UPPER TRIBUNAL (LANDS CHAMBER)

 

UT Neutral citation number: [2011] UKUT 348 (LC)

Case Number: ACQ/52/2011

 

 

TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007

 

 

 

COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – dwelling house and garages in poor condition – value – acquiring authority’s valuation based on redevelopment with 6 town houses and local comparables accepted – compensation of £201,500 determined.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE

 

 

BETWEEN ANNE FEAVEARYEAR Claimant

 

and

 

 

IPSWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL Acquiring

Authority

 

Re: 94 Foxhall Road

Ipswich

Suffolk

Before: N J Rose FRICS

 

 

 

Determination based on written representations

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION

Introduction

1.               This is a reference by Ipswich Borough Council, the acquiring authority, to determine the compensation it must pay for the compulsory acquisition of the freehold interest in a bungalow and twenty domestic garages on a site known as 94 Foxhall Road, Ipswich.

2.               The subject property was compulsorily acquired under the Ipswich Borough Council (94 Foxhall Road) Compulsory Purchase Order 2004, made under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 on 2 August 2004 and confirmed by the First Secretary of State on 10 March 2005.  The acquiring authority executed a general vesting declaration on 11 October 2005 and the vesting date, which is also the valuation date, was 9 January 2006. 

3.               The compensation is payable to the owner, Mrs Anne Feavearyear, who did not respond to letters from the acquiring authority inviting a claim of compensation or from the Tribunal requesting a statement of case.  Mrs Feavearyear has taken no part in the reference, which has been determined under the Tribunal’s written representation procedure.  Submissions on behalf of the acquiring authority were made by Mr David Wass FRICS, sole principal of Beane Wass and Box, chartered surveyors of Ipswich.  Mr Wass was formerly an equity partner in Carter Jonas.

Facts

4.               From the evidence I find the following facts.  The subject property lies about 1.5 miles east of Ipswich town centre, on a roughly triangular site of approximately 0.41 acre, with a frontage to the south side of Foxhall Road of approximately 30 feet and a width at the rear of approximately 153 feet.  On the valuation date, in the immediate vicinity fronting Foxhall Road there was a local post office, retail shop and small engineering works, but the general area was primarily in residential use.  The site was bounded to the east by 122 Foxhall Road, to the south by 239-253 Cavendish Street and to the west by 92 Foxhall Road.

5. The site contained a detached bungalow of brick and slate, comprising four rooms, kitchen and bathroom, all in a state of serious disrepair.  To the rear of the site there were twenty pre-cast concrete domestic garages, also in poor condition.  There was a concrete hardstanding to the front of the site, which was fenced off behind the forecourt.

Evidence for the acquiring authority

6. Mr Wass reported to the acquiring authority with his opinion as to the appropriate level of compensation on 14 February 2006, some five weeks after the valuation date.  Before doing so, and in accordance with his client’s instructions, he had sought advice from the acquiring authority’s planning officer as to the potential uses of the site.  On 9 February 2006 Mr Rod Lay, the principal planning officer, wrote to Mr Wass with his views on what might be a “reasonable supposition” for development of the site.  He said this:

“The site falls within a primarily residential area, but is also located within the area of the Foxhall Road Local Shopping Centre.  Some development potential exists for either – or perhaps both – of these uses.

The site has an awkward triangular configuration with a limited street frontage.  I would hope to see some built form addressing this frontage, following the existing building line – it could be possible to site a building alongside the Matthews shop premises and still provide a vehicular access alongside No.92 (or perhaps the other way around, subject to access layout considerations).  I would envisage a two-storey building here … this could perhaps be a retail unit at ground floor level (which may better maximise building footprint given the shape of the site) with residential over, or alternatively residential throughout.

There is scope for additional residential development at the rear (although I am aware that the land falls away sharply from the rear of the site which means that new building at the rear will need to [be] kept at least 9 metres away from the rear boundary and – probably – restricted to no more than two storeys in height).  Depending on production of a satisfactory layout it could be that a development of say 4 or 5 two storey houses (or a similar sized block of flats) could be sited at the rear – having regard to the need to create a layout which creates a satisfactory ‘sense of place’, with suitable access and parking arrangements, and which also protects the amenities of adjacent properties (both at the rear and sides), in terms of overlooking, block spacing etc.  On the file a sketch layout for 6 houses arranged in a line across the rear was submitted previously, but this was not satisfactory in terms of layout or built form.”

8. In the light of this advice Mr Wass took the view that the building to be constructed adjacent to the existing Matthews shop – No. 122 Foxhall Road – was more likely to be a wholly residential unit and that, with careful design, it was not unreasonable to anticipate a further 5, two storey units on the site to the rear.

9. Mr Wass had regard to a number of sites in the locality which had been sold with outline planning permission for flats and/or houses and to an offer, subject to planning, which had been made for a site which was subsequently withdrawn from the market.  He concluded that, if the subject property had planning consent for six conventional town houses, it would have been worth £235,000, based on a site value of £42,500 per plot less £20,000 for clearance and demolition.  He then deducted 15%, producing a market value of £200,000, to reflect the fact that at the valuation date there remained some uncertainty with regard to the exact density of development which would be permitted, site and soil conditions, demolition costs and the potential requirement for retaining walls at the rear of the site.  Mr Wass’s concern as to soil conditions resulted from the fact that, although the local authority had nothing on record to indicate previous uses of the site, earlier ordnance survey maps indicated that it had formerly contained “works” of unknown use.

10. Mr Wass added surveyor’s and legal fees of £1,500 to the market value of £200,000. producing a total compensation figure of £201,500.

Conclusion

11. In the absence of any evidence from or on behalf of the claimant, Mr Wass’s assessment of compensation seems to me to be reasonable and I accept it.  I determine the compensation payable to Mrs Feavearyear in respect of the freehold interest in the subject property to be £201,500.  I make no order as to costs. 

 

 

Dated 8 September 2011

 

N J Rose FRICS