|
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(LANDS CHAMBER)
|
|
|
UT Neutral citation number: [2011] UKUT 126 (LC)
LT
Case Number: ACQ/313/2010
TRIBUNALS,
COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
COMPENSATION
- compulsory purchase - dwelling house in poor condition - value - comparables
- cost of necessary works - compensation determined at £175,000
IN
THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE
BETWEEN LONDON
BOROUGH OF Acquiring
NEWHAM
Authority
and
TERRY
NAVARRO PEART Potential
Claimant
Re: 72
Cranmer Road
Forest
Gate
London
E7
0JL
Before:
N J Rose FRICS
Sitting
at 43-45 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3AS
on
17 February 2011
Jonathan Wills,
instructed by Director of Legal and Democratic Services, London Borough of
Newham, for the Acquiring Authority
The potential claimant did not
appear and was not represented
DECISION
Introduction
1.
This is a reference by the London Borough of Newham, the acquiring
authority, to determine the compensation which it must pay, arising from the
compulsory acquisition of the freehold interest in a dwellinghouse known as 72 Cranmer Road, London, E7 0JL (the subject property). That property was compulsorily
acquired under the Newham (72 Cranmer Road, London, E7 0JL) Compulsory Purchase
Order 2002, made on 20 July 2001 and confirmed by the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government on 4 July 2002. The acquiring authority made
a general vesting declaration in respect of the property on 19 September 2002
and the vesting date was 5 November 2002, which is the date of valuation.
2.
The owner of the freehold interest in the subject property is Mr Terry
Navarro Peart. Mr Peart has not submitted a claim for compensation, despite
unsuccessfully challenging the confirmation of the CPO by way of judicial
review.
3.
Mr Jonathan Wills of counsel appeared for the acquiring authority. He called
factual evidence from Ms Noreen Shabir, legal assistant with the acquiring
authority, and expert evidence from Mr David Drane MRICS, who is employed by
DVS, the commercial arm of the Valuation Office Agency. Mr Drane has worked
for the VOA since 1990 and he has been engaged in the valuation of residential
and commercial property in the London Borough of Newham for the last 10 years.
He inspected the subject property in 20 December 2002. The potential claimant,
Mr Peart, did not appear at the hearing and was not represented, although I am
satisfied that the acquiring authority has taken all reasonable steps to inform
him of the reference to the Tribunal. I made an unaccompanied external
inspection of the subject property and certain comparable properties which had
been referred to on the morning of 25 March 2011.
Facts
4.
From the evidence I find the following facts. The subject property is a
mid-terrace house built in about 1885 on two storeys with a front bay to ground
and first floors and a two storey back addition. It is situated close to Capel
Road and Wanstead Flats in an established residential area. Wanstead Park and Manor Park railway stations are nearby.
5.
The subject property was designed to accommodate two receptions rooms
(as a through lounge) with a back addition kitchen/dining room on the ground
floor and three bedrooms and bathroom/wc on the first floor. The rear addition
bedroom was, however, crudely subdivided to provide two small rooms.
6.
The property was in below average condition generally. It required a
certain degree of refurbishment and repair to bring it up to good mortgageable
standard. The roof covering required overhaul and replacement. Water ingress
in the main building had caused damage that had over time transmitted to the
ceiling and floors below. The guttering and downpipes were in poor condition
and needed to be replaced. The windows, joinery and sills throughout were in
below average condition with rotten timber in various place. The timber framed
single glazed windows and exterior doors required replacement with new double
glazed units. Re-wiring and some replacement of plumbing was required. There
was a need for some re-plastering and the replacement of certain ceilings where
water ingress from a past roof leak had caused damage. External rendering at
the front and rear required patching in places.
Mr Drane’s valuation
7.
Mr Drane valued the subject property by reference to three properties
which were sold in the open market in the period surrounding the valuation
date. Brief details are as follows:
60 Cranmer Road,
E7
A three bedroom mid-terrace house
built in 1880. Sale completed 14 June 2002 at £215,000. Excellent condition.
81 Chestnut Avenue,
E7
A three bedroom mid-terrace house
built in 1890. Sale completed 4 October 2002 at £160,000. Poor condition,
requiring a large amount of refurbishment.
120 Chestnut Avenue,
E7
A three bedroom mid-terrace house built in 1890. Sale agreed
20 December 2002 at £212,000. Reasonable condition.
8.
This evidence, together with his general experience of property values
in the area, led Mr Drane to conclude that a typical late 19th
century three bedroom house in the locality would have achieved around £215,000
if in good order and fully refurbished. He estimated that it would have cost a
minimum of £35,000 to put the property into good mortgageable condition. He
considered that, in its existing condition, the property would have been of
interest to a small building firm or the like. Such a purchaser would have
expected a return on its investment. Given the relative strength of the
property market at the time he allowed a conservative figure of £5,000 for
profit/risk, producing a value for the subject property in its existing state
of £175,000.
Conclusion
9.
Mr Drane is an experienced surveyor. In the absence of any other expert
evidence I accept his valuation. I determine the compensation payable for the
freehold interest in the subject property at £175,000. Statutory interest is
payable in addition in the usual way. I make no order as to costs.
Dated
29 March 2011
N J Rose FRICS
