[2002] EWLands ACQ_194_2000 (22 February 2002)	

ACQ/194/2000

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
	
COMPENSATION – Compulsory purchase – shop with flats over in derelict condition – unknown owner – comparable transactions – value – compensation £35,000  

	
IN THE MATTER of a NOTICE OF REFERENCE

	BY

	SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL	

	Re: 59 Onslow Road, Southampton, Hants
(Owner unknown)

	Tribunal Member: P R Francis FRICS

	Sitting at: 17 Carlton Crescent, Southampton, SO15 2XR
	
on
    
 20 February 2002

Philip Glen of Counsel, instructed by City of Southampton Legal Services, for the acquiring authority 

DECISION

1.	This is a decision to determine the amount of compensation to be paid into court by Southampton City Council (“the acquiring authority”) in respect of the compulsory acquisition of the freehold interest in 59 Onslow Road, Bevois Valley, Southampton, (“the subject property”) under the City of Southampton (59 Onslow Road) Compulsory Purchase Order 2000 (“the CPO”), where the owner is unknown.
2.	 At the hearing, Mr. Glen outlined the background to the acquisition and called Mr. Matthew Samuel-Camps MRICS, a partner in Vail Williams, Property Consultants of Southampton, who gave valuation evidence, Mr. Dermot Rayner of Southampton City Council Legal Services Department who verified the actions that the acquiring authority had taken to trace the owner, and Mr. Anthony Parkin, a Principal Building Control Officer with the acquiring authority who had inspected the subject property and reported on its condition.
3.	From the evidence, I find the following facts:
3.1	The subject property which, by the date of the hearing had been demolished, originally comprised a turn of the century end-of-terrace three storey building of brick construction under slated roofs that had consisted of retail premises on the ground floor, with residential accommodation on the two floors above.  At the valuation date the property had been unoccupied for a number of years, had been extensively vandalised and stripped of its fittings, and had been boarded up by the Council.   The site area which, apart from a small yard to the rear, was principally taken up by the structure, extended to 0.023 acre (0.009ha). 
3.2	It fronted Onslow Road which is one of the main arterial routes into Southampton City Centre, was within the district known as the Bevois Valley, one of the poorest socio-economic wards within the City, and the area was the subject of a Single Regeneration Budget (“SRB”) Programme.    
3.3	Following inspections of the subject property in May 2000, and resulting from concerns over the condition of the building, the Council resolved to take action to demolish the building under the provisions of section 79(1)(b) of the Building Act 1984 (Ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites).  A schedule of works required to make the property wind, weathertight and secure was produced and costed at £32,900.   The expenditure of such a sum was uneconomic, particularly as the adjacent properties in the terrace had already been acquired by the Hyde Housing Association and were programmed for demolition.   The Housing Association had obtained planning permission in connection with the SRB scheme for the construction of a SEVA centre to provide cultural, community, residential and catering facilities for local ethnic minorities, and that permission was for a tranche of land that included the subject property. 
3.4	Steps were taken by the acquiring authority to trace the owner including a Land Registry search, enquiries of Companies House, advertising within the appropriate local media and the posting of a notice on the property.  The owner could not be traced, and the CPO which was made on 27 January 2000 was confirmed by the Secretary of State on 15 May 2000.   A General Vesting Declaration was made on 26 July 2000 and, in accordance with the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the property was formally vested in the acquiring authority 28 days later on 24 August 2000 – the valuation date for the purpose of this reference.
3.5	Notice of Reference to this tribunal was dated 20 September 2000 followed by an Application for Substituted Service under rule 56, Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 on 23 October 2000.
4.	Mr. Samuel-Camps is a chartered surveyor and a partner in Vail Williams, a local firm of property consultants.  He had been instructed by the acquiring authority in March 2001 to prepare a valuation of the subject premises at the valuation date, and although by the time he was instructed the property had been demolished, he said he had seen it ‘many times’ over the previous months and years, as he had advised the Council in connection with the sales to Hyde Housing Association of the adjacent properties - similar shops with flats over at 53, 55 and 57 Onslow Road.   He had also seen 41-51 Onslow Road, which was also acquired in connection with the proposed redevelopment.    That had been a commercial unit occupied by Vanguard Fixings, and although not acting for the Council on those premises, he had valued them for bank purposes some 4 years earlier.  
5.	The subject property, Mr. Samuel-Camps recalled, had been in a deplorable and dangerous state.  The fact that virtually the whole of the roof covering had been removed some years previously meant that the property had been exposed to the elements with the resultant extensive damage to the fabric.   It was not capable of redevelopment in isolation as it did not meet current planning standards for amenity and parking provision.
6.	In determining a value, Mr. Samuel-Camps had had particular regard to the prices paid for 53 – 57 Onslow Road by Hyde Housing Association.   Those purchases had been at arms length, with the owners represented by local agents Primmer-Olds.  The purchaser’s solicitors had produced written confirmation of the prices paid as:
53 Onslow Road		£55,000	Completion: 	25 March 1999
55 Onslow Road		£42,500	        “		30 September 1998
57 Onslow Road		£42,500	        “		30 September 1998
7.	The subject property was in very substantially worse condition than the others he had referred to, those having been in basic but functional condition, and inhabited up to the dates of purchase.   In his professional opinion, taking the prices paid and dates of sale of the other properties into account, the value of the subject property in good overall condition at the valuation date would have been in the region of £60,000.   Mr. Samuel-Camps then considered the Council’s estimate of costs (at £32,900), and reduced this to £24,000 to reflect items that a prospective purchaser might not deem essential, or to affect the value.   From the resulting £36,000 he deducted £1,000 for costs to leave a figure of £35,000.
8.	Mr. Parkin is a Principal Building Control Officer with the acquiring authority, had inspected the subject property on a number of occasions and, with colleagues, had been responsible for preparing an assessment of the state of the premises and an estimate of the costs of making it wind, watertight and vagrant-proof in accordance with the provisions of the Building Act 1984.   In his view, the building was in such a ruinous and dilapidated state of repair that it was seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood.  There was also a risk that it would harbour vermin.  He produced a copy of the assessment together with a series of photographs that had been taken at the time of the inspections.
9.	He accepted that the costs he had estimated were only those required to conform with the Act and did not include any allowance for the provision of the basic amenities needed for human habitation such as rewiring, plumbing and provision of cooking and bathing facilities.
10.	Mr. Rayner is an officer with the Legal Services Department of the acquiring authority and produced copies of the advertisements that had been placed in the Southampton Advertiser on three occasions, together with copies of the other relevant documentary evidence to prove that the Council had complied with all the statutory requirements for tracing an unknown owner.     He confirmed that nobody had come forward to claim title to the subject property.
DECISION
11.	I am satisfied from the evidence that the acquiring authority has taken all reasonable steps to trace the owner, but without success.   The is no doubt in my mind that the property was in an appalling state of repair at the valuation date and I accept Mr. Samuel-Camps’s evidence that there were no realistic development opportunities, other than in connection with the wider scheme that was eventually undertaken.  
12.	Based upon the prices paid for the adjacent properties, I accept that a figure of £60,000 would have been appropriate if the subject property had been in basically habitable condition.  Bearing in mind that the acquiring authority’s estimate of costs for making the building wind and watertight and secure did not include any provision making it habitable, I conclude that, if offered to the open market, it would not, by itself, have been worth quite as much as the £35,000 that Mr. Samuel-Camps has suggested.
13.	However, as part of a wider development project it would, and indeed did, attract a premium, and on the basis of the prices that Hyde Housing Association paid for 53, 55 and 57 Onslow Road, I conclude that £35,000 did therefore represent the true open market value of the freehold interest in the subject property at 24 August 2000.
14.	The amount of compensation payable for the freehold interest in 59 Onslow Road, Southampton is thus determined at £35,000.
15.	I make no order for costs.

DATED:  22 February 2002

(Signed)				P R Francis FRICS