Compensation for acquisition of land — Land taken and severance — Loss of ransom ability and injurious affection to retained land — Delay in development — Assessment of compensation
Pursuant to a
notice to treat dated April 26 1983 the acquiring authority entered part of the
claimant’s land on May 16 1983 for the construction in 1987 of an improved
highway route connecting two existing highways. The line of the selected route
had regard to development land to the north and east owned by CD Ltd. The
effect of the acquisition was to sever the claimant’s land into northern and
southern sections. The acquiring authority conceded that it should pay for land
taken in the sum of £30,335, of which £285 was for agricultural value with
vacant possession and the balance for its ‘net ransom’ value to CD Ltd as owner
of 8.8 acres of the backland. The claimant contended that a cross or mutual
ransom approached between CD Ltd and the claimant was inappropriate and that
injurious affection to the value of retained land, the northern and southern
sections must be additionally compensated in the sums of either £124,140 or
£135,883. In the ‘no-scheme world’ the claimant and CD Ltd would have agreed a
mutually acceptable joint scheme of residential development and this had been
frustrated by the scheme.
for the value of the land taken. In the no-scheme world a ransom payment from
CD Ltd of one-third of development value amounting to £44,044 could have been
expected from which should be deducted a ransom payment from the claimant at
the same rate of one third amounting to £9,309, making a net ransom receipt of
£34,740. The claimant was additionally entitled to have made good by way of
compensation any injurious affection to the value of retained land which was
best quantified on the ‘before and after’ approach. Although the Bwllfa principle
was not to be slavishly applied, certain aspects ascertainable from actual
events after the date of entry suggested that a reasonable expectation for
deferment in 1983 of the prospects of development of the retained land was of
the order of five years. The difference between the before and after values of
the retained land attributable to injurious affection was £17,310, making the
total compensation £52,000.
The following
cases are referred to in this report.
Bolton
Metropolitan Borough Council v Waterworth (1981)
42 P&CR 289; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 625; [1981] EGD 586; 259 EG 625; [1982] JPL
33, CA
Bwllfa
& Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries Ltd v Pontypridd
Waterworks Co [1903] AC 426
Stokes v Cambridge Corporation (1961) 13 P&CR 77; [1961] EGD
207; 180 EG 839, LT
This was a
reference by the claimant, Dingleside Development Co Ltd, for the determination
of compensation payable for the acquisition of land by the acquiring authority,
Powys County Council.
Alun Alesbury
(instructed by T A Matthews, of Leominster) appeared for the claimant; Nicholas
Cooke (instructed by the solicitor to Powys County Council) represented the
acquiring authority.
Giving his
decision, Mr T Hoyes said:
This is a reference by the claimant dated April 18 1983 for the determination
of the compensation payable upon the compulsory acquisition of the freehold
interest in 836m2 of land fronting the A483 road at Howey. Howey is about two miles
south of Llandrindod Wells. The reference land comprises part of OS Field No
0547 (1.18 ha, 2.76 acres), which extends northwards along the A483 from
Hundred House Lane, C336 now C1336, to the southern edge of Howey near the
village hall. OS 0547 has a depth of about 40m measured from the eastern
boundary of the highway, it is traversed east to west by two overhead
electricity lines and the taking of the reference land has divided the residue
into a northern and a southern section. It was unused at the date of hearing
and its last use was as grazing land.
Mr Alun
Alesbury, of counsel, appeared for the claimant and called Mr J F W Walden c eng mice, Mr W J Jackson fnaea and Mr P T Sawyer frics Mr Nicholas Cooke, of counsel,
appeared for the acquiring authority and called Mr R J Hobbs bsc c
eng mice and Mr H J Cave frics
both in the employ of the county council at all material times.
Scheme of
the acquiring authority
The scheme of
the acquiring authority was to secure the provision of an improved route
connecting the C1336 with the A483, including a new junction to the trunk road
and the closure to vehicles of the existing Hundred House Lane junction to the
west of the village school. The line of the selected route for the new road had
regard, inter alia, to a desire in the county council to enlarge
the curtilage of the school, to the west upon land of the claimant (not
proceeded with) and to the north and east upon land owned by Cortay Developments
Ltd, which has taken place; the school curtilage is now contiguous with the new
road for most of its length.
Material
facts
The following
is a summary taken from a lodged statement of facts with supporting documents
which was substantially agreed between the parties and also includes some
matters which emerged as common ground from the evidence and submissions by
counsel.
1. The Powys
County Council (County Road C336 Crossways Howey) Compulsory Purchase Order
1980 was made on July 28 1980 under the Highways Act 1959 and confirmed by the
Secretary of State for Wales on October 10 1980. The order related only to the
land of the claimant.
2. Notice to
treat was served on April 26 1983 and notice of entry on April 27 1983.
3. The
acquiring authority entered the reference land on May 16 1983 and this is the
date for valuation.
4. Planning
permission was obtained for the new road in February 1980, it was constructed
during 1987 by and at the cost, save for land, of Cortay Ltd by arrangement
with the acquiring authority and it was subsequently adopted as a public
highway.
5. A notice of
claim in answer to notice to treat on behalf of the claimant in the sum of
£108,100 was received by the acquiring authority on May 13 1983.
6. During the
1970s the local planning authority were not averse to the development of the
reference land for housing, but they sought its development in conjunction with
that of Cortay Ltd (8.80 acres) to the east. These areas were allocated for
low-density private housing in the district plan published in November 1973.
7. Outline
planning permission for 20 detached bungalows on the claimant’s land was
granted on March 1 1974 with vehicular access from the C1336, but for various
technical reasons approval of reserved matters was not secured.
8. The
claimant sought to agree joint development proposals with Cortay Ltd involving
a diversion of C1336 and a new junction to A483; in effect negotiations ceased
when the county council promoted and obtained the compulsory purchase order.
9. The future
of the southern section of the claimant’s land was made uncertain by proposals
in the late 1970s, abandoned in 1983, to enlarge the school curtilage.
10. The school
proposals and the taking of the reference land isolated the northern section of
the claimant’s land and denied it access to C1336 as envisaged in the outline
planning permission at 7 above.
11. By the
late 1970s it had become apparent that following directions from the Secretary
of State for Wales no new housing with access to C1336 would be approved until
the existing junction with A483 had been replaced and closed. Six dwellings on
the southern section were refused on appeal in June 1984 and four in October
1986.
12. Five
bungalows were approved in outline in February 1988 subject to conditions, inter
alia, they were ‘not to be occupied until the C1336 had been closed
to through traffic’ and that there should be, ‘No direct access to the new loop
road or to the A483 trunk road’.
13. The
existing junction to the trunk road was closed by the county council during
1990.
14. In 1979
the county council purchased land (0.637 acres) from Cortay Ltd to extend the
school curtilage and 0.328 acres for the loop road from C1336 to the eastern
boundary of the reference land.
Issues
Put simply the
issue is the amount of compensation properly payable by the acquiring authority
consequent on the taking of the reference land as part of the new loop road and
its junction with A483. The acquiring authority concedes that they should pay
for land taken in the sum of £30,335, £285 for agricultural value with vacant
possession and the balance for its ‘net ransom’ value of Cortay Ltd as owner of
8.8 acres for residential development immediately to the east, the ‘backland’.
For the claimant
it is contended that this sum is insufficient because the land values applied
are too low, a cross or mutual ransom approach between Cortay Ltd and the
claimant is inappropriate and injurious affection to the value of retained
land, the northern and southern sections, is wholly disregarded. On a proper
assessment of the claimant’s loss the compensation payable should be either
£124,140 or £135,883.
The grounds
for the payment of compensation for injurious affection to retained land rest
essentially upon two alternative propositions. First, that the intervention of
the acquiring authority with their scheme frustrated the negotiations between
the claimant and Cortay Ltd, which, had they continued, would have resulted in
a mutually acceptable joint scheme of residential development so that the land
of both participants would have been developed concurrently. The development of
the claimant’s land would neither have been delayed, the southern section, nor
sterilised, the northern section, per the higher claim. In the circumstances of
this practical co-operation, the strengths or otherwise of the two parties
would have been reflected in any ransom payment; regarded as some £77,000 in
favour of the claimant: see Annexure 2. Second, that even if the negotiations had
failed at about the valuation date then the claimant could have proceeded to
develop its own land as an initial phase of a larger scheme also embracing the
land of Cortay Ltd. It was contended that this was so, even with the position
adopted by the Secretary of State with respect to the existing junction on to
the trunk road, because if a new junction positioned further north than that
chosen in the scheme were adopted it would be more distant from the existing.
Development of the claimant’s land would not have increased traffic using the
existing junction to the detriment of traffic flows on the trunk road and the
new junction created would have been in a safe position. In any event this
would have been a temporary situation as in due course, when Cortay Ltd
developed its land, the new loop road to C1336 would have been provided by the
two developers. This approach would not have delayed development of any of the
claimant’s land and it would have enabled the claimant to ransom Cortay Ltd as
it was entirely reliant upon the claimant for access to the trunk road. It is
contended that one or other of these propositions sets the framework for the
value of the claimant’s land in the ‘no-scheme world’ and that compensation
should be the difference between this sum and its significantly reduced value
in the ‘scheme world’.
Highway
evidence
As it is not
in issue that residential development of the claimant’s land is appropriate in
town planning terms the practicality of proposition 2 above must depend upon an
assessment of the highway evidence. From at least October 1979 in refusals of
planning permission upon the land of the claimant and/or Cortay Ltd the
position of the Secretary of State had been made clear in the following or
similar terms:
The proposed
development would generate additional use of an existing trunk road/side road
junction which would seriously interfere with the free and safe flow of trunk
road traffic and until such time as a new junction has been formed to join the
proposed realignment of the Hundred House road (C1336) to the trunk road the
development must be refused.
This was the
sole reason for refusal dated October 3 1979 in respect of proposals for the
Cortay land adopting the loop road scheme together with estate road access to
the northern section of the claimant’s land.
Patently, the
Secretary of State was not prepared to see planning permission upon the Cortay
backland until the C1336 was realigned, actually part of the development
proposed, and a new junction made to the trunk road; in effect the complete
loop road scheme. In respect of a joint development scheme by the claimant and
Cortay, submitted for planning permission in August 1976, the Secretary of
State, by letter dated June 2 1977, observing upon the required standards for
sight lines and a deceleration lane at any junction on to the trunk road,
continued, ‘once these details have been attended to and procedures for closing
Hundred House Road, (C1336) have been completed, we will be prepared to
consider giving conditional consent to the development’. The inference drawn by
the acquiring authority was that the provision of the loop road and the closure
of the existing C1336 junction were both essential ingredients to securing
planning permission for residential development upon the combined sites.
The evidence
of Mr Walden, an experienced highway engineer, was directed not primarily at
securing at the outset the loop road and closure of the existing junction, but
rather at not increasing the traffic using the existing junction consequent
upon new housing development by the claimant and Cortay Ltd. He produced three
schemes (A, B and C) of junction design upon the claimant’s land which in
various ways facilitated, or at least did not preclude, access into the Cortay
backland and at the same time or before provided direct access for the
development of the whole of the claimant’s land by about 20 bungalows. The
position of the junction on to the trunk road was in all cases about 65m north
of the junction, etc actually constructed upon the reference land. This
position had regard to his understanding of traffic speeds on A483 and his
judgment of a required stopping distance of 120m. His schemes provided 170m
between a new junction and the existing C1336 junction whereas the new junction
on the reference land is only 110m distant.
In preparing
the schemes he had regard to the standards and design guidance of the highway
authority operative in 1983 and to the standards used for the actual junction
upon the reference land. It was his opinion that with the new and existing
junctions further apart and no increase in traffic on C1336 there was no
highway safety reason to require the closure of the existing junction. If this
conclusion was correct there would then have been no reason why the claimant’s
land could not be developed before and independent of the Cortay backland, the
later development of which would not be precluded. This convenient arrangement
for the claimant’s land was not available because the junction position
actually chosen under the scheme of the acquiring authority was closer to the
existing junction and thereby made its closure a sensible requirement, but
closure was not possible unless the whole of the loop road, including the
section over Cortay land, was provided in advance. In short the claimant had
lost independence and flexibility in the development of its land and had become
dependent upon the future actions of Cortay Ltd in providing the principal
section of the loop road and securing the junction closure. In the scheme world
there had been delay in achieving these things, in fact until 1990. While the
southern section of the claimant’s land could from 1990 be accessed off the
C1336 in furtherance of outline planning permission for five bungalows dated
February 2 1988 the
section of loop road built on the reference land without, as a minimum, rights
for sight lines, etc being secured over Cortay Land or in the alternative
rights over estate roads and other adjacent land of Cortay Ltd.
Mr Walden did
not regard the Welsh Office letter of June 1977 in the same prescriptive manner
as the acquiring authority with respect to the closure of the existing C1336
junction. He said proposals not involving use of the C1336 for access had never
been put to the Welsh Office. Moreover he highlighted the fact that in the
construction of the new junction to A483 the Welsh Office requirements had been
disregarded in a number of important respects, especially the extent of sight
lines.
Mr Walden’s
preferred scheme was B, which would have enabled the immediate independent
development of the claimant’s land by 20 dwellings and have been capable of
easy connection into the Cortay section of the loop road upon the alignment adopted
in the scheme world. It was his opinion that the junction in scheme B, was to a
better standard than that actually built. It provided a deceleration lane and
the design could be improved further within land of the claimant so as to
better accommodate large vehicles, but it was not usual to design for
articulated vehicles on C class roads.
In
cross-examination Mr Walden agreed that the Welsh Office letter of June 1977
was available in May 1983 and that his own schemes fell short of the standards
in that letter. Nevertheless, he regarded his schemes as providing superior
solutions and as more advantageous to the claimant than that built on the
reference land. However, he conceded that he could not have been 100% confident
in 1983 that one or more of them would have secured the approval of the Welsh
office and then planning permission.
Mr Hobbs, who
has some 19 years’ experience with Powys County Council, said that the land of
the claimant and Cortay Ltd could not have been granted planning permission for
residential development, jointly or in isolation, unless the proposals would
result in the provision of a loop road and the closure of the existing
substandard junction of the C1336 with the trunk road. He said this was
apparent from the various refusals of planning permission in the 1970s and
early 1980s and from associated correspondence between the planning authority
and the Welsh Office. If this is found to be the correct position then none of
the three schemes spoken to by Mr Walden had any relevance to the issue in the
reference as they sought to reposition northwards a new junction without
closing the existing. If, however, the increased junction spacing proposed was
regarded as sufficient to have eliminated the need for closure and to have made
possible the independent development of the claimant’s land, then there are
shortcomings in the three schemes.
Scheme A, a
simple T junction, neither provided for nor precluded access into the Cortay
backland, albeit access would have been upon a more northerly line than the
loop road actually built. Mr Hobbs gave it as his opinion that scheme A would
not have been acceptable to the Welsh Office, ‘as it would have been located in
close proximity to the existing C1336 junction at Crossways’. Scheme B, which
provided for access into the Cortay backland by connection with the line of the
loop road as built, met the design criteria for the junction but its
continuation as a road would create problems for articulated vehicles and
accordingly the Welsh Office would not have approved it. Some revision was also
required to the design of the junctions of service cul-de-sacs with the
principal road. Scheme C was regarded as impractical for use by the majority of
commercial vehicles and some design aspects made it unacceptable for adoption
by the county council as highway authority.
In terms of
the circumstances now existing with the loop road and a new junction to A483 in
place Mr Hobbs referred to a letter dated July 6 1992 from the Welsh Office
indicating that for a maximum of 12 dwellings a T junction into the northern
section of the claimant’s land could be approved provided its centre line was a
minimum of 33.5m from the eastern edge of the trunk road. This position had
been sketched out by Mr Walden as document JW1A, which showed that if an x
factor of not more than 4.5m was used visibility requirements to the east would
result in ‘trespass’ over Cortay land. With respect to the southern section of
the claimant’s land Mr Hobbs confirmed that there was no highway objection to
its development with a new access off the C1336 once the existing junction was
closed. The closure of this junction had been in contemplation since at least
1977 as evidenced by a letter dated December 12 1977 from the Welsh Office to
the local planning authority.
Mr Hobbs
considered that there was no prospect of planning permission being granted upon
the claimant’s land in isolation in 1983, either in accordance with Mr Walden’s
schemes or otherwise. In answer to my questioning he accepted that there was no
planning or highway reason why the two landowners could not have built the loop
road prior to 1983 and he confirmed that the highway authority would have
co-operated with them in securing the closure of the C1336 junction.
In
cross-examination Mr Hobbs said that the loop road was designed by the county
council in 1983 to the prevailing highway standards and it was actually
constructed by Cortay Ltd in 1987. In his view increasing the distance of
junctions by some 65m was not a solution to the problem as the Welsh Office
would insist upon closure of the existing junction. He accepted that it was
never consulted on the proposals of the kind put forward by Mr Walden.
Reluctantly he
conceded that the letter of July 9 1992 from the Welsh Office relating to a
junction 33.5m from the trunk road had been elicited for the purpose of this
reference rather than for observing upon actual development proposals. He
agreed that there was no such published standard in 1983 and that this
particular approach to access to the northern section of its land was not
suggested to the claimant before 1993, at all earlier times access to this land
had been envisaged by estate roads on Cortay land. In terms of the degree of
‘trespass’ on to Cortay land highlighted by Mr Walden’s sketch Mr Hobbs
suggested that the design guidance would permit the x factor to be reduced to
2m in ‘extreme circumstances’. This possibility would have been known in 1983
and if adopted visibility requirements may well be achievable upon land within
the boundaries of the highway, namely the new loop road built by Cortay upon
county council owned land.
In answer to
my question he said that it was unlikely, in 1983 or subsequently, that any
prospective purchaser-developer seeking information about access to the
northern section of the claimant’s land would have been informed that a
junction 33.5m from the trunk road would be acceptable and that an x factor of
2m could be adopted.
Findings
on the evidence
Although the
acceptability of Mr Walden’s schemes was never tested in the sense of being
considered by the Welsh Office he was right not to be wholly certain that they
would attract planning permission. On the basis of all the oral and documentary
evidence I conclude that an informed prospective purchaser of both sections of
the claimant’s land in 1983 would have been informed and would have accepted
that road access could only be obtained by the construction of a loop road and
the closure of the existing C1336 junction in co-operation with Cortay Ltd as a
concurrent exercise. Once this position was appreciated I am persuaded that
both developers would have had a mutual incentive to progress the building of
the new road and the closure without undue delay. The intervention of the
acquiring authority, as is partly acknowledged in terms of loss of ransom
value, weakened the bargaining position of the claimant (or any successor in
title) with Cortay Ltd to the effect that the time-scale which came to be
adopted suited the convenience of Cortay Ltd alone to the financial detriment
of the claimant in terms of the value of its retained land. The endeavours in
1992 of Mr Hobbs to agree a practical approach to access to the northern
section of the claimant’s land with the Welsh Office, the 33.5m distance for a
junction, may well be of some assistance to the claimant in 1994 but, on the
facts disclosed, it is misconceived as an exercise in reducing the extent of
injurious affection to the value of the retained land in 1983; at all material
times
land. The evidence on this aspect in the documents is all one way; Mr Walden’s
scheme A, dated March 1992, was the first document to suggest right-angle
junctions off an access road connecting with the A483.
Valuation
evidence
Mr Jackson,
who has some 30 years’ experience in estate agency in the Welsh borders and has
practised in Llandrindod Wells for some years, said that there was demand in
the area in 1983 for serviced building plots from individuals and small
builders. He saw this demand as underpinned by the establishment in Llandrindod
Wells in the mid-1970s of the headquarters of Powys County Council. Despite his
experience in the market and his conviction as to demand he said he was unable
to refer to any useful comparable sales in or about 1983 save for two plots in
Almond Avenue, Llandrindod Wells, in 1980. In broad terms he regarded Howey as
a substitute location for Llandrindod Wells, but accepted that to some
purchasers the town may be preferable.
It was his
opinion that 20 adequate plots for bungalows upon the 2.82 acres fronting the
A483 owned by the claimant had an unserviced value of £5,000 each in 1983. With
planning permission available for proposals such as those in Mr Walden’s scheme
A, sales could commence within six months and would proceed at about 10 per
year; any purchaser would discount his bid accordingly for 1.5 years at 10%. He
spoke to valuations of £86,678, £74,890 and £68,380 (see Annexure 1) for the
claimant’s land based upon Walden schemes A, B and C. He considered that the
southern section of the claimant’s land (0.75 acres) had a value for five
bungalows with access to C1336 of £25,000 and that agricultural value in the
locality was £1,500 per acre in 1983.
Mr Jackson put
the value of unserviced plots on the Cortay land at £6,000 each because they
were more distant from the trunk road and slightly larger; he estimated the
rate of sales also at 10 pa. Although the site is laid out for 55 plots, he for
reasons not wholly explained, included land taken for the school extension
(0.637 acres) and assumed 60 plots. After deferring for four years at 10% he
arrived at a 1983 value of £245,885.
In
cross-examination Mr Jackson agreed that land with planning permission was
worth more than land without it and that he had assumed the existence in 1983
of an appropriate planning permission in arriving at his values. He accepted
that his basic value of £5,000 for an unserviced building plot was a matter of
his professional judgment rather than being derived from market transactions in
comparable land. Despite his inability to identify sales for the purpose of
valuation he held to his view that there was sufficient demand in 1983 for
building plots to warrant an estimated sales rate on each of the claimant’s and
Cortay sites of 10 pa. On the basis of his own document he accepted however
that in the ‘scheme world’ Cortay Ltd had not sold any plots until 1988 and
that up to March 1992, of the 55 stated to have been available 37 had been sold
and 11 developed by the company.
In answer to
my question Mr Jackson said that the value of building land in the locality in
1980–1982 showed a modest rise of about 4% pa, this then increased through the
mid-1980s reaching a peak in 1989.
Mr Sawyer, who
has 35 years’ experience of valuation and town planning matters, practises from
Worcestershire and was instructed in March 1990, directed his evidence to the
basis and formulation of the claim for compensation. He professed no knowledge
of land values in the locality and relied upon the various figures of value
spoken to by Mr Jackson.
In his
opinion, the correct basis of the claim for compensation is, ‘the diminution in
the value of its (the claimant’s) land due to the scheme and is the difference
between the value the land had at the Date of Entry and the value after Entry
was taken’. Central to his application of this basis are the following
circumstances in the ‘scheme world’; first, it is not possible to secure
permission for another access from the trunk road into the claimant’s northern
land; second, access into this land is not now possible from the loop road as constructed
due to the shallow site and the proximity of the trunk road; third, the only
possible access is through Cortay land which may not now be physically possible
due to the form of its development; and, fourth, the southern land can, and
could at all times after the closure of the C1336 junction, be accessed from
the C1336 so as to implement the 1988 planning permission for five bungalows.
In the no-scheme world Mr Sawyer considered that Mr Walden’s scheme B would
have received planning permission and he regarded that as the most advantageous
to the claimant in that it facilitated immediate development of the claimant’s
land north and south and afforded a connection with the loop road to the
benefit of Cortay for which a substantial ransom payment could properly have
been anticipated; the market in the borders area adopts one-third of
development value as the basis of ransom payments.
For his before
or no-scheme world valuation Mr Sawyer adopted Mr Jackson’s scheme B figure of
£74,980 in respect of the 2.82 acres owned by the claimant to which sum he
added one-third of the development value of the Cortay land for the ransom
payment of £77,287 to give £152,177: see Annexure 2.
In the scheme
world he attributed £57,944 to the 1.89 acres of the northern section, deducted
£3,615 for its existing use to give a development value of £54,329 one-third of
which he ascribed to a ransom payment to Cortay and the residual two-thirds he
deferred for 10 years at 10% as the assumed access had not been made available at
March 1983, nor has it to date. This discounted figure was £15,359. For the
southern land Mr Sawyer adopted Mr Jackson’s value of £25,000 and deferred it
for 7.12 years at 10% because the C1336 junction was not in fact closed until
June 30 1990; this figure was £12,679. The diminution in value suffered by the
claimant due to the scheme is therefore £152,177 minus £15,359 and £12,679,
namely £124,139. In the event that the northern section cannot be provided with
access for residential development its value is limited for all time to current
use at £3,615 to the effect that further diminution is suffered in the sum of
£15,359 minus £3,615, namely £11,744, which added to £124,139 gives £135,883,
his alternative figure of claim.
Mr Sawyer said
that he had deferred for 10 years in respect of the northern land as
negotiations between the claimant and Cortay were broken off in 1979 when
Cortay began to rely upon the firm prospect of a compulsory purchase order and
since then Cortay has had no incentive to treat with the claimant, post 1983
Cortay was no longer dependent upon the claimant for access to its development
land.
Mr Sawyer was
critical of the valuations of Mr Cave (see Annexures 3 and 4) in three
respects, he had used a residual method, the values per plot or per acre were
too low and he disregarded the injurious affection to the value of the
claimant’s residual land which Mr Sawyer regarded as a fundamental part of the
claim.
In
cross-examination Mr Sawyer said that the significance of Mr Walden’s evidence
was that it demonstrated that there was another acceptable point of access to
the trunk road which would have enabled the land of the claimant and Cortay Ltd
to have been developed jointly without delay. He accepted that such a
comprehensive approach to the residential development had always been
envisaged. He agreed that the claimant could have promoted Walden scheme A up
to the date of entry had it so chosen and although not tried he believed it
would have secured planning permission.
Mr Sawyer was
emphatic that the prospect of a compulsory purchase order had adversely
affected the value of the claimant’s land and was the real impediment to any
agreement with Cortay Ltd. He agreed that no planning application had been made
to access the claimant’s land through the Cortay site since 1983, that its land
had not been on the market since 1983 and that he had not explored the prospect
of access being arranged save to inspect highway agreements between Cortay and
the county council to confirm that estate roads are not to be built and adopted
up to the eastern boundary of the
road access to the boundary.
In response to
my question, Mr Sawyer accepted that upon the statutory hypothesis for the
assessment of compensation Cortay Ltd were among the possible bidders for the
reference land and in the real world for all of the claimant’s land.
Mr Cave, who
had been in the employ of Powys County Council for some 18 years, 15 of which
as county land agent and valuer, and is now a consultant to the authority, said
his approach to the valuation of the land taken from the claimant was on the
basis that Cortay Ltd and the claimant were dependent upon each other for
access for the residential development of their respective ownerships: Cortay
Ltd 8.80 acres and the claimant 2.79 acres. Put simply if the county council
had not promoted the loop road Cortay Ltd would have needed to in order to
develop its 8.80 acres. The claimant could not have developed its southern
section until the C1336 junction was closed and that required the loop road. In
his opinion, the claimant never had any prospect in 1983 or at any other time,
of developing its northern section other than through Cortay land or directly
off the loop road. The realistic approach to valuation was therefore on the
basis of ‘cross ransom’.
The relevant
area of the Cortay land was 8.8 acres and not the 9.37 acres used by Mr
Jackson, because 0.637 acres had been acquired for the school extension prior
to May 1983. He agreed Mr Jackson’s current use or agricultural value of £1,500
per acre in 1983.
The essential
first step in his approach was the market value in 1983 of the two ownerships,
then to deduct the current use value to arrive at the development value of each
parcel. He deferred this value for one year to allow for the construction of
the loop road and like Mr Sawyer he attributed one-third of these values to the
‘ransom element’ and found that the net sum of £30,050 was due to the claimant:
see Annexure 3.
Mr Cave’s
opinion of market value in 1983 was £18,000 per acre, which analyses to £3,046
per Cortay plot and £2,511 per claimant’s plot. (Mr Jackson £4,098 and £3,745
in Walden scheme B, respectively.) In support of the per acre value, and by inference
the plot values, Mr Cave referred to a May 1981 disposal of 8.38 acres in
Llandrindod Wells by the county council to the Land Authority for Wales at
about £12,000 per acre subject to a restriction as to density (some 44 units)
and the availability of six of the plots for development by individuals. These
restrictions were removed in 1987 and an extra consideration of £5,250 per acre
was paid, say total £17,250 per acre or £2,618 per plot. Mr Cave also referred
to the reputed sale in October 1983 as a single transaction of four larger
plots (each 0.41 acres) with frontage to an established public highway in the
village of Llanyre at £4,500 each, also alleged to have been resold soon after
as individual plots at £5,000 each; he analysed the October 1983 sale at about
£11,000 per acre. In April 1992 Mr Cave had approached the agents who had
represented Cortay Ltd since the late 1970s and they informed him that the
company had received offers, not proceeded with, in 1984 and 1987 for its then
52 plots (8.8 acres) at about £3,000 each. This was regarded by them on behalf
of Cortay as an acceptable price between 1982–1987. By a skeleton residual
valuation (see Annexure 4); adopting information from a variety of sources and
making broad assumptions, Mr Cave sought to check the reliability of a plot
price of about £3,000; the answer was £2,990.
Mr Cave,
unlike Mr Jackson, did not consider that there was much demand for building
plots in the Llandrindod Wells area in 1983 and he did not accept that a
premium value attached to ‘self-build’ plots, namely plots available to
individuals who are building to their own designs. He regarded the plot prices
adopted by Mr Jackson as too high and as displaying an over-optimistic view of
the market in mid-1983; a slack demand suggested low prices.
In
cross-examination Mr Cave accepted that if the claimant could have developed
its land independently of Cortay, any ransom for access would have been
entirely one way in its favour as it was obvious that Cortay was dependent upon
the claimant; a fact the company was very well aware of in the early 1980s.
He accepted
that once the compulsory purchase order had been made any control that the
claimant might have had over the provision and timetable of the loop road and
junction closure passed nominally to the county council, but in effect to
Cortay and that this introduced an element of doubt and uncertainty for the
claimant. He acknowledged that the development of its southern section had been
delayed and that the northern section could not be accessed, at least in the
mid-1980s, direct from the loop road. He did not consider that loss from delay
in the development of the claimant’s retained land was compensatable because he
had valued in the no-scheme world. The delay which has taken place was
acknowledged as ‘a substantial burden not reflected in his valuation’, but he
regarded the appreciation of its extent by Mr Sawyer as heightened by
hindsight. It was his opinion that the northern section of the claimant’s land
can now be accessed without trespassing upon Cortay land to the effect that
there is no loss.
Mr Cave freely
acknowledged that there was a dearth of comparable transactions which he
attributed to a lack of market activity consequent upon low demand, because if
there is demand landowners will usually provide sites. He accepted that letters
in 1992 to himself and Mr Jackson from the agents of Cortay gave conflicting
information, that to Mr Jackson related to events some years after 1983 in
respect of individual plots whereas that to him was in relation to the
attempted disposal of the 8.8 acres, a wholesale disposal, in about 1983; the
latter being closer to the required valuation assumption.
Mr Cave agreed
that residual valuations can be unreliable but he said it was only intended as
a check and not his primary valuation. He conceded that the disposal to the
land authority for Wales by the county council was not an entirely open market
transaction and that it had attached complications, but he had agreed the
values with the district valuer responsible for the area. He saw no reason to
attribute a higher value per acre to the Cortay land than that of the claimant.
In answer to my questions he said that he accepted that the reference involved
a partial taking of the claimant’s land and that his evidence upon the site at
Llanyre was hearsay.
Findings
on the evidence
1. To develop
both ownerships, a joint scheme and programme of development was necessary; had
the acquiring authority not intervened this was likely to have been in place by
mid-1983.
2. There was
no certainty of the claimant being able to develop its land independently (see
findings on highway evidence) and therefore of any ransom being wholly in its
favour.
3. The most
favourable position available to the prospective purchaser of the claimant’s
interest was the cross-ransom approach of Mr Cave, but its application should
be limited to the northern section only.
4. It was to
be anticipated in any such arrangement that provision would be made, not only
for the whole development to proceed without delay beyond the one year allowed
by Mr Cave to construct the loop road and close the C1336 junction, but that
each party would be able to progressively develop its land without interruption
from the other; say almost immediate access to the claimant’s southern section
for site works with occupation of bungalows possible after one year and highway
access via Cortay land from the loop road or an estate road into the claimant’s
northern section within perhaps two years.
5. The intervention
of the county council made any such practical arrangement, after entry,
impossible. Because, on the evidence in documents, the loop road had no
particular priority for the county council, it was primarily for the benefit of
Cortay and the county council were short of finance; ‘doubt and uncertainty’
entered. The initiative came to rest solely with Cortay to the detriment of the
claimant.
6. Viewing the
matter post entry in May 1983 any prospective purchaser of the claimant’s
interest would prudently have expected some delay, but not necessarily into
1987 for the completion of the
junction by the county council.
7. The
unsupported opinions of Mr Jackson as to plot values are too high as a starting
point for valuation and his valuations excessive despite the deferments
adopted.
8. Both of the
land ownerships comprise many plots. Value is best approached by evidence of
the disposal of ‘bulk sites’ rather than that of single or small numbers of
plots.
9. The two
Almond Avenue plots in 1980 and the plot prices realised by Cortay well after
1983 referred to by Mr Jackson and the four-roaded plots at Llanyre spoken to
by Mr Cave are of little assistance.
10. Despite
its complications the sale by the county council to the land authority for
Wales when taken overall to about £17,250 per acre is a better guide to the
value of the Cortay land because it is a similar sized parcel. The letter from
Cortay’s agents to Mr Cave also approached the total site when expressing the
value expectations of that company from 1982–1987.
11. These
support Mr Cave’s £18,000 per acre and automatically have regard to the
deferment required to reflect the size of parcel against perceived demand.
12. On the basis
of size less deferment would be appropriate for the claimant’s land, but it was
accepted as having an inferior location close to the trunk road; these factors
are likely to be self-cancelling.
13. Mr Cave
was incorrect to disregard injurious affection to the value of the residual
land of the claimant consequent upon the delay which a well-informed
prospective purchaser might reasonably have anticipated from May 1983.
14. The
computations by Mr Sawyer are excessive, inter alia, because they
have regard to actual circumstances informed by hindsight and not to what might
have been anticipated.
15. Mr Cave’s
assertion that the claimant can access its northern land without trespass on to
Cortay land is likely to be incorrect and in any event, on the highway evidence,
was not an option to be regarded as available in May 1983; it only emerged as a
possibility using lower design standards in mid-1992.
16. The value
of the 0.19 acres actually taken is reflected in the ransom payment available
and only a nominal sum, say £5, should therefore be ascribed to it.
17. In
considering the extent of injurious affection to the southern section of the
claimant’s land it would be realistic to attribute a higher per acre or plot
value as it is separated from the main area of housing with access only to
C1336 and it would have been suitable for sale to a small house-builder, five
plots at £4,000 per plot giving a value of £20,000 would be appropriate.
Submissions
of counsel
Some of the
submissions made by Mr Cooke in response concerned matters which had emerged as
common ground and others have already been accepted wholly or partly, by
inference, in the findings made upon the evidence. In the cause of brevity
these submissions are not recorded here, what follows are submissions which are
contrary to the conclusions so far reached.
Mr Cooke
contended that once the compulsory purchase order was confirmed residential
development upon the claimant’s land became more immediate in time, this would
be the perception of a hypothetical purchaser. He further urged that without
the intervention of the acquiring authority the claimant’s land would never
have been developed due to the past attitude adopted by the actual owners,
Cortay and the claimant.
The first
submission is contrary to the documentary evidence that the acquiring authority
were luke-warm towards securing the highway improvement and were also short of
finance. The second disregards the required concern with the hypothetical
purchaser, his attitude and perception, rather than the past stance of the
claimant.
Mr Cooke, as a
principal submission, said that the only effect of the compulsory purchase
order upon the claimant was a loss of ability to ransom Cortay Ltd, which was
acknowledged in Mr Cave’s valuation and that was the end of the matter. This
submission is rejected as not fully recognising all the consequences of
acquisition measured by diminution in value inherent in the basis of claim
formulated by Mr Sawyer (cited earlier), and accepted at the outset by Mr Cooke
as the correct statutory approach.
He urged that
Mr Jackson’s approach to value and by implication Mr Sawyer’s valuation should
be disregarded because the starting point was the value of the land free of
constraints as to development, planning permissions had been assumed to be
readily available by Mr Jackson. He contended that because the claimant’s land
had not been developed by 1983 that of itself was powerful evidence that
development was constrained, no planning permission had been sought, nor was in
existence and there was no documentary evidence that the claimant would or
could proceed without Cortay Ltd. For these reasons he asked that Mr Cave’s
figure of £30,335 be awarded.
Like Mr Cooke,
Mr Alesbury in closing covered ground which was not contentious and again only
submissions upon matters in issue are set out below. Mr Alesbury’s initial
submission was that the claim is essentially for injurious affection to the
value of retained land and that Mr Sawyer and Mr Cave were correct in principle
in having regard to the total land holding of the claimant when considering the
before and after situations, the scheme and the no-scheme worlds.
He urged that,
as owner of the frontage land to the trunk road, the claimant was always in a
strong position relative to Cortay because the changed position of the Welsh
Office in the 1970s had rendered the total ownership of Cortay land-locked. He
said that the claimant’s attitude was not intransigent in the late 1970s, it
was in the market to effect a deal, but Cortay lost interest when the acquiring
authority came to the rescue with a very advantageous solution to its access
problems. Cortay needed to get to the trunk road and the claimant regarded
one-third of development value as a reasonable basis.
He contended
that the claimant could have avoided any cross or reverse ransom by adopting
Walden scheme B as a first phase of an overall development; it was a
common-sense approach, which was never tested with the Welsh Office and the
planning authority. Even if it was not a guaranteed solution it was a good
bargaining position against any demand for ransom from Cortay; enough to secure
a one-way payment to the claimant and if not wholly successful any ransom
payment to Cortay would have been less than one-third of the development value
of the claimant’s land.
Mr Alesbury
said that while the acquiring authority accepts that the ransom benefit
residing in the claimant had evaporated following their actions they deny the
dire effects upon the value of the retained land. Delay and uncertainty entered
once the claimant became dependent upon the whim and will of others, Cortay and
the county council. Significant delay was foreseeable and because of this predictability
hindsight can be adopted to precisely quantify it, this is legitimate following
the Bwllfa principle, and was the approach adopted by Mr Sawyer.
In terms of
the northern section of the claimant’s land the mutual dependency and the
incentive to negotiate in Cortay was removed thus rendering the land sterile
without acquiring an access from Cortay in circumstances where the claimant is
bereft of any bargaining power. Even the suggestion, revealed by Mr Hobbs in
1993, of direct access off the adopted loop road would require some rights over
Cortay land. He said the suggestion by Mr Hobbs that design standards could be
significantly relaxed to reduce trespass on to Cortay land was preposterous for
a new road in a virgin situation, yet to be built in mid-1983. Until 1993 the
only access to the northern land promoted by the acquiring authority had been
from the east over Cortay land.
Mr Alesbury
submitted that as Mr Sawyer’s approach to injurious affection was largely
unchallenged in cross-examination it should be accepted. While none of the
valuation evidence was of good quality the opinion evidence of Mr Jackson
should be preferred as he was actively involved in the market in 1983. Finally,
he urged that the approach of Mr Cave was wrong because he had completely
ignored injurious affection to the value of retained land.
Inspection
By invitation
of the parties I made an unaccompanied inspection, after the conclusion of the
evidence, but before the hearing was closed, of the reference land, its general
surroundings and the comparables cited.
Decision
I have already
found that the value to be attributed to the 0.19 acres taken should be a
nominal £5 and that the value of the ability in the claimant to ransom Cortay
Ltd should be based upon the principle of cross-ransom put forward by Mr Cave,
save that it should apply only to the northern section of the claimant’s land.
Adopting the Stokes v Cambridge principle it is common ground
that the relevant fraction of development value to be applied is one-third. I
further found that the market value to be applied in 1983 for the ransom
calculation is £18,000 per acre in respect of both ownerships and that the
appropriate market value in 1983 for the southern section of the claimant’s
land was £20,000.
I reject the
submission of Mr Cooke that entitlement ceases at land taken and loss of ransom
ability or opportunity and accept the position of Mr Alesbury that the claimant
is entitled to have made good by way of compensation any injurious affection to
the value of retained land. This is best quantified on the ‘before and after’
approach adopted by Mr Sawyer. His approach is accepted but, not his
calculations as they were dependent upon unproven high values provided by Mr
Jackson and the adoption of deferment periods, wholly and precisely, informed
by hindsight. The statutory provisions require that the mind and perceptions of
the informed hypothetical prospective purchaser be probed and identified as at
the valuation date. In the context of any evidence as to doubt and uncertainty,
manifest or anticipated, at the valuation date it is a contemporary assessment
which is relevant to the issue of delay and the need to apply deferment by the
valuer.
With respect
to making this assessment of the period of deferment I was referred by Mr
Alesbury to the Bwllfa principle (Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam
Collieries [1891] Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co [1903] AC 426 HL,
which was considered by the Court of Appeal, on a case stated from this
tribunal in Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Waterworth (1981)
42 P&CR 289* (not cited in argument)). In that case the principal issue was
whether the member of this tribunal (E C Strathon Esq frics) was, ‘wrong to act upon conjecture as to the date when
planning permission would be granted when the fact was known’. In terms of this
reference the date when the loop road would be constructed, the C1336 junction
closed and when the claimant could expect to secure access to the northern
section of its land for the purpose of residential development; Mr Sawyer spoke
to 1987, 1990 and 10 years from mid-1983, if at all, respectively.
*Editor’s
note: Also reported at (1981) 259 EG 625.
In Bwllfa at
p431 Lord Macnaughten said:
Why should
[the arbitrator] listen to conjecture on a matter which has become an
accomplished fact? Why should he guess when he can calculate? With the light
before him, why should he shut his eyes and grope in the dark?
In Bolton the
Court of Appeal decided that the member was correct in holding as a matter of
law that he was entitled to look at what happened after the date of entry in
order to inform an estimate for the period of deferment. However, the factual
circumstances in a particular case may dictate against adopting the precise
time-scale disclosed by subsequent events. In the instant reference there was
documentary evidence before me that the county council were not particularly
interested in about 1983 in achieving the highway improvement, nor did they
have the finance available to carry out the works. By March 1983 discussions
with Cortay on the basis that the county council may provide 50% of the finance
were ended and Cortay was informed that the county council would pursue the
compulsory purchase order but it was for Cortay to pay for all the works, the
latter had hitherto protested its ability to meet the whole of the cost of
about £25,000. This combination of circumstances clearly suggested some delay
in providing the loop road, in the event about four years, which I judge to
have probably been foreseeable in 1983.
There was no
evidence before me as to who paid for the cost of stopping up the C1336, but
from documents and the evidence of Mr Hobbs it was clear to me that the
initiation and implementation of the required statutory procedures for closure
of the junction rested primarily with the county council as local highway
authority. In fact some three years elapsed after the loop road was built.
There was no evidence whether this long delay was due to a lack of interest
alone by the county council or at the request of Cortay, but a reasonable
expectation would have been soon after the new road was available, perhaps in
1988.
The matter of
access to the northern section of the claimant’s land, Mr Sawyer’s 10 years or,
in the alternative, never, is more problematical. Mr Sawyer’s 10 years is an
artificial period up to 1993 related largely to the progress of this reference
which itself has been delayed due to other associated litigation before this
tribunal and disposed of a short time ago. A period of 10 years is therefore
arbitrary. Moreover, it is entirely unrealistic because it disregards the fact
that, as Mr Cooke submitted, Cortay are to be regarded as a potential purchaser
of the affected land, indeed, in the real or scheme world the most likely.
In respect of
injurious affection it is the scheme world which is of concern, the ‘after’
circumstances, and logic would suggest that Cortay would not be keen to
purchase the affected land until its own development was well advanced, nor
would it wish to let in a competitor until this had been secured. On the rather
inconclusive evidence available Cortay had disposed of between 1988–1992, an
average of 12 plots per year. This suggests a total disposal period one year after
the loop road was available of between four and five years. Mr Jackson’s
estimated disposal rate was 10 per year upon each of Cortay and the claimant’s
land. This background, some clearly known in 1983 and other aspects
ascertainable from actual events after the date of entry, suggests to me that a
reasonable expectation for deferment in 1983 would have been of the order of
five years in respect of both sections of the claimant’s land.
For the
reasons above I decline to slavishly apply the Bwllfa principle, as Mr
Sawyer did, but also because of a submission by Mr Cooke to the effect that
there was no evidence adduced for the claimant that it had sought to progress
the development of its land after 1987. No representations were in evidence
seeking an early closure of the C1336 junction for the benefit of its southern
land, no planning applications for development of its northern land were made
nor evidence of any approaches to Cortay for access in furtherance of
development. On the evidence it would appear that the claimant has been
entirely passive and, in my judgment, that should not be permitted to increase
the deferment period to its advantage and at the cost of the acquiring
authority.
Bringing all
these matters into a calculation at Annexure 5 I arrive at compensation for the
land taken in the sum of £34,740, including loss of ransom ability, and for
injurious affection at £17,310, total £52,050 or say £52,000. This is the
amount of the award to which will be added a surveyor’s fee upon Ryde’s Scale 1991.
This decision
determines the substantive issues raised between the parties and the tribunal’s
award is final. The parties are invited to make such submissions as they are
advised as to the costs of the hearing and a letter accompanies this decision
as to the procedure for submissions in writing. The tribunal will, in due
course, incorporate an order as to costs in an addendum to this
decision. Rights of appeal under section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949
and Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 61 will not accrue until the decision has
been thus completed, ie from the date of the addendum.
Addendum
as to costs
Having sought
and considered representations in writing as to costs from the parties and
opened a sealed offer dated April 5 1994 from the acquiring authority I find
the award is in excess of the sealed offer. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
acquiring authority do pay the costs
such costs to be taxed by the registrar of the Lands Tribunal upon the High
Court standard basis.
|
Annexure 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valuations by W J Jackson Esq fnaea |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. |
Dingleside Land — Walden scheme A |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.82 acres gross (2.22 acres net of highway access) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
road and services |
£100,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
defer for 1.5 years at 10% |
£86,678 |
* |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
(*per tribunal £30,737 per acre) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2. |
Dingleside Land — Walden scheme B |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.82 acres gross (1.90 acres net of highway access) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
and 4 at £3,600 per plot excluding road and services |
£86,400 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
defer for 1.5 years at 10% |
£74,890 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
3. |
Dingleside |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.82 acres gross (1.63 acres net of highway access) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
services |
£77,400 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
defer for 1.3 years at 10% |
£68,380 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
4. |
Dingleside |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
0.75 acres with frontage to Hundred House Lane and |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
permission for 5 bungalows |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5 plots at £5,000 each — |
£25,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
5. |
Cortay |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.37 acres gross (8.25 net of new highway) with |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
consent for 60 dwellings at £6,000 per plot excluding |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
services |
£360,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
defer for 4 years at 10% |
£245,885 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Annexure 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valuations by P T Sawyer Esq frics |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valuation in ‘no-scheme world’ — Walden scheme B |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Area |
Total |
Value |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
acres |
£ |
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. |
Dingleside land |
2.82 |
74,890 |
74,890 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
(per Jackson 2.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2. |
Ransom of Cortay |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Value for development |
9.37 |
245,885 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
(per Jackson 5.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
less current use value |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
at £1,500 per acre |
9.37 |
say |
14,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
development value |
231,885 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
access value at 33.33% |
77,287 |
77,287 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total |
£152,177 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valuation |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Area |
per acre |
Value |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
acres |
£ |
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. |
Land taken |
0.19 |
— |
— |
||||||||||||||||||
|
2. |
Retained land |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Northern section |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Value for development |
1.89 |
30,684 |
* |
57,944 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
(* per Jackson valuation 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
adopting Walden scheme A) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
less current use value |
1.89 |
1,914 |
3,615 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
development value released |
54,329 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
access value at 33.33% |
18,108 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Value without access is |
57,944 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
less |
18,108 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
39,836 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(assume terms for access agreed in 10 years after May |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
£ |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
39,836 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PV £1 in 10 years at 10% |
.39 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
15,359 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Southern section |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Value for development (per Jackson) |
25,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
(assume no development until Hundred House |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lane closed on 30.6.1993) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PV £1 in 7.12 years at 10% |
.51 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
12,679 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total |
28,038 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Diminution in value |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£152,177 minus £28,038 = |
£ |
124,139 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
say |
£ |
124,140 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alternatively |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Access to northern section impossible |
£ |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Value with delayed access |
15,359 |
(as above) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
deduct current use value |
3,615 |
(as above) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
increase in diminution |
11,744 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Add |
124,139 |
(as above) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total |
135,883 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Annexure 3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Valuations by H J Cave Esq frics |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cortay Land |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
£ |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
8.80 acres at £18,000 |
158,400 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
less current use value at £1,500 pa |
13,200 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
145,200 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Defer 1 year at 10% |
.91 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Development value |
132,132 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stokes v Cambridge ransom at one-third |
44,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dingleside land |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.79 acres of £18,000 |
50,220 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
less current use value at £1,500 pa |
4,185 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
46,035 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Defer 1 year at 10% |
.91 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Development value |
41,892 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
ransom 1/3 (as above) |
13,950 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net ransom receipt |
30,050 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Agricultural value of 0.19 acres |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
taken at £1,500 |
285 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total |
30,335 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Annexure 4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Skeleton residual valuation by H J Cave |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Average dwelling sale price |
25,500 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
cost of building |
20,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Balance |
5,500 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
*52 plots at £5,500 |
286,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
cost of roads, 10m per plot at |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£200 per m |
104,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
182,000 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Agents and legal fees |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
say 2% of £25,000 × 52 |
26,520 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land value |
155,480 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
£155,480 divided by 52 = |
£ |
2,990 |
per |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
(*52 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Annexure 5 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Calculation by the tribunal |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. |
Land taken 0.19 acres (nominal sum) |
5 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
2. |
Loss of ransom ability |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Acres |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ownership of claimant, say |
2.80 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
deduct land taken |
0.19 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Residue |
2.61 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Southern section |
0.75 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Northern |
1.86 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ownership of Cortay Ltd |
8.80 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ransom |
£ |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
8.80 acres at £18,000 |
158,400 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Less CUV at £1,500 per acre |
13,200 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
145,200 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Defer for 1 year at 10% |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(to allow for building loop road) |
.91 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Development value in 1983 |
132,132 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Ransom at one-third |
£ |
44,044 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Ransom |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.86 acres at £18,000 (Northern section only) |
33,480 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Less CUV at £1,500 per acre |
2,790 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
30,690 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Defer for 1 year at 10% |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
(to allow for building loop road) |
.91 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Development value in 1983 |
27,928 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Ransom at one-third |
£ |
9,309 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Net |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
£44,044 minus £9,309 |
34,735 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
34,740 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
3. |
Injurious affection |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Before value of claimant’s land — in no-scheme world |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Northern |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.86 acres (as above) |
33,480 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Defer for 1 year at 10% |
.91 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
30,467 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Southern |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
0.75 acres — 5 plots at £4,000 |
20,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Value in 1983 |
£50,467 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
After |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Northern section |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.86 acres (as above) |
33,480 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
.62 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
£20,757 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Southern |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
0.75 acres (as above) |
20,000 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Defer for 5 years at 10% |
.62 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Value in 1983 |
£12,400 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
£20,757 plus £12,400 = After value = |
£ |
33,157 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before value |
50,467 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
After value |
33,157 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Injurious affection |
£17,310 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Summary |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. |
Land taken |
5 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
2. |
Net ransom receipt |
34,735 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
3. |
Injurious affection |
17,310 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Total |
£ |
52,050 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
But say |
£ |
52,000 |
||||||||||||||||||