[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Lands Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Lands Tribunal >> Argyropoulou v Salford City Council [2002] EWLands ACQ_189_2000 (05 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2002/ACQ_189_2000.html Cite as: [2002] EWLands ACQ_189_2000

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

[2002] EWLands ACQ_189_2000 (05 February 2002)

ACQ/189/2000

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

COMPULSORY PURCHASE – Compensation – dwellinghouse in dilapidated condition – settlement comparables – compensation £7,000

IN THE MATTER of a NOTICE OF REFERENCE

BETWEEN MARGARITA ARGYROPOULOU Claimant

and

SALFORD CITY COUNCIL Acquiring

Authority

Re: 44 George Street,

Broughton,

Salford 8.

Before: N J Rose FRICS

Sitting at Manchester Combined Tax Tribunal, 9th Floor, West Point,

501 Chester Road, Old Trafford, Manchester, M16 9 HU

on 25 January 2002

Miss Jeanette Williams, Legal Executive with Salford City Council, for the Acquiring Authority.

The Claimant did not appear and was not represented.


 


DECISION

1. This is a reference by Salford City Council ("the acquiring authority") to determine the amount of compensation payable to Mrs Margarita Argyropoulou, the owner of the freehold interest in 44 George Street, Broughton, Salford, 8 ("the subject property") for that interest compulsorily acquired under the City of Salford (George Street Clearance Areas 1, 2 and 3) Compulsory Purchase Order 1999 ("the CPO"), made on 20 May 1999 and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 30 September 1999. Notice to treat was served on 14 October 1999 and the property was demolished by the acquiring authority in March 2000 pursuant to a notice of entry dated 1 November 1999. I was told that Mrs Argyropoulou, to whom I shall refer as the claimant, lives abroad and has not responded to the notice of treat. She has unfortunately made no representations to this Tribunal, despite being advised of the proceedings before it.
2. At the hearing Miss Jeanette Williams, a legal executive with the acquiring authority, appeared on its behalf. She called Mr John Nugent MRICS, an estates surveyor in the acquiring authority's development services directorate, who has negotiated the acquisition by agreement of 24 of the 25 residential properties included in the CPO.
3. In the light of Mr Nugent's evidence I find the following facts. The subject property was situated in a Victorian terrace in a mixed residential area in the Cheetham/Broughton district close to the Manchester City Council border. Cheetham Hill Road to the north provides local shopping facilities and is a main arterial route into Manchester. Previous clearance of residential properties in the 1970s has allowed infill development of semi-detached and town houses opposite the subject property and in two small cul-de-sac developments immediately to the north and south. Broughton Park to the west provides a well-established area of larger residential properties favoured by the orthodox Jewish community. To the east of the site there is a local authority housing estate, originally constructed in the 1960s and refurbished in the late 1980s.
4. Built in about 1880, the subject property comprised a two-storey, bay-fronted, mid-terraced house with two storey outrigger, set behind a small front garden with an enclosed rear yard. Construction was of 9 inch solid brickwork under a pitched slated roof with valley gutter to the slated outrigger roof at the rear. The accommodation comprised entrance hallway and two living rooms with kitchen area to the rear outrigger, with three bedrooms and bathroom on the first floor. The property was vacant, boarded up and in generally poor condition. It had been unoccupied since at least December 1995. By the date of service of notice of entry it had suffered from extensive vandalism, fire damage and theft of internal fixtures and fittings. The electrical wiring system was defective and kitchen and bathroom fittings and associated water supply and hot water pipework had either been removed or damaged beyond economic repair. Settlement and dampness were evident to the rear of the property and vegetation was growing from brickwork above the front bay window. Slates had been removed from the roof to the rear outrigger, leaving that section of the property open to the elements, resulting in water damage internally at both ground and first floor levels.
5. Mr Nugent produced a schedule showing the prices agreed for all the other properties in the CPO, together with a brief description and the relevant date in each case. The prices paid ranged from £4,500 to £15,250. Owner-occupied properties were generally in fair to good condition, while vacant properties were generally fair or poor and were liable to have been subject to theft, vandalism or fire damage when left unoccupied for any length of time.
6. In his expert report Mr Nugent expressed the view that the condition of the subject property was such that its market value would have been at the lower end of the range of values agreed for properties in the CPO and that a valuation in the region of £6,000 would be appropriate. In answer to questions from me he said that, bearing in mind the difficulty of valuing such dilapidated properties with accuracy, a value up to £7,000 would be acceptable. In view of that evidence, and in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the claimant, I find that the amount of compensation payable for the freehold interest in the subject property is £7,000. The claimant's proper legal costs of transfer, if any, are to be paid in addition.
7. I make no order as to costs.

Dated: 5 February 2002

(Signed) N J Rose