

Hallows v Welsh Office [1995] 1 EGLR 191

The following case was also cited:

Abbey Homesteads Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1982) 2 EGLR 198

Martin Edwards instructed by E. Edwards Son & Noice, solicitors of Billericay for the Claimant

Paul Shadarevian instructed by Solicitor to Essex County Council for the acquiring Authority.


 


DECISION

Introduction

1. This is a reference to determine the compensation payable to Mrs Lou Barlow ("the claimant"). The claim relates to the value of the freehold interest in 2.026 hectares (4.996 acres) of land ("the land taken"), lying to the north, east and north east of and forming part of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse known as Huntingfields House, Stortford Road, Little Canfield, Great Dunmow, Essex, CM6 1TG ("the subject property"). It includes severance and other injurious affection to Huntingfields House. The land was compulsorily acquired by Essex County Council ("the acquiring authority") under the Essex County Council (Puckeridge to Parkeston Quay Classified Road A120) (Stansted to Braintree) Compulsory Purchase Order 1995 ("the CPO"). Notice to treat was served on 28 January 2000 and possession was taken on 17 September 2001, which is the agreed valuation date.
2. Mr Edwards of counsel appeared for the claimant and called one expert witness, Mr A M Wright, FRICS, FAAV, an equity partner in Kirkby and Diamond of Milton Keynes. Counsel for the acquiring authority, Mr Shadarevian, also called one expert witness, Mr R A Crayston, FRICS, senior partner of Fenn Wright of Colchester and elsewhere.
3. The claimant's valuation was £717,500 and that of the acquiring authority was £145,000.

Facts

4. The two experts prepared a statement of agreed facts. In the light of that statement and the evidence, I find the following facts. Huntingfields House comprises a substantial detached traditionally designed chalet style property, conventionally built of cavity brickwork under pitched roofs clad in plain tiles. It was constructed in 1989. Ground floors are solid, first floors are suspended timber and windows comprise hardwood double glazed and leaded casements. The accommodation is as follows:

Ground Floor

Reception hall - 20' x 15' with staircase rising to galleried landing

Sitting room - 31' 9" x 14' 6"

Dining room - 15' x 14'

Morning room - 25' x 18 ' 7"

Kitchen - 18' 8" x 17'

Laundry room - 10'x 8'

Study - 10' x 7' 9"

Cloakroom

Door to Granny Annex originally intended as a

snooker room - 28' 9" x 21' 5" with bathroom and kitchenette.

First Floor

Galleried landing

Master bedroom - 17' x 15'

Dressing room - 15' x 9' 6"

En suite bathroom with bath, shower, wc, bidet and wash basin

Bedroom 2 - 17' x 11' 2"

with en suite bath, shower cubicle, wc and washbasin

Bedroom 3 - 16' 9" x 10' 9"

with en suite shower cubicle, bidet, wash basin and wc

Bedroom 4 - 17' x 11' 2"

with en suite shower cubicle, wash basin and wc

Bedroom 5 - 15' x 12' 4"

with en suite bath, shower, wash basin and wc

Bedroom 6 - 16' x 10'

with en suite bath/shower, wash basin, bidet and wc

Externally:

There is an attached double garage and two further garages forming part of a separate building, built as workshop and store, but now comprising:

Ground floor:

Living room - 41' x 20' 8" with cloakroom off

First floor

Bedroom 1 - 15' x 13' 8" with en suite shower cubicle, washbasin/wc

Bedroom 2 - 12' x 11' 3" with en suite shower cubicle, washbasin/wc

Bedroom 3 - 12' x 11' 3"

Bathroom with bath/shower, wc, hand basin

Bedroom 4 - 15' x 14' with en suite shower cubicle, washbasin and wc

5. The gross external measurements are:

Main house	3,962 sq ft	368m2
Annex	615 sq ft	57m2
Detached annex	1,635 sq ft	152m2
	6,212 sq ft	577m2

6. Mains electricity, water and drainage and gas fired central heating are provided. To the rear of the property is a range of four stables and tack room. Immediately to the east of the main property is an agricultural barn some 90' x 45' and in this area there is a hard tennis court area of poor quality, a swimming pool and jacuzzi. At the eastern end of the property is a further agricultural building approximately 60' x 30'. To the south of the main house are its private gardens with pond, terrace and shrubs/flower borders. Prior to the acquisition a large proportion of the total site was used as pasture land.
7. Also before the compulsory acquisition, the site had a frontage of approximately 290m to the south side of the old A120, a busy single carriageway road. The distances from the external façade of the main house to the closest points of the southern edge of the old highway boundary and the old carriageway were 100.2m and 103.74m respectively. The depth of the site was approximately 140m. Its southern boundary was approximately 340m in length to the Flitch Way Country Park, a public area following the line of the former Dunmow to Bishops Stortford railway. The site was fully screened by mature hedgerows. I have calculated the dimensions of the site from the submitted plan. The distances between the house and the road were agreed.
8. The property is situated in an area of open countryside approximately 2 miles west of Great Dunmow. Access from the A120 was by means of two electrically operated gated entrance ways with substantial brick piers and flank walls. Stansted Airport and the main line railway station at Bishops Stortford are both 8 miles away and the distance to junction 8 of the M11 motorway is 6 miles. A large banana distribution warehouse lies close by.
9. Huntingfields House was situated on a site of 4.64 hectares (11.465 acres). It was in sound structural repair and satisfactory decorative condition on the valuation date. The fixtures and fittings in the main reception rooms were generally of good quality and had been maintained to a reasonable standard. The kitchen fittings comprised high quality commercial appliances and work units, but were not typical of a domestic kitchen.
10. Planning permission to erect Huntingfields House was granted by Uttlesford District Council on 19 January 1988. Condition 3 of the consent required the then existing bungalow on the site – Woodcroft – to be demolished within one month of the first residential occupation and rating of the proposed development. This condition was not complied with and, in May 2000, the local planning authority commenced enforcement proceedings. The claimant appealed against the enforcement notice and, on 16 November 2000, the appeal was dismissed.
11. The Inspector's decision was then challenged in the High Court. It was quashed in accordance with a consent order dated 28 March 2001 on the grounds that the Secretary of State had "failed to properly consider whether the requirement to demolish in condition 3… had been triggered by the provision that it be 'within one month of the first residential occupation and rating of the proposed development'". The claimant's appeal was the subject of a redetermination hearing in January 2002 and the appeal was dismissed in March 2002. The claimant applied for permission to appeal against that decision, but withdrew her application on 14 July 2003 because of ill-health. The bungalow was subsequently demolished.
12. The effect of the acquisition has been that the extent of Huntingfields House and its immediate curtilage has been reduced from 11.465 acres to 3.94 acres. The claimant has retained in addition a paddock of 2.52 acres, but this is severed from the main grounds by the new dual two-lane carriageway, and is accessible only by a journey of about 1 km using the Dunmow West Junction flyover. The distances from the external façade of the main house to the closest points of the western edge of the new highway boundary and the western edge of the new carriageway are now 57.4m and 77.14m respectively. Vehicular access is still available to the old A120, which merely becomes a feeder for local traffic with access gained to the new roadway at the Dunmow West Junction, about 500 metres to the west.
13. The new trunk road rises gently from west to east so that, at the eastern end of the site it is 2.039 m higher than Huntingfields House. Although the road will not be illuminated, a new roundabout will be constructed to the north east of the house and its lights will be visible from the subject property at night.

Issues

14. There are four issues between the parties, as follows. Firstly, the existing use value of the subject property in the no scheme world; secondly, whether there was any separate hope value in the no scheme world; thirdly, the value of the subject property in the scheme world; fourthly, whether the payment of compensation based on the difference between the values in the no scheme world and the scheme world is sufficient to compensate the claimant fully for her loss. It is agreed that the Tribunal's decision on this reference will not prejudice the claimant's right subsequently to claim compensation for disturbance.

Case for the claimant

15. Mr Wright valued the subject property at £1,375,000. This was arrived at by considering four types of evidence, which were then weighted according to his assessment of their relative reliability. The most weight was given to the marketing history and/or prices achieved for six houses. Based purely on an analysis of these comparables, Mr Wright considered that the value of the subject property, in terms of values at March 2003, was £1,350,000. He then adjusted this back to the valuation date in line with the Nationwide Building Society Regional House Prices Index and arrived at a figure of £1,140,000.
16. Mr Wright next considered the subject property on the basis of the appropriate price per square metre. He said that at September 2001, values of houses in the Dunmow area for secured lending purposes were typically averaging approximately £2,500 per m². By applying that rate (discounted by 20% for the main house for size and 25% for the annex for ancillary accommodation) he arrived at a figure of £1,135,000. To this he added 10% to reflect the additional facilities found at the property, together with the land. He arrived on this basis at an assessment of £1,248,500.
17. Mr Wright also had regard to a report prepared by Mrs Hennighan of Jean Hennighan Properties. On 20 November 2000 that estate agent recommended that the claimant should market the subject property quoting a guide price of £1,500,000. If adjusted in accordance with the Nationwide Building Society Index, that was equivalent to £1,850,000 at the valuation date.
18. Finally, Mr Wright introduced what he termed a subjective component to the valuation. For this purpose he considered that the market value on the relevant date was £1,350,000. This opinion was based on his own experience of valuing and marketing individual properties such as the subject property, and on the opinions expressed by other practitioners in the area.
19. Mr Wright concluded that none of his four methods was particularly reliable. The subject property was unique and there were no directly comparable sales on which he could base his valuation with an acceptable level of reliability. He gave the greatest weight – 50% – to the value produced from a consideration of the comparables. He felt that Mrs Hennighan's marketing valuation was the least reliable evidence and he weighted it at 10%. The remaining 40% was apportioned equally between his own assessment of value and the rate per m² adopted by valuers for mortgage purposes. Adopting this weighting approach Mr Wright arrived at a value of £1,275,000. To this he added £100,000 to reflect the hope value attaching to what he termed the ambiguous planning status of Woodcroft, and arrived at a final figure of £1,375,000.
20. After he had prepared his valuation report, Mr Wright became aware of two additional pieces of information, which he considered added support to his opinion. Firstly, terms were agreed in June 1994 to dispose of the subject property for £725,000. Solicitors were instructed and contracts prepared, but the sale did not proceed. If the agreed figure were adjusted to the valuation date using the Nationwide index, it produced a value of £1,382,136.
21. Secondly, a professional valuation of the subject property was prepared for Barclays Bank Plc in October 1992 at £675,000. This was equivalent to £1,411,051 at the valuation date.
22. In his report, Mr Wright said that the subject property was approximately 100m from the existing A120. That road was unlit and well screened by mature hedgerows. The new bypass encroached to within 36m of the house and the carriageway would be only 49m from it. The eastbound carriageway was approximately 1m above the existing level. This, together with the lack of screening vegetation and the 10m high lighting columns meant that the new road was very intrusive when viewed from the subject property. The value of the retained land was diminished by the loss of land, severance of the land to the north of the bypass, loss of amenity and physical effects such as noise, dust, vibration and light.
23. Mr Wright assessed the claimant's loss by deducting the value of her freehold interest after the acquisition from its value in the no scheme world. In arriving at the former, he had regard to the decision of this Tribunal in Horton and Griffin v Worcestershire County Council (LCA/64/2001 and LCA/66/2001, unreported), which he said was authority for the proposition that higher value properties suffered the most in terms of severance and injurious affection. He also bore in mind views which had been expressed on the present case by three other surveyors. Firstly, Mr A J Mullucks, FRICS of Mullucks Wells and Associates of Bishops Stortford had advised the claimant on 16 July 2002 that, in his opinion, the minimum loss of value caused by the new road would be 25%. Secondly, Mr D J Parish FRICS of Gates, Parish and Co of Upminster recommended on 16 May 2002 that the claimant's surveyor, who was proposing to claim a 50% diminution in value, should press for that figure in negotiations. Thirdly, Mrs Hennighan had advised the claimant on 2 July 2003 that the then value of the subject property was in the order of £750,000 to £800,000, roughly half the figure that she had advised in November 2000.
24. Mr Wright considered that a reduction of 50% was consistent with his own marketing experience. In his view prospective purchasers had a fairly predictable and consistent opinion as to what was and was not acceptable in terms of compromised amenity. There tended not to be a straight line graduation from "acceptable" to "unacceptable", corresponding to the relative proximity of a main road. A well screened road that was 100m away would be undesirable but acceptable for the purposes of a house such as the subject property. On the other hand a four lane highway that was 35m away would not be acceptable for the subject property, but would be acceptable for an unexceptional four bedroom detached house on an edge of town estate.
25. In the present case, the fact that the new road was bigger, closer and more intrusive than the old A120 meant that it was unacceptable to a potential purchaser of the subject property. It was on that basis that he considered the effect of the acquisition was to reduce the value of the subject property by 50%. He therefore estimated the diminution in value at £687,500, or one-half of the "before value" of £1,375,000.
26. Mr Wright did not consider that payment of this figure would fully compensate the claimant for her loss. This was because, in the no scheme world, she could have sold five acres at the eastern end of her property for £50,000, resulting in a reduction in the value of the remainder of only £20,000. Therefore, the effect of the acquisition had been to destroy the potential profit of £30,000 which could otherwise have been realised. The claimant's total loss was therefore £717,500 (£687,500 plus £30,000).

Case for the acquiring authority

27. Mr Crayston said that, although he had considered numerous properties for comparable purposes, there was no simple direct comparable for such an individual property as the subject property. It was a modern house in a rural but rather flat and plain location, beside an existing very busy main road, yet set in about 11½ acres of grounds and with extensive accommodation. The location was very convenient and the property included additional external amenities. It was, however, presented in a rather dated manner and laid out more in the character of bed and breakfast accommodation than a luxury country house. He considered that the large number of bedrooms and bathrooms, together with the additional annex, resulted in accommodation which was beyond normal market appeal. Most purchasers would wish to refit the kitchen and rationalise and modernise the bathrooms. Many of the double glazed units were missing and extensive glazing replacement was required. He relied on four comparables in particular, but it was necessary to adjust for location, condition, accommodation and date of transaction. In the light of the comparable evidence, Mr Crayston considered that the value of the subject property in the no scheme world was £625,000. He did not consider that the possibility of a successful appeal against the planning condition requiring Woodcroft to be demolished would have added anything to that value; at the most a prospective purchaser might have entered into a conditional contract, agreeing to pay an additional sum if and when the condition was removed.
28. Externally, the property had very little landscaping, the outbuildings were scattered in a random manner and the tennis court was only a concrete pad unmarked and unsurfaced with very basic poles and netting. The main potential pleasure garden area was, however, to the south and thus shielded from the roadway, although potentially open to some public view from Flitch Way. There had been no material change in these circumstances since the valuation date, apart from the roadworks.
29. The subject property had not only lost about 5 acres of land, but approximately 3 acres were severed and only accessible with a journey of about 1km. The land involved was only used as open meadowland, it was fairly flat and not landscaped and did not form part of any immediate gardens to the property. The original A120 was screened by a hedgerow and traffic was very heavy, not only making entrance and exit difficult but giving constant background noise. The outlook from the house had not greatly altered, since the main rooms either looked to the south or into the courtyard formed to the front of the property. The property would to a slight extent suffer from light pollution, particularly from lighting on the small roundabout to the north east, and from traffic on the new carriageway, but this would be limited by the fencing along the new boundary line. Noise levels would increase within the property, but a noise reducing fence had been provided.
30. The main part of the accommodation was about 60m from the boundary fence alongside the new carriageway. A long driveway approach and setting had been retained. The property would have the benefit of easy access onto the new A120 at the Dunmow West Junction, giving excellent links to the motorway system. Mr Crayston believed that there was considerable scope within the retained land for tree planting and landscaping "to enhance the potential" and that its value, severed by the roadway and reduced by 5 acres, was £480,000, representing a 23% reduction.
31. In Mr Crayston's opinion, the difference of £145,000 between the before and after valuations reflected the loss of the land taken by the acquiring authority. He did not think that the market value of that land exceeded that element of the diminution in value of the property attributable to its loss.

Decision

32. On 8 April 2004 I inspected the subject property externally and internally. I also inspected certain other properties which had been referred to as comparables externally only. I was accompanied by both expert witnesses. I have also studied aerial and other photographs of the subject property which were taken before the compulsory acquisition. I find that the subject property comprised an impressive building, with an imposing access drive, set in extensive grounds. Although it was bounded by the A120, a busy main road, this was sufficiently far from the main house, and shielded by a sufficiently tall hedge, to be acceptable to many purchasers who were seeking a large house in an attractive area of countryside, conveniently situated for the main line railway, Stansted Airport and the motorway system. The grounds and gardens were reasonably attractive, although the existence of the tennis court, swimming pool and stables was unlikely to have had a material effect on value. The total accommodation available was in excess of the requirements of most potential purchasers. This would not, in my view, detract from the value of the main house, but it meant that the additional value attributable to the integral and external annexes was proportionately much lower. Moreover, most purchasers would wish to replace the kitchen, remove some bathrooms and modernise those remaining and replace many of the double glazed windows. The banana warehouse was not visible from the subject property and would not significantly affect its value.
33. With those considerations in mind I turn to the comparables, upon which Mr Crayston relied to a very large extent and to which Mr Wright attributed a weighting of 50%. Of the eight comparables that were cited, three – Wolsey Farm, Dunton Hill, Stewarts, Bishops Stortford and Threshers Bush, High Laver, either were not sold or there was no satisfactory evidence of the price achieved. I therefore place no reliance upon them.
34. Nor do I obtain any assistance from Grudds Farmhouse, Much Haddam or Whites Hill Farmhouse, Coggeshall. Grudds Farmhouse was referred to by Mr Wright, but he accepted that it would not appeal to prospective purchasers interested in the subject property and he did not consider it of sufficient relevance to be included in the selection of houses that I inspected. Whites Hill Farmhouse was relied upon by Mr Crayston. It is situated approximately 14 miles east of the subject property, is very much smaller, on a site of only 1½ acres and it is close to a number of electricity pylons which adversely affect the views to the south and south west. Perhaps most significantly, the property was blighted at the date of sale. It was known that there was a risk that the property would be affected by road improvements, but the details and timing were unclear.
35. The remaining three comparables, and my observations upon them, are as follows:

Halfways House, Pharasee Green, Nr Dunmow

Well presented modern house in rural location. Two "Potton" homes bolted together. Four main reception, six bedrooms, three garages. 4,400 sq ft approx. About 3 miles from Great Dunmow. 3 acres manicured grounds. 40m from B184, a fairly busy local road. Sold £975,000 in February 2003 (equivalent to £735,000 at valuation date). Conclusion: 10% less valuable than subject property, suggesting £815,000.

Bourchiers, Station Road, Felsted

Handsome period house on outskirts of popular village. Four main receptions, five bedrooms, three bathrooms, shower room. 3,560 sq ft approx. Some 4 miles from the subject property. Slightly less accessible to main road network. Site of 6.4 acres with attractive views over Felsted in the distance. Quieter location. Fine long driveway approach, but poor impression from highway, close to unsightly skip hire depot and travellers encampment. Privacy and security adversely affected by public footpath crossing grounds in front of house. Sold £730,000 close to valuation date. Conclusion: 12½% less valuable than subject property, suggesting £835,000.

The Orchards, Shalford Green

Modern house of somewhat similar architectural design. Four main reception, six bedrooms. 4,400 sq ft approx. Some 10 miles from Great Dunmow. Site of 10 acres with attractive gardens, swimming pool and tennis court. Much quieter. Further from London and less accessible. Poor access down a long unmade road owned by third party, past unsightly agricultural buildings. House not finished. Bathrooms, swimming pool, fixtures and fittings to be completed. Sold £750,000 in April 2003 (equivalent to £551,000 at valuation date). Conclusion: two-thirds value of subject property, suggesting £825,000.

36. This analysis points to a value of the subject property in the no scheme world of £825,000.
37. Mr Wright also had regard to three other matters in arriving at his valuation: Mrs Hennighan's report of 20 November 2000, the rate of £2,500 per m² typically adopted for valuations in Dunmow for secured lending purposes and his own experience. In my judgment Mrs Hennighan's report is of no assistance. Mr Wright was unable to provide a convincing explanation of why the claimant had sought advice on marketing the subject property some 10 months after the acquiring authority had served notice to treat. Moreover, on the basis of Mr Wright's own valuation adjusted in line with the Nationwide Index, Mrs Hennighan's figure was at least 25% too high.
38. As for Mr Wright's valuation based on what he said was the average price per m² of a house in the Dunmow area, he accepted in cross-examination that such an approach was normally only used for valuing new housing estate developments. When asked how appropriate it was for valuing the subject property he replied

"Not as appropriate as I would like".

In my judgment, it is of no evidential value in the current reference.

39. Finally, Mr Wright accepted that he had been "disadvantaged" by the fact that his day to day work did not involve him in valuing or marketing comparable property within the immediate geographical area of the subject property. In those circumstances, I consider that no weight can be given to his subjective valuation of £1,350,000.
40. Mr Wright suggested that his valuation was supported by the offer of £725,000 which was made for the subject property in June 1994 and the valuation of £675,000 for Barclays Bank in October 1992. I do not obtain any assistance from these matters. Mr Wright had not made any investigations into the details of the 1994 offer, which appears not to have proceeded after the draft contract was first sent out. As for the 1992 valuation, this included advice that the forced sale value was only £450,000, an unusually high discount on the reported open market value. Moreover, the latter figure was completely out of line with the only other contemporaneous transaction that was referred to, namely the sale of Waltham House, Great Waltham for £562,000 in October 1992.
41. I therefore find that the "before value" of the subject property was £825,000.
42. Mr Wright added £100,000 to the value of the property to reflect the hope of a successful appeal against the enforcement notice requiring Woodcroft to be demolished. In the course of cross-examination he accepted that he had not considered how the subject property might be sub-divided into two curtilages, nor how such sub-division might affect the value of Huntingfields House. Nor had he given consideration to the chances, at the valuation date, that the appeal would succeed. In the light of those answers, I prefer Mr Crayston's opinion that no prospective purchaser would have made an unconditional offer reflecting hope value. There is therefore no need for me to decide whether Mr Shadarevian was right to submit that section 5(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 requires that any such value should not be taken into account.
43. I now turn to the effects of the acquisition on value. In my judgment, they are considerable. The site has effectively been reduced by nearly two-thirds, from 11.465 acres to 3.94 acres. The subject property now abuts a main road with four lanes instead of two, and the distance from the main house to the carriageway has been reduced from 103.74m to 77.14m. This will inevitably result in increased traffic noise levels at the property. The replacement of the old northern boundary hedge, approximately 20 ft high, with a 2m high noise reducing fence, together with the raising of the carriageway level will mean that light disturbance from vehicles and the new roundabout will be significantly worse than previously. Furthermore, the construction of the new fence in place of the previous hedge without any tree planting or other landscaping works has in my judgment damaged the rural character of the property. As for the reduced site area, it is true that ownership of the severed paddock will remain with the claimant. Since it will only be accessible by a lengthy journey via the new flyover, however, its value as part of the subject property has, in my view, been very substantially diminished.
44. In arriving at his opinion that the value of the subject property had been reduced by 50%, Mr Wright had regard to a decision of this Tribunal on claims for compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Horton and Griffin) and views expressed by Mr Mullucks, Mr Parish and Mrs Hennighan.
45. I obtain no assistance from Horton and Griffin. In that decision the Member, Mr P R Francis FRICS, quoted with approval the decision of this Tribunal in Hallows v Welsh Office [1995] 1 EGLR 191 (Judge O'Donoghue and P H Clarke FRICS), which contained the following observation regarding the evidence of the claimant's expert, Mr Ricketts:

"We also agree with Mr Pass that his comparables comprising decisions of this Tribunal … are irrelevant. We are reluctant, without full argument, to say that this evidence is inadmissible but we attach little weight to it."

I respectfully agree.

46. I have explained above why I do not consider views expressed by Mrs Hennighan to be helpful. I have come to the same conclusion about the opinion of Mr Parish, who merely endorsed a suggested starting point for negotiations and appears not to have inspected the subject property.
47. Mr Wright also relied on an opinion expressed by Mr Mullucks, in practice in Bishops Stortford, whom he described as a "well respected chartered surveyor". In a letter to the claimant dated 16 July 2002 Mr Mullucks said:

"1. I think the minimum loss of value caused by the new road would be 25%. Clearly your surveyor will form his own judgment as to the figure quoted to the County Surveyor.

2. I believe that the property is extremely blighted and an approach should be made for the County Council to buy the property at its market value prior to the new roadworks. Whilst the property is obviously affected by the current A120 the circumstances of the new road changes the situation totally.

3. As I mentioned to you, the bigger the house the greater the percentage loss of value.

4. I think that Huntingfields House with its land will be extremely difficult to sell once the new road is constructed, and if the County Council would pay you the market value prior to the works, they would have the task of selling the property."

48. Mr Crayston said that he had himself consulted Mr Mullucks at some length before preparing his report and that he was "comfortable with his general views". In the course of cross-examination Mr Crayston agreed that the effect of the new road was "bad".
49. In the light of this evidence, my site inspection and Mr Crayston's opinion, which I accept, that the general market for the type of property in question was reasonable at the valuation date, I have come to the conclusion that the acquisition of the land taken reduced the value of the property remaining in the claimant's hands by 35%. The total diminution in value is therefore £288,750 (35% of £825,000).
50. The experts agreed that the market value of the land taken was £50,000. Mr Wright considered that if the curtilage of the subject property were reduced by an equivalent acreage at its eastern extremity, the reduction in its value would be only £20,000. Thus, the claimant would not be fully compensated if she only received payment equal to the diminution in value of the whole. Mr Crayston, on the other hand, considered that the diminution in value calculation attributed its full value to the land taken. In my judgment it is not impossible that 5 acres of the subject property's grounds were worth more if offered for sale separately than as part of the whole. Mr Wright's assertion that they were worth more, however, was not supported by any comparable evidence and he has no relevant professional experience within the immediate geographical area. I am therefore unable to accept his suggestion. Accordingly, the total diminution in value of £288,750 comprised £50,000 for the land taken and £238,750 for severance and injurious affection.
51. The compensation payable for the freehold interest in the subject property is £288,750. It is agreed that the appropriate surveyor's fee and the reasonable legal costs of transfer are to be paid in addition. The acquiring authority offered to pay a surveyor's fee based on the final version of Ryde's scale before its abolition. Mr Edwards suggested that Ryde's scale was inadequate to reflect the work involved, but there was no evidence to support that submission. The surveyor's fee will therefore be based on Ryde's scale.
52. A letter on costs accompanies this decision, which will take effect when, but not until, the question of costs is determined.

Dated 18 May 2004

N J Rose FRICS

Addendum

53. I have received written submissions on costs.
54. The claimant asks for her costs. She points out that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was significantly higher than the acquiring authority's sealed offer. Although that offer was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing, the fact is that the acquiring authority offered less than the amount awarded. There can be no doubt that the claimant would have been entitled as of right to her costs if the offer had not been withdrawn; it would be perverse if its withdrawal should count against her.
55. The acquiring authority asks for an award of costs against the claimant. Alternatively, it submits that each party should bear its own costs. At the date of entry, 17 September 2001, the acquiring authority estimated the compensation at £150,750 and in January 2002 the claimant submitted a claim for £950,650. In April 2002 the acquiring authority revised its estimate of the compensation payable to £175,400. This was not acceptable to the claimant, who referred the matter to the Tribunal. The acquiring authority then instructed an independent expert, who assessed the compensation payable at £145,000. The claimant's expert assessed the amount of compensation payable at £717,500. At no time during the course of the proceedings did the claimant make an offer to settle. An offer to settle was made by the acquiring authority by letter dated 19 December 2003, although it was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing. Although the claimant had succeeded in establishing a right to compensation of £288,750, this is considerably less than the amount claimed. At no time during the course of the proceedings did the claimant attempt to negotiate with the local authority. Moreover, the Tribunal did not favour the claimant's expert's method of valuation, but rejected his evidence in nearly every respect.
56. Although the acquiring authority requested that the question of costs should be the subject of a hearing, I consider that the written submissions I have received are sufficient to enable me to deal with the matter justly.
57. The claimant has been successful, in the sense that the acquiring authority did not make an offer which exceeds the amount determined by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the amount of compensation awarded was substantially below Mr Wright's valuation, because I did not accept much of his valuation approach. The question I have to ask myself is whether the costs related to Mr Wright's evidence could not on any sensible basis be regarded as part of the reasonable and necessary expenses of determining the amount of the disputed compensation: see Purfleet Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] RVR 368, 374 at para 29. Whether or not the claimant herself made an offer to settle is not relevant to this test and I am unable to conclude that the claimant's conduct fails it. Mr Wright prepared his valuation in circumstances where it is agreed that it is difficult to find an ideal comparable for such an individual property. Against that background, I do not consider that his approach to the valuation was unreasonable, in the sense that no professionally competent valuer would have adopted it. Accordingly I do not think that the costs incurred in preparing and explaining his valuation were costs that on any sensible basis should not be regarded as part of the reasonable and necessary expenses of determining the amount of compensation.
58. The acquiring authority will pay the claimant's costs of the reference, such costs if not agreed to be the subject of detailed assessment by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal on the standard basis.

Dated 23 June 2004

N J Rose FRICS