[2000] EWLands LCA_123_1999 (25 February 2000)
	LCA/123/1999
	
	LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

	
COMPENSATION – House adjacent to A.406 North Circular Road –claim under Land Compensation Act 1973 Part 1 – depreciation in value attributable to changes in noise, dust, fumes and artificial lighting - Compensation awarded £4,380.

	
	IN THE MATTER of A NOTICE of REFERENCE	

BETWEEN	JOHN H SMITH	Claimant

	and

	THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY	Respondent

	Re: 59 Aberdeen Road, Edmonton, London N18  2ED

	Before: P.R.Francis FRICS

	Sitting at: 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2A  1JR
	on 18 February 2000

The claimant in person.
Edmund Nourse of Counsel, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor for the respondent.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2000

DECISION

1.	This is a reference, heard under the Simplified Procedure (Rule 28, Lands Tribunal Rules 1996), to determine the compensation payable to John H. Smith (“the claimant”) by The Highways Agency (“the compensating authority”) for injurious affection under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) in respect of the depreciation in value to 59 Aberdeen Road, Edmonton, London, N 18, (“the subject property”), following improvements to the A.406 North Circular Road. 
2.	The claimant appeared in person.  Mr. Edmund Nourse of counsel appeared for the compensating authority, and called Mr. Victor Ransome Bence BSc ARICS of the Valuation Office who gave valuation evidence.
3.	No statement of agreed facts had been prepared, but from the evidence and the oral submissions, I find the following facts:
3.1	The subject property comprises a turn-of-the-century (c.1900) mid-terrace two-storey private dwelling house which fronts onto Aberdeen Road, formerly a cul-de-sac which in turn was separated from the main north circular Road by a narrow grass verge.
3.2	The property contains living room, kitchen, bathroom and separate w.c. at ground floor, and two bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom at first floor.   There is a small enclosed garden to the front, and a garden at the rear.   The property has full gas fired central heating and is assessed for Council Tax purposes under Band C.
3.3	The statutory works, the use of which forms the basis of this claim, comprised the improvement of the busy North Circular Road (increase from two to three lanes and construction of a flyover). A new lamp-standard was also installed immediately in front of the subject property.    The claimant also seeks compensation for the opening up of Aberdeen Road to give access to a new slip road off the flyover. 
3.4	The new road was opened on 25 November 1996, and the first claim date under the Act is 25 November 1997 (the valuation date).   The front elevation of the house is approximately 15 metres from the edge of the new slip road.
3.5	The claim was made on 22 August 1998, by the claimant’s appointed agents, Talbot Professional Services, but that firm are no longer acting for him.   Following the claimant’s rejection of the compensating authority’s offer of £4,380, reference was made to the Lands Tribunal on 14 September 1999.    
Claimant’s evidence.
4.	Mr. Smith  said that since the roadworks had been completed, what was formerly a no-through-road immediately in front of his house had become a busy short cut onto the North Circular road.   Also, whereas he had previously had an outlook over a flower-bed and trees, there was now a brick wall and the flyover for a view from his property.    He said that the disturbance from artificial lighting was now greater than previously, due to the fact a new lamp-standard had been erected right in front of the house.  Traffic was noisier now, due to its speed, whereas previously, before the flyover was constructed, there were long periods when traffic was stationary.
5.	As to fumes and smell, Mr. Smith said these elements were about the same although he considered there was more dust.   There was also an infestation of mice since the roadworks were undertaken, and he said he had been told this was due to the damage which had been occasioned to the foundations.
6.	In respect of the valuation of the subject property, and the amount by which it had depreciated as a result of the use of the improved road, Mr. Smith said Mr. Bence’s report had suggested the average value of a house fronting onto Aberdeen Road in 1994 (pre-scheme) was £50,000.   However, he had gone on to quote a settlement at 55 Aberdeen Road where the 1994 value had been agreed at £61,000.   He said he had been advised that the owners received £8,000 in compensation, including interest.    No’s 57 and 60 Aberdeen Road (the latter being next door to his house) had also been agreed at £55,000.    In those cases the compensation had been agreed at 10 per cent (rather than the 6 per cent he had been offered) together with an additional £500 for land taken.
7.	Mr. Smith also said that no. 60 had been sold in 1999 for £59,000 and thus with an increase of only £4,000 in value since 1994 this proved the depreciation to the properties is much more than was being offered.
8.	In cross-examination Mr. Smith was referred to correspondence he had had with his M.P., and that passing between the M.P. and his former agents.  Mr. Smith accepted that the agents had recommended acceptance of the compensating authority’s offer, that he had been advised that neither was loss of view or any effect of Aberdeen Road being opened up compensateable..  He also accepted that there had, prior to this hearing, been no reference to the alleged disturbance from artificial lighting.    
Compensating Authority’s case.
9.	Mr. Bence is a chartered surveyor and Deputy District Valuer for the Enfield area office of the Valuation Office, and has dealt with a large number of Part 1 claims under the Act.    He referred to the provisions of the 1973 Act in respect of Part 1 claims viz. sections 1(1), 1(2), 4(1) and 4(2) and stated that compensation is only payable in respect of the depreciation in the value of the property caused by the physical factors arising from the use of the public works.    Those physical factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and the discharge on to the land in respect of which the claim being made of any solid or liquid substance.
10.	As to noise, Mr. Bence said the overall result of the improved traffic flow, and thus greater traffic speeds, was a marginal increase in noise.    He said there was no evidence of increased vibration, but there would have been some increase in dust and smell.  However, due to the improved traffic flow, he thought that the emissions of smoke and fumes (previously caused by standing traffic) would have been reduced.    As far as he could ascertain, Mr. Bence said there had been little change in the artificial lighting.
11.	As to valuation, Mr. Bence said he had first looked at evidence of sales of comparable properties fronting the North Circular road in 1994, and taking into account the prices achieved for nos. 53 ,30 and 10 Aberdeen Road, had concluded the pre-scheme value was £50,000.    He then looked at similar properties away from the main road, and from the sales of 14 and 28 York Road, and 60 Dysons Road  had assessed the average value of those not affected by the road to be £56,000.    This was a 12 per cent difference.
12.	He then looked at values post-scheme, but had only been able to find one comparable sale in Aberdeen Road.   This was no. 51 which had sold for £72,500 in March 1999.    He had found four sales of properties away from the North Circular, these being 20, 23 and 80 York Road, and 84 Dysons Road.   These were all sold in 1999, and from the figures achieved, he had concluded the average value of those not affected by the road, post-scheme, was £86,000.    This was an 18 per cent difference.
13.	Consequently, Mr. Bence said that it can be seen that the widened and improved North Circular road had reduced the values of the properties fronting it by 6 per cent.   He said this reduction would be fully attributable to the statutory physical factors, and had therefore assessed the compensation percentage at 6 per cent of the value at the relevant date, 25 November 1997.
14.	In respect of the value at the relevant date, Mr. Bence had taken the price achieved for no 51 Aberdeen Road in March 1999 at £72,500, and indexed it back by reference to the Nationwide House Price Indices to give a figure for the subject property of £68,250.   To this, he had added allowances for the fact that the subject property had an additional room at first floor, two bathrooms and an outbuilding to the rear (that could be used as a utility room) to give a value of £73,000 at 25 November 1997.    	Thus, multiplying £73,000 by 6 per cent gives the compensation figure of £4,380.
15.	Mr. Bence also referred to a number of settlements that had been achieved, including 39, 49, 53 and 58 Aberdeen Road, all of which had been agreed at 6 per cent.   There had also been three properties in Aberdeen Road (nos. 55, 57 and 60) where the title deeds had included the pavement and half the road width.     These cases were settled in 1994/1995, and as they had related to land acquisition, compensation was not restricted purely to the items relevant to a Part 1 claim, but also to other factors affecting value.   The figures agreed were based upon 10 per cent diminution in value, plus £500 relating to the value of the land taken.   He said that Mr. Smith was incorrect in his statement that the owners of no. 55 had received £8,000.   In analysing these settlements, Mr. Bence had taken 6 per cent in relation to the statutory physical (Part 1) factors, and 4 per cent for the additional factors of nuisance caused by the road construction, and the physical presence of the road upon completion.    He said that, again, this supports the basis upon which he had assessed compensation for the subject property.
16.	In respect of the claimant’s contention that no. 60 Aberdeen Road had been sold for £59,000 in 1999, Mr. Bence said that despite a search of his department’s records, no evidence could be found.    He said that, in his view, the opening up of Aberdeen Road to give access to the North Circular road had created little extra traffic, as, when he had been there, there were virtually no cars using it, although Mr. Smith said that it was busy, especially in the rush hour.
17.	In closing, Mr. Nourse said that Mr. Smith had been unable to produce any substantive evidence to support his claim, and many of the factors for which he was claiming are not acceptable in relation to a Part 1 claim.   On the other hand, Mr. Bence’s report was to be commended and the evidence of sales and settlements proved that the compensating authority’s offer of compensation was fair.
Decision.
18.	I agree with counsel for the compensating authority.   Mr. Smith has produced no evidence to support his claim for compensation in the sum of £8,000.   As to his contention that the owners of no.55 Aberdeen Road had received £8,000, I note from Mr. Bence’s report that the compensation agreed with the owners was £6,600 to which interest will have been added.   I am satisfied that £6,600 was the amount of compensation they were paid for injurious affection.   It may be that interest increased the sum paid to £8,000 but interest on compensation payments is not taken into account for analysis purposes.
19.	The claimant appears to have misunderstood Mr. Bence’s report in respect of the properties in Aberdeen Road (of which no.55 was one), where there had been an element of land acquisition (and thus not solely a Part 1 claim under the 1973 Act), and had assumed he was also entitled to compensation based upon 10 per cent depreciation.     Mr. Smith has also selectively referred to Mr. Bence’s estimate of average values, from sales evidence, of properties fronting the North Circular road in 1994 (£50,000), and the settlements achieved in the land acquisition cases, where one of the properties had a value agreed at £61,000.   I note that the other two were at £55,000 and all included an agreed £500 for the additional land.   It could be argued that the settlements were slightly generous to owners, but I have seen nothing in Mr. Bence’s report to lead me to conclude that any of his comparables have served to disadvantage the claimant.
19.	I note that the claimant has also produced no evidence to support his belief that no. 60 Aberdeen Road sold last year for £59,000.
20.	As to the items for which compensation is payable under a Part 1 claim, the only matter upon which the claimant has, in my judgment, given any substantive evidence is that relating to artificial lighting.   However, the effects of any increased disturbance here are adequately taken into account, in my view, in the compensation offered.    The heads of claim relating to loss of view and the detrimental effects of the opening up of Aberdeen Road are not matters which can be compensated for under a Part 1 claim, and I note that the claimant has already been advised to this effect by his former agent.       
21.	The infestation by mice, allegedly as a result of the roadworks, is another matter which is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, which can concern itself only, in respect of a Part 1 claim under the 1973 Act, with matters specifically referred to therein.  The effects of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and the discharge onto the land of solid or liquid waste and which result from the use of the public works are the compensateable factors, rather than any depreciation or damage resulting from the carrying out of the works.    I note that the mouse problem had not been previously brought to the attention of the compensating  authority, and presumably, not to the claimants former agents either.
22.	In my judgment the compensating authority’s offer of compensation under Part 1 of the 1973 Act was fair and in line with the other settlements that were achieved on properties in the immediate vicinity.   I therefore determine that the compensating authority shall pay to the claimant compensation in the sum of £4,380.
23.	This decision determines the substantive issue in this case.   In view of the provisions of rule 28 of the Lands Tribunal Rules 1996, I make no award as to costs.   Rights of appeal under section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 and Order 61 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules will come into effect from the date of this decision.

			DATED 25 February 2000

			(Signed)   P.R.Francis FRICS