[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Lands Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Unknown v Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_62_1999 (14 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2000/ACQ_62_1999.html Cite as: [2000] EWLands ACQ_62_1999

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[2000] EWLands ACQ_62_1999 (14 March 2000)

ACQ/62/1999

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

COMPULSORY PURCHASE - Compensation –shop and living accommodation in dilapidated and dangerous condition – untraceable owner – comparable transactions - Housing Act 1985 s.17 and Land Compensation Act 1961 Part 1 – compensation £5,000.

IN THE MATTER of a NOTICE OF REFERENCE

BETWEEN Unknown Claimant

and

WOLVERHAMPTON Acquiring

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL Authority

Re: 87 Hawksford Crescent, Lowhill, Wolverhampton.

Before: P.R.Francis FRICS

Sitting at: West Midlands Rent Assessment Committee

Somerset House, 37 Temple Street,

Birmingham

on

29 February 2000

The claimant did not appear and was not represented.

Miss Julia Kettle, solicitor to Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council, instructed by the Head of Legal Services, for the acquiring authority.


 


DECISION

1. This is a decision to determine the amount of compensation to be paid into Court by Wolverhampton Borough Council ("the acquiring authority") in respect of the compulsory acquisition of the freehold interest in 87 Hawksford Crescent, Lowhill, Wolverhampton ("the subject property") under the Wolverhampton (Hawksford Crescent) Compulsory Purchase Order 1995 ("the CPO"), where the owner is unknown.
2. At the hearing, Miss Julia Kettle, solicitor, called Miss Sheila Jane Ashworth ARICS, Estates Surveyor to the acquiring authority, who gave valuation and background evidence in support of the claim, including reference to the steps that had been taken to identify and trace the owner.
3. From the evidence presented at the hearing, I find the following facts:

3.1 The subject property, which had been vacant for many years, comprised a semi-detached shop and living accommodation constructed, probably in the 1930's, of brick under tiled roofs and had a flat-roofed single storey front projection comprising the forward part of the shop and entrance. It was one of four virtually identical units, two on each side of the junction of Hawksford Crescent with Cadle Road.

3.2 It was located in a residential area known as Lowhill, about 1.25 miles from Wolverhampton Town Centre, was overlooked by the nearby Armitage-Shanks factory and occupied a corner plot extending to about 0.03 ha.

3.3 The area was intensely deprived, and along with the rest of Lowhill and the adjacent Bushbury area, was included in the Wolverhampton City Challenge Action Scheme which came into existence in April 1992. The subject property, and the three adjacent shops, No's 81,83 and 85 Hawksford Crescent, were designated for re-use, and conversion to residential accommodation.

3.4 Funds for the acquisition of the subject property (and others within the City Challenge Action Plan) were allocated by the Council's Housing Services Committee in March 1994, and the committee also agreed to make a Compulsory Purchase Order under Part 1, s.17 of the Housing Act 1985 should negotiated purchases not prove possible. The properties, when acquired, were to be transferred to Focus Housing Group for £1 each in exchange for the Council receiving 100 per cent initial nomination rights and 75 per cent of any re-lettings to accommodate tenants from the Council's housing waiting list.

3.5 Terms were agreed with the owners of the other three shops, but due to a mistake having been made by solicitors acting for a Mr. Kuldip Singh (whereabouts unknown), in failing to register a mortgage, the company claiming to be mortgagees in possession of the subject property (Golden Finance Ltd) did not have legal title. Furthermore, the deeds were missing, and thus a negotiated acquisition was impossible.

3.6 By 1995 the subject property had become badly vandalised, and the Housing Services Committee resolved to make the CPO, which was subsequently confirmed by the Secretary of State on 28 July 1998. Notice of confirmation of the Order was first published in accordance with s.15 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 on 12 August 1998. By this time the property had deteriorated to such a degree that complaints were being received about its structural condition. Following advice from demolition contractors, a 'Notice of Intention to carry out emergency measures to deal with a dangerous building or structure' was issued under s.78 of the Building Act 1984, and due to the property being unoccupied, and the whereabouts of the reputed owner being unknown, the notice was fixed to the property on 11 September 1998. No response having been received, it was subsequently demolished on 18 September 1998, and left as a cleared site.

3.7 A General Vesting Declaration was made on 13 October 1998, and the property was vested in the Council on 12 November 1998 (the valuation date). The site was transferred to Focus Housing Group on 24 November 1998, with the benefit of planning permission, together with the site of no. 85 Hawksford Crescent, for a pair of three bedroom semi-detached houses.

4. Miss Ashworth is a chartered surveyor with a diploma in surveying and an honours degree in Town and Country Planning, and has been an Estates Surveyor with the acquiring authority since 1990. She produced a report, dated 14 October 1999 which, with the bundle of appendices, set out the background to the claim, and the steps the acquiring authority had taken to identify and thence trace the owner. She said that the other three more or less identical shops at 81, 83 and 85 Hawksford Crescent had been acquired without the need to resort to compulsory purchase powers, and compensation had been agreed at £10,000 each for 81 and 83 and £12,750 for no.85. These had all been purchased prior to the demolition, but with the subject property she submitted that, with the date of valuation being the date of vesting (12 November 1998), by which time demolition had occurred, site value was applicable.
5. Evidence was produced showing the efforts made to trace the rightful legal owner of the property, including letters to a Mr. Kuldip Singh who was understood to have been the last owner, but whose whereabouts are now unknown, and correspondence with the solicitors acting for the company claiming to be mortgagees in possession. The mortgage company had been found despite the fact that the Land Charges Search had failed to identify the mortgage, due to the solicitor's failure to register it. Title to the property was also unregistered, and the loss of the title deeds meant, Miss Ashworth said, that the company had no legal claim and thus, having made diligent enquiry, the acquiring authority had followed the procedure set down in Sched.2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
6. Miss Ashworth said that following the making of the CPO there had been extreme concern over the condition of the property, and photographs reproduced in her report showed it to have been vandalised to such an extent that it had become, by 1998, a dangerous structure and beyond economic repair. Urgent action was therefore taken for it to be demolished, and she produced further photographs, certified taken on the vesting date of 12 November 1998, depicting a cleared site.
7. The policy of the Council, as set out in the City Challenge Action Plan, was to improve the area in which the subject property was situated, it being seriously deprived and having the highest tenant turnover of anywhere within the Council's area. Miss Ashworth said that planning permission had been obtained by the Focus Housing Association to redevelop the subject property (along with no.85 Hawksford Crescent) for a pair of three bedroom semi-detached houses, and thus her valuation was assessed on the basis of a cleared site with planning permission for residential development.
8. Miss Ashworth produced a number of comparables which, she said, supported her valuation of £5,000 for the subject property. The first, 25-27 Walker Avenue, Bushbury, Wolverhampton, was a site of a pair of semi-detached houses in the adjacent residential area to Lowhill, which had been demolished for redevelopment with a pair of three bedroom semi-detached properties. The value had been agreed at £10,000 for the pair, equating to £5,000 each and the site had been sold to Focus Housing Group on 26 February 1998. Miss Ashworth said that Bushbury was marginally better than the area in which the subject property was situated, but still severely deprived.
9. 254-260 Bushbury Lane, Bushbury, Wolverhampton was a site previously occupied by two pairs of semi-detached houses that had been demolished to make way for two pairs of new three bedroom semi-detached houses. That site had also been acquired by Focus Housing Group on 26 February 1998 at £20,000 which equated to £5,000 per property.
10. 26-28 Hammond Avenue, Bushbury, Wolverhampton. Miss Ashworth said this was another site formerly occupied by a pair of semi-detached houses, demolished for redevelopment with one pair of new three bedroom houses. Again, it had been acquired by Focus in February 1998 at £10,000, representing £5,000 per plot.
11. Miss Ashworth said that land values throughout the City Challenge Area were extremely low as resale values for three bedroom semi-detached properties in Lowhill and Bushbury were no more than £18,000 to £20,000. Developers in the private sector were reluctant to invest due to the deprivation, and the fact that returns would be negligible. The only potential purchasers therefore were Housing Associations where subsidies may be achieved towards development costs.

Decision.

12. I noted that Miss Ashworth's evidence referred to a site area of 0.03 ha (0.07 acre), but the CPO and other documentation relating to the subject property referred to an area of 0.42 ha (1.03 acres). In my view, from the plan accompanying the CPO showing the site, Miss Ashworth's figure appears more accurate, and the site area she mentions is broadly similar to the areas referred to in each of the comparables. Obviously, if the area compulsorily acquired did actually extend to over an acre, the value for redevelopment would be somewhat more than Miss Ashworth's assessment.
13. From the evidence, which I found to be comprehensive, clearly and helpfully prepared and professionally presented, and in the absence of any evidence from the claimant, I am satisfied that Miss Ashworth's valuation of £5,000 for the subject property at the valuation date is correct. I am also satisfied that the acquiring authority has taken all reasonable steps to trace the owner, but without success, and the provisions of Sched.2 to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 should therefore apply.
14. The amount of compensation payable for the freehold interest in 87 Hawksford Crescent, Lowhill, Wolverhampton is thus determined at £5,000. The claimant's costs of legal transfer, if any, are to be paid in addition.
15. I make no order for costs.

Dated: 14 March 2000

(Signed) P R Francis FRICS