[2000] EWLands ACQ_92_2000 (24 October 2000)
	ACQ/92/2000
	
	LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
	
COMPENSATION –Acquisition under s.8 Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 – value at Date of Entry – compensation awarded: £375,000. 

IN THE MATTER of a NOTICE OF REFERENCE 

BETWEEN	JANET LEPLEY	Claimant

	and

	ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL	Acquiring
	Authority

	Re: Lacey’s Farm, Old Barn Lane, 
	Rettendon Common, Essex

	Before: P R Francis FRICS

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

	on

6 October 2000

Brian Leech of counsel, instructed by Wortley Byers, Solicitors of Brentwood, for the claimant.
Eian Caws of counsel, instructed by Knights, solicitors of Tunbridge Wells, for the respondent authority.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2000

DECISION

Introduction.
1.	This is a reference to determine the compensation payable to Miss Janet Lepley (“the claimant”) in respect of the acquisition of Lacey’s Farm, Old Barn Lane, Rettendon Common, Essex, CM2 8HA (“the subject property”) by Essex County Council (“the acquiring authority”).   The acquisition was connection with The Essex County Council (Great Dunmow to Canvey Island Road A130) (A130 Bypass A12 – A132) Compulsory Purchase Order 1991 (“the CPO”). 
2.	Brian Leech of counsel appeared for the claimant and called Stephen William Hinton BSc ARICS, a Chartered Surveyor in practice on his own account in Cleobury Mortimer, Worcs, who gave valuation evidence, and the claimant, who gave evidence of fact.   
3.	Eian Caws of counsel called Paul Michael Atherton ARICS, a partner of Cluttons, Chartered Surveyors and Property Consultants of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, who gave valuation evidence.
Background.
4.	The parties had not prepared a formal statement of agreed facts and issues, but, at the hearing, produced a short statement which stated:
 ‘SCHEDULE OF AGREED FACTS AND FACTS IN DISPUTE’   
The parties are in agreement as to details of the scheme, dates of notices, description of property, method of valuation and most pertinent facts.
The areas of dispute are as follows:
1.	The value of the property at the date of entry.
2.	The claimant contends that the settlements agreed with W S Atkins acting for the County Council [on two properties] in Old Barn Lane are relevant comparables.   Cluttons, acting for the County Council, claim these comparables are not relevant as they were not open market transactions and that, in any event, the settlement figures agreed with the Council’s previous surveyors were over-generous.
3.	The claimant contends that a Home Loss Payment is applicable in this instance, whereas the surveyors acting for the County Council contend that it is not.
4.	The amount of interest to be paid by the County Council from the Date of Entry to the eventual date of completion of the sale.
Items 3 and 4 were agreed prior to the hearing.  The only substantive issue for my determination  therefore is the value of the property as at the Date of Entry (item 1).   The admissibility or relevance of the agreed settlements I deal with in the text of my decision.  
5.	From this statement, the experts’ reports, evidence at the hearing, and my inspection of the subject property and comparables which was undertaken on 9 October 2000 in the company of Messrs. Hinton and Atherton, I find the following facts: 
5.1	The subject property comprises a detached Essex cottage of timber frame construction with painted weatherboard cladding to ground floor elevations, tile hanging to the first floor and pitched clay tile roofs.   It is believed to date from the 17th or 18th century    and is listed Grade II.    The cottage has a driveway off Old Barn Lane, and is surrounded on three sides by an area of well tended, formal gardens.   The accommodation briefly comprises, on the ground floor: entrance lobby, fitted kitchen with tiled worktops and range of built in cupboards, ceramic tiled floor; rear lobby with w.c; dining hall with inglenook fireplace incorporating solid fuel stove, exposed beams, polished brick-tiled floor; living room, double aspect with inglenook and exposed beams.   On the first floor is a landing,  two bedrooms  and a bathroom, one of the bedrooms having access only through the bathroom.   There is, at second floor, and approached over a steep staircase, an attic currently used as a bedroom, but with limited headroom (5’6”).   The room contains the cold water storage tank and has access to a second loft space.    There is oil-fired central heating together with mains electricity and water.  Drainage is to a septic tank.
5.2	To the west of the dwelling is a stable yard with further access off Tileworks Lane together with a range of mainly weatherboard clad buildings including a workshop/store; tack rooms and stores, one including the oil storage tank and central heating boiler; two detached buildings, each containing three loose boxes; brick, timber and corrugated iron roofed barn with adjacent feed store.    There is a small fenced paddock adjacent to the stable yard, of about one quarter of an acre, the whole area of the house, buildings, gardens and paddock extending to approximately 1 acre.  
5.3	On the east-side of Old Barn Lane was a fenced field extending to about 11 acres.   This field, at the date of valuation, was accessed from the lane, virtually opposite the cottage and yard, but has now been severed by the new road.
5.4	Approximately 220 metres from the westernmost boundary of the paddock adjoining the stable yard, along Tileworks Lane is the entrance to the Morland Industry Area that comprises a vehicle salvage operation, a company that restores classic cars, a pallet manufacturer and a used tyre storage yard.
5.5	The subject property occupies a rural location in the settlement of Rettendon Great Common about 1 mile from the village of Rettendon, and is a Registered Smallholding.   There is no agricultural occupancy restriction.   It is in a Nature Conservation Zone, and within the Metropolitan Green Belt.   
5.6	The CPO was published in November 1991 and confirmed by the Secretary of State in February 1995.   In respect of the subject property, it described the land to be taken as:
13,000 sq.m.  Pasture land to the east of Old Barn Lane to the east and south-east of Lacey’s Farm.  (Part O.S. 0037)(J). 
5.7	The claimant served a Blight Notice under s.150(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act in September 1995 and the acquiring authority accepted this.   As funding for the scheme had not been agreed, there was still some uncertainty as to whether or not it would proceed, and the claimant had not found alternative accommodation that suited her needs, negotiations were not actively pursued.
5.8	Notice to Treat was served on the claimant on 12 February 1998, following which a Notice of Claim was made to the acquiring authority, in the sum of £475,000 plus disturbance.   A claim was subsequently made under s.8 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, and this was accepted by the acquiring authority.
5.9	The Date of Entry is agreed as 11 November 1999 and this is also agreed as the valuation date.
5.10	Cluttons replaced the agents formerly instructed to negotiate on behalf of the acquiring authority in October 1990 and the experts have agreed the facts relating to the comparable sales, apart from Broadmore, Madles Lane, Stock and the price achieved for Giffords Farmhouse, Rettendon which I deal with below.   The two negotiated settlements relied upon by Mr Hinton were not accepted as valid evidence by Mr Atherton. 
5.11	Failure to agree the issues set out in par 4 above resulted in a Notice of Reference to this Tribunal dated 28 January 2000.
Claimant’s Case.
6.	Miss Lepley produced a statement setting out the factual background to her occupation of the subject property.  She said she acquired the freehold in 1985 for £100,000 as it was an ideal property for her to continue her occupation of breeding competition horses.  About £15,000 had been spent by her modernising the kitchen and bathroom, installing a damp proof course and general redecoration.   In response to the suggestion by the acquiring authority’s expert in his report that the property would suffer from the nearby scrapyard and industrial area, Miss Lepley said that there was no disturbance from it, not much commercial traffic used the lane, and the yard did not interfere with the exceptional views that her property enjoyed.    
7.	She said there was a small number of detached properties that were even closer to the industrial area, and to her knowledge the owners of them, who were all good neighbours, were not bothered either.   The houses did not tend to change hands very often, which indicated the yard was not a problem.     
8.	Miss Lepley said that following the announcement of the road scheme, she had been trying to find a suitable alternative property but despite registering at all the local estate agents, nothing in the area offered a similar combination of accommodation, buildings and land.  None of the properties that had become available would be suitable for the continuation of her hobby.   As to Little Crooks Farm, one of the comparables relied upon by the experts, Miss Lepley said that far from being suitable, it was extremely dilapidated, fronted a bend on a busy main road and was disturbed by noise from a nearby public house.
9.	In cross-examination, Miss Lepley said she was unaware of exactly what businesses were carried on at the nearby industrial area, apart from the fact that there was a company that restored classic cars.  She had not noticed burning of tyres which it was alleged was a regular occurrence, but had noticed a major fire, that had been reported in the local press, where a large number of cars were destroyed.   She accepted that the lane onto which her cottage faced was the main access to the scrapyard, and that she did see commercial vehicles and lorries with damaged cars on them passing the property, but tended not to hear them.
10.	Mr. Hinton is a chartered surveyor who specialises in compulsory purchase and compensation matters and has acted for the claimant since August 1994, along with other local property owners affected by the scheme.   He outlined the background to the claim (the majority of the details having been agreed with the acquiring authority, and are summarised in para. 5 above).   The subject property would be accurately described as a residential dwelling with agricultural use, and the Registered Smallholding status, he said, referred to a flock of sheep which the claimant owned – it being a fact that sheep and horses go well together.
11.	In his main and supplementary reports, Mr. Hinton had used 6 comparables to support his valuation for the subject property, as at November 1999, of  £450,000.  Two of these, Old Barn Bungalow and Blair Court Farm, both in Old Barn Lane, in the section beyond the part that was now severed by the new road, were settlements agreed with the acquiring authority’s former surveyors, W.S.Atkins, in connection with the scheme.    
12.	Old Barn Bungalow, Old Barn Lane, Rettendon Common is a detached modern brick and tiled chalet style bungalow less than a quarter of a mile from the subject property and occupying grounds extending to 2.76 acres.   It was thought to have been constructed in about 1990, being a complete rebuild of a former agricultural cottage and contains hall, large double aspect living room, kitchen with adjacent utility room, and bathroom at ground floor and three bedrooms on the first floor, these suffering from restricted headroom due to their being constructed within the eaves.   The grounds are mainly bare grassland, with a drive, parking and a detached single garage.  Oil fired central heating is installed, but the property is built to a very basic standard, and needs some finishing off.   Compensation was agreed in the sum of £330,000 on 10 November 1999, exclusive of home loss payment and disturbance.    Mr. Hinton said this property had been used in his evidence because of its close proximity to the subject property, but he considered it vastly inferior, having virtually no outbuildings and very little land.
13.	Blair Court Farm, Old Barn Lane, Rettendon Common is just a few hundred yards further along Old Barn Lane, and whilst not being strictly comparable in terms of size and accommodation, is a useful indicator of the value that could be attributed to properties with equestrian use.   It comprises a large, modern detached house and a substantial range of modern agricultural buildings, including approximately 20 loose boxes and about 6 acres of land.   The property is subject to an agricultural tie, and at the time of the settlement had permission for use a veterinary centre.   The price negotiated with the acquiring authority was £710,000, again exclusive of home loss and disturbance payments.  
14.	Little Cooks Farm, Lower Burnham Road, Cold Norton is about 8 miles from the subject property and comprises a detached double fronted cottage with rendered elevations under slated roofs, believed to have been constructed in the mid eighteenth century and generally modernised in the 1930’s.   It has a hall, lounge, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, rear hall and utility room at ground floor, and 4 bedrooms (no.4 accessed off bedroom 2) at first floor.    There is an extensive range of farm buildings including open fronted barns, stables, tack room, dry stores and sheds, and the land extends to about 10 acres.   The property fronts the B1010 east of South Woodham Ferrers, and Mr. Hinton said whilst it is accepted the house needs substantial modernisation, he had initially considered it to be the most directly comparable to the subject property although is substantially inferior in terms of condition, character and location.   At the time of preparing his original report the property had been sold subject to contract at £340,000 but this subsequently fell through.   At the date of the hearing, the vendors agents had confirmed that a further sale had been agreed (but contracts were not exchanged) at £295,000. 	
15.	Broadmore, Madles Lane, Stock is a character cottage, constructed in the 15th/16th century of timber frame with rendered elevations under thatched roofs and is listed Grade II.   It is located in a semi-rural position fronting a narrow lane about 1 mile from the village centre, has two reception rooms, study, kitchen and bathroom at ground floor, and two bedrooms with restricted height at first floor.   The property is in need of substantial modernisation and stands in partly wooded gardens (dissected by a public footpath) of about 1.88 acres and within which there is a garage/workshop, timber shed and open hay store.   It sold in January/February 2000 at a price believed to be £300,000.
16.	Giffords Farmhouse, Warren Road, Rettendon is an attractive and substantial period farmhouse with white painted weatherboard clad elevations under tiled roofs set in formal gardens and with a fenced paddock immediately opposite with loose boxes and tack rooms.  The whole extends to about three acres.   Mr. Hinton said it was superior to the subject property in respect of accommodation but inferior as to character, areas of land and outbuildings, and the location did not have the same “feel” as Lacey’s Farm.   It is, he said, more of a village property, and not really an equestrian unit.   He understood it to have been sold for £437,500 in the winter of 1999.
17.	Brickhouse Farm, Lower Stock Road, West Hanningfield is a 1930’s detached bungalow fronting a village lane about 1 mile from the subject property.   It is in need of complete modernisation, and has gardens and two paddocks totalling 18 acres.  The agricultural restriction was lifted in August 2000, and Mr. Hinton had received confirmation from the agents (who specialise in equestrian properties) that contracts were exchanged for a sale in September 2000 in the sum of £375,000.   He said the fact that the paddocks were let on agricultural licences made virtually no difference to the value.   He said it was vastly inferior to the subject property.    As to adjustments in price to take account of the time between November 1999 and September 2000, he said values had increased by about 12 per cent during the period. 
18.	In respect of the industrial area accessed over the lane past the subject property, Mr. Hinton said that it cannot be seen from the cottage or land, and little if any nuisance was caused.  He said that whilst prospective purchasers would consider the implications, he felt they would conclude it was far enough away not to present a problem.   Finally, he said that he did not agree with Mr. Atherton’s suggestion that the subject property was in poor decorative order, and that the windows are not in need of replacement.
19.	In cross-examination Mr. Hinton accepted that the figure that was in the original claim of £475,000 had been increased in correspondence during the early stages of negotiation to £850,000, then reduced by the time the reference to the Lands Tribunal was made to £600,000, and subsequently further reduced in open correspondence to £500,000.   This had come down to £450,000 in his report prepared for the Tribunal hearing.   He said that the reason his valuation had increased so substantially was because he had formed the view there may have been considerable planning potential in respect of the buildings and that the property would therefore be of interest to developers, but following discussions with the planners had eventually concluded there was not.   There was also the continuing rise in property values to be taken into account.   The final figure of £450,000 was, he said, a compromise following the detailed discussions he had had with Mr. Atherton.
20.	He accepted that the area occupied by the car breakers and other users amounted to about 8 acres, and that there were a very substantial number of vehicles on the site.   He had not seen any bonfires or burning of tyres on the many occasions he had visited the subject property, but agreed that the site was unsightly for those properties that actually overlooked it.   He had not mentioned the proximity of the site in his report as he had concluded it was of no concern.
21.	It was suggested that the outbuildings to the subject property were in poor condition, and needed considerable maintenance, but Mr. Hinton did not agree.  He said they were in acceptable condition for their purpose, and only required routine attention.   The fact that one of the two first floor bedrooms in the cottage could only be accessed through the bathroom he accepted as an inconvenience.   He also conceded that the second floor attic room which he had described as suitable for a child’s bedroom had, at the time of Mr. Atherton’s inspection, not contained a bed and was used solely for storage purposes.    Mr. Hinton said in response to the suggestion that, for an equestrian property, the accommodation was not suitable for a family, that whilst it was not big enough for a large family, it was sufficient for a small one.   
22.	In respect of the comparables, whilst accepting that two of them were negotiated settlements in connection with the new road scheme and were not strictly, therefore, open market transactions, Mr. Hinton was adamant that the prices would not include an uplift to reflect the parties wish to avoid the time and expense of a reference to the Lands Tribunal.   In that regard, he was referred to the letter that the acquiring authority’s former agents, W.S.Atkins had written to him in respect of the negotiations for Old Barn Bungalow in which it was stated:
“Whilst I am of the opinion that £315,000 would be a fair and reasonable acquisition price for the above property, I am prepared to recommend that the County Council accept the compromise figure of £330,000 as at today’s date [11 August 1999].
I must reiterate, however, that this is on the basis that if your clients do not find a replacement property in the near future, and if prices continue to increase, any further proposed increase in value be based upon market evidence at the appropriate time and not upon a percentage increase from this compromise figure”.
Mr. Hinton said that he could not speak for those agents – as far as he was concerned, £330,000 was the settled figure.   He acknowledged that whilst surveyors take a negotiating stance, he did not think an acquiring authority would countenance paying more than the market value.
23.	It was accepted by Mr. Hinton that Blair Court Farm was a very different type of property, and that some of the buildings had been designed specifically for the veterinary use and   Broadmoor was in a more attractive location.  Giffords Farmhouse had virtually double the accommodation of the subject property, was far superior in those terms and could rightly be described as a beautiful house.   In defence of his opinion that Lacey’s Farm was worth more than Giffords, Mr. Hinton said the subject property had more land, was one of the few remaining traditional Essex cottages, can truly be described as an equestrian unit and had enhanced value due to its original condition.  He did not agree that a ‘village’ location was better in valuation terms.
24.	As to the discount Mr. Hinton had applied for the 10 months between the valuation date and the sale of  Brickhouse Farm, he said the Nationwide index for the first quarter of 2000 showed a 4.8 per cent increase, so 12 per cent was not an unreasonable estimate.   Taken back to November 1999, therefore, the comparable value would have been £330,000.   He said that the indices were related purely to residential property, whereas the subject was a property with land and equestrian use.    Brickhouse Farm was not located in such a good neighbourhood, he said, although he accepted there was no car-breakers yard nearby.   The land was no worse than that at the subject property, but was registered for agricultural payments.
25.	The fact that Little Cooks Farm had not sold at £340,000 in the winter of 1999 as he had originally thought, and was now under offer, in late 2000, at the significantly reduced figure of £295,000 had no effect on Mr. Hinton’s opinion of value of the subject property, and he did not accept the suggestion that it should be reduced.   He said that whilst he had originally thought Little Cooks Farm was the best comparable, Brickhouse Farm, which he had subsequently found out about and included in his supplementary report, was now the most appropriate.
26.	It was Mr. Hinton’s view that, in the light of all the evidence, the open market value of the subject property as at November 1999 was £450,000.   He said that land such as paddocks and arable land attached to properties of this type would be worth anything from £3,000 to £10,000 per acre depending upon where it was.  The land physically joined to a dwelling would have the highest value, with outlying or separated blocks being the least.    He had not been aware of the recent sale of 5.5 acres of grazing land adjacent to the paddocks belonging to Lacey’s Farm, to a local farmer at £3,272 per acre as referred to by the acquiring authority.

Acquiring Authority’s Case.
27. 	Mr. Atherton is a chartered surveyor, managing partner of Cluttons in Tunbridge Wells and has a role within that company’s provincial rural division.  He formerly practised in East Anglia with the then Ministry of Agriculture, and throughout the south-east of England since 1987.   He was instructed by the acquiring authority in respect of the subject and other properties in October 1999.   He valued the subject property at £330,000.
28.	Whilst the extent of accommodation, buildings and land had been agreed with the claimant’s surveyor, Mr. Atherton said that in his opinion the subject property was in only fair condition and repairs and redecoration would be beneficial.  The layout of the first floor needed revision because of the inconvenient access to bedroom 2 and the attic could not in any way be described as a bedroom.  It contained, for instance, the cold water tank that was exposed, had poor natural light and very restricted headroom (a point which Mr. Hinton had agreed).   The main barn was in poor condition with evidence of timber decay and the stables are serviceable but require maintenance.
29.	His main concern was the proximity of the scrap yard that, he said, by its very nature would attract significant vehicle movements.  The access road was in poor condition with puddles, and in dry weather would be very dusty.  There was also a danger to children.   On each of the four occasions he had visited the property, tyres were being burnt on the industrial site.   Mr. Atherton said the existence of the commercial activity so close to the property would be a major deterrent to prospective purchasers, as would the fact that it did not offer family size accommodation. 
30.	Mr. Atherton had utilised Giffords Farmhouse and Little Cooks Farm as his original comparables, and added Brickhouse Farm when that information became available.   He did not seek to rely upon the two negotiated settlements as these were not open market transactions, and had not therefore been offered for sale in the market.   He said that Giffords Farmhouse was infinitely superior, exceptionally attractive with much larger accommodation and that it was a desirable property that had all the character that Lacey’s Farm did not.   It was, in his view, in a superior location but he accepted it had less land and buildings.  His information was that the sale had been at £435,000.
31.	Little Cooks Farm had appeal as a character property, but its market would be limited by its proximity to a main road.   It had better buildings and compared well in terms of the amount of land, but it was in need of extensive modernisation.
32.	Brickhouse Farm is in a better location, and has higher quality land (more valuable because it is registered for arable area payments), but again offers dated accommodation that is in need of modernisation.   To allow for the period between the valuation date and the sale of Brickhouse Farm, Mr. Atherton said he had discounted the price at 2 per cent per month to arrive at a comparable figure of £312,000, this being based upon the Nationwide UK Monthly House Price Index for the period March 1999 to April 2000 – those figures averaging out to 2 per cent.   He agreed that the temporary letting of the land on agricultural terms would not affect the vacant possession value.
33.	In cross-examination Mr. Atherton said he was unable to calculate, in percentage terms, how much the ‘scrapyard’ would devalue the subject property, but said if it were not there, the value would be substantially more.   Whilst he accepted the claimant was “not bothered” by its proximity, she had the advantage of knowing it did not cause a problem, whereas a prospective purchaser would not have that knowledge.    He accepted that Lacey’s Farm was an attractive property with appeal beyond pure equestrian use.
34.	As to the comparables, Mr. Atherton said that in his view, the remoteness and main road location of Little Cooks Farm was balanced by the subject property’s close proximity to the scrapyard, and Little Cooks was not, as had been suggested, far inferior.   Giffords Farmhouse was altogether in a different class, and he said he could not see how Mr. Hinton could possibly value the subject property higher.
Closing submissions.
35.	Mr. Caws criticised Mr. Hinton’s ‘adventurous’ valuations and said that, far from ignoring the nearby scrapyard, prospective purchasers were bound to take note if its existence, and even if they were still prepared to proceed, would reflect their concerns in their bid.   He said that Mr. Hinton, in not mentioning it in his report had not opened his eyes to the potential nuisance, and had also been selective in failing to mention the inconvenient layout of the first floor in the subject property. 
36.	Mr. Hinton’s reliance on the negotiated settlements as comparables should, Mr. Caws said, be treated with caution by the Tribunal as contrary to Mr. Hinton’s expressed view, an acquiring authority will always be prepared to compromise on a settlement figure to avoid additional expense.    He also suggested that the discount that Mr. Hinton had allowed on the disparity in dates between Giffords and the subject property was not based upon sufficient information, whereas Mr. Atherton’s 2 per cent per month was related directly to the indices over the relevant period.    He also said there could be no justification in Mr. Hinton not revising the value of the subject property downwards to reflect the most recent information relating to Little Cooks Farm, and the fact it was still not definitely sold.
37.	Mr. Beech explained that the wide range of values quoted by Mr. Hinton should not go against him.  In considering at one stage that there was development potential, he was only doing the best for his client in attempting to justify higher figures.  These had been revised once the potential for development had been discounted, and the final figure that appeared in his report was based upon a full analysis of the comparables, and the extensive discussions and correspondence he had had with Mr. Atherton.
38.	The Tribunal, he said, should bear in mind the fact that there were a number of fine houses closer to the scrapyard than the subject property, and the occupiers appeared happy to stay there.   Lacey’s Farm was far enough away for it to be of no consequence.   In respect of the negotiated settlement on Old Barn Bungalow, and the acquiring authority’s reference to the letter from W.S.Atkins, Mr. Beech said a sealed offer would protect the authority from additional costs and in any event the ‘extra’ £15,000 could well have taken into account the fact that the market was rising.    Finally, in connection with the discount rates applied by both parties to reflect the continuing rise in values (relating to Brickhouse Farm), he said that realistically I had no satisfactory evidence, as the indices related to residential properties.
Decision.
39.	In analysing the evidence upon which to base a decision on the value of the subject premises at the agreed valuation date, there are, in my judgment, a number of key factors to be considered.    Firstly, in respect of the comparables, there is the argument as to how much weight, if any, I should apply to the negotiated settlements on Old Barn Bungalow and Blair Court Farm.  Whilst it must be accepted that neither were open market settlements, and thus the properties were not exposed to the market, and were not actually sold, the assumptions upon which those settlements were based were the same as in this case – open market value.   I accept that there may be some element of negotiation in arriving at a final figure, and, despite what Mr. Beech said, it is realistic to assume that an acquiring authority might be prepared to ‘up the ante’ a little to achieve a settlement by agreement rather than incur the costs (which can be protected to a point) and the time that a reference to, and a hearing before this Tribunal would incur.   Conversely, however, in many instances a claimant might argue that it had accepted a marginally reduced figure to avoid the same risks.   A claimant in particular could be at greater risk as to costs, for the reason cited by Mr. Beech, and the ‘David and Goliath’ factor is not to be ignored.   
40.	In my view, therefore, it is possible that a negotiated settlement could, for the reasons given above, be either more or less than the true open market value although it is likely that margins will be small.   For this reason, and in accordance with this Tribunal’s established approach, whilst I  accept the evidence ‘in the round’, I cannot attach as much weight to that evidence (which is artificial) as I can to open market transactions.   
41.	Secondly, before considering the comparables themselves, there are the particular points relating to the subject property upon which the experts could not agree, and the evidence relating to the ‘scrapyard’.     In my opinion, Lacey’s Farm is an exceptionally pretty country cottage, located in a quiet, rural position far enough away from the present A130 for it not to be affected thereby, but is only 1 mile from the main village of Rettendon.   I would, in the main, agree with Mr. Atherton’s opinion of the condition of the cottage itself as at the valuation date.   The fact that it had been substantially repainted externally immediately prior to my visit did serve to enhance its overall appearance.   As to the interior, I accept his comments regarding the size, and the limiting effect that might have as to the size of family that could occupy it, and the fact that the building is listed could also deter potential buyers who may consider extending it.    There can be no doubt that the layout of the first floor is extremely inconvenient, and the attic cannot be classed, without extensive works, as anything other than just that or, at best, a children’s’ playroom. 
42.	Overall, the cottage has a number of most attractive features, but the limitations as to the accommodation and the need for some repairs, modernisation, re-planning of the first floor and redecoration all restrict the value and marketability to some extent.     The outbuildings could reasonably be described as ‘fair’ and, as Mr. Hinton said, appear to be generally fit for their purpose.    They are well laid out and have good access, and for equestrian uses appear to be ideal.   The close proximity of the fields on the opposite side of the lane, and easy access to them, would, in my judgment, put their value at the upper end of the range quoted by Mr. Hinton, and in the market I would expect their value to be considerably higher, in terms of price per acre, than a remote parcel of land of the type referred to in the evidence that was recently sold for a little over £3,000 per acre.
43.	The scrapyard (as it was referred to by both the experts) is not, I conclude, a true scrapyard in the strictest sense.   The majority of the site appears to be occupied by A1 Salvage who salvage crashed vehicles, which then await dismantling or repair.   The signs at the entrance to the site clearly state that it is a ‘holding yard’ only and that no dismantling is carried on it.   There were certainly no piles of wrecked vehicles, body parts or other scrap and apart from the fact that there was a very large number of vehicles stored on the land, the whole area had a remarkably tidy appearance.    The classic car restorer could not, in my opinion, be considered a ‘nuisance’ type use, but I do accept that the burning of tyres referred to could be obnoxious.
44.	There were a number of cars, and one or two small commercial vehicles using the access lane during the time I was at the property, and I accept Mr. Atherton’s submission that that may be a deterrent.   The yard would appear, again from the sign at the entrance, to be open Monday to Saturday 8am to 5.30pm, and Sundays from 9am to 1pm.   The weekend use, in particular, and the traffic that that generates, might be a deterrent to prospective purchasers of what, in all other respects, would be an exceptionally quiet property that is not overlooked by other properties, and could, in estate agents parlance, be described as a truly rural retreat.
45.	However, whilst there are undoubtedly, to my mind, some detrimental factors relating to the proximity of these uses, I think the acquiring authority have made too much of it in terms of effect on value (although I note that the actual percentage has not been determined by Mr. Atherton).   The yard is not visible from the cottage, or from the buildings or paddock and I heard no evidence suggesting that, apart from the tyre burning referred to (and which might to take place at the furthest part of the site from the subject property), there was any noise or other pollution.    There is no doubt in my mind that some prospective purchasers would be discouraged by the yard.   Nevertheless, the property has a large number of redeeming features that suggest to me that the reduction in bid from someone for whom, in all other respects the property fits their requirements, would be fairly marginal.   Like Mr. Atherton, I can be no more precise, in terms of percentage, than that.
46.	It is an acknowledged fact that the location of a property is, in marketing terms, its most important feature, and apart from the limited effects caused by the nearby uses described above, the location of Lacey’s Farm is in my opinion ideal for the purposes for which the claimant uses it, and for which the claimant’s expert considers is the market into which it falls.
47.	As to the comparables, there can be no doubt that Old Barn Bungalow is a very different style of property, although in location terms, it is almost identical.    That property has basic, modern accommodation which, I feel, would appeal to a different type of purchaser.   It also has very much less land, and no outbuildings other than a garage.   It is not therefore, an ‘equestrian’ property in the same league as the subject property, and in my judgment, whether the open market value was £315,000 or £330,000 at the valuation date, Lacey’s Farm on the strength of this comparable alone, must be worth significantly more.    
48.	Blair Court Farm is, as Mr. Atherton says, a poor comparable and in my opinion, little more can be gleaned from it, in relation to this exercise, than the point Mr. Hinton made about proving demand for equestrian type properties.  
49.	Little Crooks Farm is some considerable distance from the subject property, and is, as  acknowledged by both the experts, very different in many ways.   It is not an attractive building by any stretch of the imagination, and needs extensive modernisation.  It is comparable in terms of buildings (although they are larger) and land (of which there is a little less).   It has the disadvantage, in my view when comparing it with the subject property, of fronting a busy main road and the appearance of the main property would be a considerable deterrent.  However, it was  neither an open market transaction nor a negotiated settlement as the sale at £340,000 referred to by Mr Hinton did not proceed.   At the date of the hearing it was confirmed by the selling agents to be under offer at £295,000 although contracts were not exchanged and I can therefore attach no weight to it in evidence.   
50.	It was suggested to Mr Hinton that the fact that the property did not sell for the price he originally believed, and is now only under offer for substantially less must be reflect upon his assessment of value of Lacey’s Farm.   To say that that had no effect at all, under any circumstances, would in my judgment be wrong, but I understood Mr. Hinton to be suggesting that overall, when considering all of the comparables, the Cooks Farm situation made no difference.   This seems to me to be reasonable, especially bearing in mind that Little Cooks is in a very different location, and apart from the extent of land and buildings has few features that could be favourably compared with the subject property.
51.	Broadmore was relied upon by Mr. Hinton, and was not used by Mr. Atherton.   It is an exceptionally picturesque cottage which, although I was unable to inspect it internally, appears to have accommodation slightly smaller than the subject property, is in need of much more work, and only having 1.88 acres would, I believe, appeal to a completely different kind of purchaser.   Its sale price, which although not formally verified, was not disputed by Mr. Atherton, can be of assistance only in terms of a general appreciation of the tone of market.
52.	Giffords Farmhouse, is, in my opinion, a better comparable in that it would appeal to, and be suitable for those with horses – but even so, with only 3 acres, and a limited range of buildings, cannot be considered a true ‘equestrian’ property in the same terms as Lacey’s Farm.    Whilst I was unable to inspect it internally, I was assisted by Strutt and Parker’s illustrated colour sales particulars.   There can be no doubt that of all the properties used as comparables, it was by far the most attractive, and appeared to be very well maintained with family sized accommodation (agreed to be double the size of Lacey’s Farm).    Its location, whilst not as remote and secluded, was, to my mind equally, if not more attractive than the subject was.    The experts were unable to verify the purchase price precisely, but they were in agreement that it had been sold at around the same time as the valuation date at either £435,000 or £437,500.
53.	The cottage itself is agreed to be far superior, more suitable for a family and in much better condition than the subject property.  It has less in the way of buildings, and considerably less land, which goes some way towards balancing values, but there can be no serious suggestion in my view that Lacey’s Farm could be worth more, or even as much as Giffords Farm.   The latter, whilst also appealing to those with horses, would undoubtedly appeal to a much wider market, and thus its value is likely to be quite considerably more.
54.	Finally, Brickhouse Farm is a recently identified comparable.  The sale price of £375,000 had been confirmed and was agreed.  I agree with Mr. Hinton, that of all the properties used as comparables, this is probably the one that, in terms of market appeal, matches the subject property most closely in that anyone looking for a property to put to exactly the same use as the claimant puts hers, would be likely to consider it.   It does have rather more land, but the buildings are significantly poorer in terms of condition and usefulness for keeping horses.   The bungalow appeared to be run down and in need of extensive modernisation, and the formal gardens were overgrown and untended.   It is located on the edge of the village, occupying a corner position at the junction of Lower Stock Road and Kent Farm Lane, and whilst being rural, it is not in my opinion such an attractive or quiet position.  Therefore, apart from the fact it has more land, in all other respects I consider the subject property to be more appealing and thus, more valuable.
55.	Taking Mr. Hinton’s 12 per cent reduction from the sale price of £375,000 in September 2000, gives a value of  £330,000 at the valuation date, and Mr. Atherton’s 20 per cent makes it £300,000 although he had calculated it at £312,000.   The experts had been unable to agree the appropriate percentage, and despite my request that they obtain the latest Nationwide or Halifax indices (those used for the hearing only including the first four months of 2000) and provide an agreed rate to the Tribunal as soon as possible after the hearing, they have been unable to do so.    I conclude therefore, that at the relevant date, the value of Brickhouse Farm would have been between £300,000 and £330,000. 
56.	Looking therefore at all the comparables ‘in the round’, I have concluded that the subject property must have been worth more than Old Barn Bungalow and Brickhouse Farm.   Little Cooks is not helpful as, at the date of the hearing, a sale had not been contracted.   In any event, there is no doubt in my mind that the subject property by its attractiveness, location, good range of outbuildings and land would have a value significantly more than Little Cooks.   As I have said, Broadmoor is very different and so is Blair Court Farm.   That leaves Giffords Farmhouse and that property must, in my judgment, have a value quite significantly more than Lacey’s Farm, if only for its much wider appeal, and overall size and condition of the accommodation.
57.	Having taken all the evidence into consideration, I am of the opinion that the open market value of the subject property as at 11 November 1999 was £375,000.   I therefore determine that the acquiring authority shall pay the claimant the sum of £375,000 compensation, together with a Home Loss Payment of £15,000 as agreed prior to the hearing.   Disturbance was not a matter for my determination, but for clarity I confirm that this award shall not affect the claimant’s rights in that regard.
58.	The above decision concludes my determination of the substantive issue in this reference.  It will take effect as a decision when the question of costs is decided, and at that point, but not before, the provisions relating to the right of appeal in section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 and Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules will come into operation.   The parties are invited to make submissions as to the costs of this reference and a letter accompanying this decision sets out the procedure for submissions in writing.

		Dated:

		(Signed)	P.R.Francis FRICS