[2004] EWLands ACQ_3_2002 (17 April 2003)
	ACQ/3/2002

	LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949
	
COMPULSORY PURCHASE - compensation - public house - valuation - whether trade affected by unusual competition or effect of the scheme - compensation of £800,000 awarded.

IN THE MATTER of a NOTICE OF REFERENCE

BETWEEN	MERCURY TAVERNS PLC	Claimant
	and
		
	COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL 	Acquiring
		Authority

	Re:	Smithfield Hotel
		Hales Street
		Coventry CV1 1JB

	Before: N J Rose FRICS

	Sitting in public at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JR 
	on 24-26 March 2003

The following case, although not mentioned in this decision, was referred to in the course of the hearing:

R v The Crown Court at Stafford ex parte Shipley [1998] 2 All ER 465

Simon Pickles, instructed by Theodore Goddard, solicitors of London for the claimant.
David Elvin QC, instructed by Pinsent Curtis Biddle, solicitors of Birmingham for the acquiring authority.

DECISION
Introduction
1.	This is a reference to determine the compensation payable by Coventry City Council (“the acquiring authority”) to Mercury Taverns Plc (“the claimant”) for the freehold and long leasehold interests in a public house known as the Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB (“the Smithfield”).  The property was compulsorily acquired under The City of Coventry (Phoenix Initiative) Compulsory Purchase Order 1999 (“the CPO”).  Possession of the property was taken by the acquiring authority on 11 December 2000, which is therefore the valuation date.
2.	The amount of compensation payable for disturbance is agreed.  The outstanding dispute relates to the open market value of the claimant’s interest in the Smithfield.  The claimant contends for a value of  £800,000 and the acquiring authority’s figure is between £404,000 and £435,000.
3.	Mr Simon Pickles of counsel appeared for the claimant.  He called one expert witness, Mr P G Newby, FRICS, MCIArb, a director of Fleurets and responsible for that firm’s Midlands office.  He also produced factual witness statements from Mrs L Cusack, Mr H K Shah and Mr S L Clarke.  None of these statements was the subject of cross-examination.  Counsel for the acquiring authority, Mr David Elvin QC called, as expert witness, Mr S G Day, MRICS, an associate of Gerald Eve, based at his firm’s Birmingham office.  In addition he produced a factual witness statement from Mr P E Todd.  That, too, was not challenged.
Facts
4.	The parties prepared a statement of agreed facts.  In the light of that document and the evidence I find the following facts.  The Smithfield was situated within the Coventry inner ring road on the southern side of Hales Street, close to its junction with Trinity Street and some 250 metres from the edge of the main shopping centre of the city.  Virtually opposite the property was a bingo hall (formerly a theatre) and a transport museum.  
5.	The original part of the building was built, probably in the 1930s, on four floors and a basement, constructed of brick under a pitched tiled roof.  To the rear were more modern single and two storey extensions, the single storey being of steel framed construction under a shallow pitched glazed roof, while the two storey section was of brick with a flat asphalt roof.  The front elevation was part-half timbered and rendered to give a mock-Tudor appearance with dormer windows in the roof.  At the front was a small hard standing area providing parking for about three cars, while to the rear was a small enclosed yard with access off the service road behind.  
6.	Internally on the ground floor was an L-shaped saloon bar to the front, the right hand part being known as “Fibber McGee’s”, while to the rear was a lounge bar.  The trading areas were serviced by a central servery.  In addition there was a catering kitchen with storage areas off and three sets of customer toilets.  In the basement was a large cooled beer store together with other storage areas.
7.	The first floor accommodation comprised a manager’s flat, consisting of four bedrooms, lounge, office, bathroom, toilet and disused kitchen.  In addition there were two former double letting rooms and one former single letting room, two disused toilets and a derelict bathroom.  The second floor accommodation comprised six former double letting rooms, four former single letting rooms, a utility room, a toilet area with two wcs and one wash hand basin, two further disused bathrooms and another toilet area with two wcs and one wash hand basin.  The third floor accommodation comprised three former double bedrooms, four former single bedrooms, toilet area with two wcs and one wash hand basin, bathroom, cleaner’s room and further disused bathroom.
8.	Each former letting room had a wash hand basis.  The former letting rooms were not in a lettable state and had not been used for many years.  It is agreed that the upper floors neither added to nor detracted from the value of the main public house.
9.	The Smithfield was owned freehold except for a small strip of land on the east side of the building, which was the subject of a 999 year lease from 1933 at a fixed rent of 10p per annum.  Mrs Cusack became manager of the property on 9 January 1998.  On 26 May 1998 she signed a three year tenancy agreement with the claimant at a rent of £25,000 per annum, subject to a tie to the landlord for the purchase of beers and with the landlord responsible for external repairs.  Mrs Cusack left the property on 29 August 1999 and the premises were subsequently operated by a holding company on a temporary tenancy.  It is agreed that the valuation is to be made on the basis of vacant possession. 
10.	The Smithfield had the benefit of a justices’ full on licence and a supper hours certificate extending licensing hours until 1.00am in connection with the service of meals in the restaurant area.  On 5 October 1998 a late licence was granted, enabling the front lounge bar and parlour to trade until 2.00 am on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
11.	The acquiring authority resolved to make the CPO on 4 November 1998.  The CPO was made on 24 May 1999 and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 5 June 2000. 
12.	Following negotiations between Mr Whelan of Fleurets on behalf of the claimant and Mr Todd, a principal surveyor with the city development directorate of the acquiring authority, the latter issued heads of terms on 27 August 1999, agreeing to purchase the Smithfield by private treaty for £1m, subject to contract.  Mrs Cusack left the Smithfield on 29 August 1999, having reached agreement the previous April with Pubmaster Ltd (the claimant’s parent company) that she would be compensated and offered an alternative property.  In the event the acquiring authority was not prepared to accept Mr Todd’s recommended price of £1m, because of the lack of supporting information.  In late September, 1999, therefore, it instructed Gerald Eve to provide valuation advice and withdraw from the agreement.  
13.	On 12 June 2000 the acquiring authority notified the claimant that the CPO would become operative from 13 June 2000.  On 14 September 2000, however, they wrote to Fleurets again, advising that there had been a challenge to the CPO.  On 22 November 2000 the acquiring authority served notice to treat and notice to enter on 11 December 2000, on which date possession was handed over by the claimant.
Issues
14.	It is agreed that at the valuation date there would have been purchaser demand for the Smithfield from two main sources.  These were, respectively, freehouse operators (free entrepreneur companies and private individuals) and multiple pub companies, that is companies seeking to let the property on a tied lease or tenancy.  Mr Newby’s valuation method 1 assumes a freehouse purchaser and amounts to £801,000 (Appendix 1).  His valuation method 2 is based on a pub company purchaser and totals £757,000 (Appendix 2).  Mr Day’s freehouse valuation is £404,000 (Appendix 3).  He prepares two pub company valuations, one assuming a nine year lease and amounting to £390,000 (Appendix 4) and the other, at £435,000, based on a three year tenancy (Appendix 5).  
15.	The principal issue between the parties relates to the quality of the trade that would have been carried on in the Smithfield in the absence of the CPO.  Mr Newby considers that there were very few freehold city centre public houses available to be purchased individually at the relevant date and with a barrelage throughput as high as that enjoyed by the Smithfield.   Mr Day, on the other hand, feels that the Smithfield was a house of below average quality whose takings, after an initial “honeymoon” period when Mrs Cusack took over and introduced late night trading at weekends, declined and were likely to continue declining.
16.	There are in addition a number of detailed valuation issues.  I refer to these later in this decision, but essentially they result from the two experts’ differing views as to the Smithfield’s quality.
Trading quality
17.	In order to resolve the principal issue, it is necessary to answer two questions.  Firstly, did the decline in trade at the Smithfield in the months immediately preceding Mrs Cusack’s departure (illustrated by the takings figures on Appendix 6) reflect what would have happened in the no scheme world?  Secondly, was the competition from other licensed premises in central Coventry, both in existence and foreseeable at the valuation date, such that the maintenance of the existing trade would have been placed at serious risk?
18.	I deal firstly with the question of competition.  Mr Day considered it was most unlikely that the level of trade enjoyed at the Smithfield, prior to the arrival of two new competitors, would have been sustainable in the face of such competition.  The first element of significant competition, he said, was from a new public house at 2-10 Trinity Street, approximately 125 yards away, known as the Flying Standard and opened by J D Wetherspoon on 9 November 1999.  Mr Day said that Wetherspoon pursued an aggressive discounted retail pricing policy and posed a serious threat to neighbouring public houses.  The second source of competition was a major new leisure development known as the Skydome.  This also opened in the city core in 1999.  It had been the subject of six affirmed publicans’ licences and there was one outstanding grant of a provisional justices’ licence pending.  Details of the six licensed premises operating at the Skydome, together with their opening dates, are as follows:-
Planet Ice	16 February 2000	
Orange House	22 August 2001	
Jumpin’ Jacks	18 October 1999	
Ikon Diva	1 April 2001	
Chicago Rock Café	18 September 1999	
Odeon Cinema	18 October 2001	

19.	With the exception of the Odeon Cinema, all had the benefit of a late licence.  Those which had not opened by the valuation date had a provisional licence at that date.  
20.	Mr Newby agreed that a prudent purchaser of the Smithfield would have prepared a competition assessment when deciding how much he could afford to pay for the property.  He said, however, that it was hard to find a town anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not experiencing an influx of new public houses at that time.  In what he described as a buoyant market, with operators anxious to gain representation in town centres, the existence of a number of new licence applications did not result in a reduction in the prices paid by such companies.  As to the particular competition to which Mr Day referred, Mr Newby did not accept that it would have adversely affected trade at the Smithfield.  He said that the arrival of a new Wetherspoon unit often drew more trade to the area and the Skydome - a new, destination leisure centre - was quite different in character from the Smithfield, which was a traditional city centre public house.  
21.	Mr Day said that the adverse effects of this competition were illustrated in two ways, the first of which was the history of trading at a public house known as T P Woods at 11-13 Burges, approximately 100 yards from the Smithfield, which opened on 2 September 1998.  The leasehold interest in T P Woods was being offered for sale on the market when Mr Day produced his report in March 2002.  The agents’ particulars showed that the turnover in the previous three years, net of VAT, had been as follows:
1999	-	£560,105
2000	-	£559,641
2001	-	£352,514
22.	Mr Day pointed out that these figure showed a decline in turnover of some 37% between 1999 and 2001.  He considered it was reasonable to assume that a fall of this magnitude was attributable “in part if not wholly” to the new competition from the Flying Standard and the Skydome.
23.	As I have said, Mr Day suggests that the turnover of T P Woods fell by 37% between 1999 and 2001.  In fact, the takings remained virtually unchanged between 1999 and 2000; almost the entire fall took place in 2001.  The distinction is significant, because the unchanged figures in 2000 were achieved despite the fact that the new Wetherspoon unit and three of the licensed premises in the Skydome were all open for trading in that year.  The only new competition to start in 2001 was the Icon Diva - a nightclub open for nine months; the Orange House - a bar open for less than four months and the Odeon Cinema, which had no late licence and which was open for less than two months of the year.  In the course of cross- examination, Mr Day accepted that units in the Skydome appealed to a different market from that which used the Smithfield.  It is clear that something significant must have happened at T P Woods to explain the dramatic decline in takings in 2001.  Since, however, the opening of the Flying Standard and the first three licensed premises at the Skydome did not adversely affect trading at T P Woods, it is in my judgment wholly improbable that the explanation lies in the opening of the three most recently opened units at the Skydome.
24.	The second item of evidence produced by Mr Day to illustrate the allegedly unusual competition in the city centre was a schedule indicating the reductions in the rating assessments of a number of public houses in the area which had been agreed by the valuation officer.  Mr Day said that in each case the reduction was granted after the valuation officer had become satisfied that there had been a decline in turnover attributable to the effects of new competition in the area.  Under cross-examination, however, he accepted that it was not possible to distinguish the element of each reduction which was due to competition from that which resulted from initial over assessment.  In the light of that concession, it is in my view not possible to draw any reliable conclusion about the effects of competition from the rating evidence.
25.	In my opinion, the most reliable indication of the effect of competition upon trade at the Smithfield is provided by the unchanged takings at T P Woods in 2000, following the opening of most of what Mr Day considers to be its main new competitors.  As I have said, T P Woods is only about 100 yards from the Smithfield and in my view, if it did not suffer materially from the new licences in the central area, neither did the Smithfield.
26.	I now turn to Mr Newby’s suggestion that the decline in trade of the Smithfield in the period following March/April 1999 should be disregarded, because it was affected by the shadow of the proposed compulsory acquisition.  Mr Day disagrees.  He points out that, in the period from the making of the CPO until Mrs Cusack’s departure in August 1999, there was no physical disturbance to the property or the surrounding area and there were no access difficulties.  There is therefore, he says, no reason why the CPO should have deterred potential customers from visiting the property.  In Mr Day’s opinion, the CPO played no part in the declining trade that occurred in the final months of Mrs Cusack’s tenancy.
27.	The change in the pattern of trade at the Smithfield which occurred in or about March and April 1999 is illustrated in Appendix 7.  This shows the barrelage figures for the property for each month from October 1998, when the late licence was granted, until August 1999, when Mrs Cusack departed.  It also shows the figures for the corresponding months in the previous year.  The figures for the later period represent the following changes compared to those twelve months earlier: 
		  %	
October 1998		+ 71.8	
November  1998		+ 109.7	
December 1998		+ 28.2	
January 1999		+ 33.9	
February 1999		+ 0.5	
March 1999		- 1.4	
April 1999		- 27.3	
May 1999		- 28.1	
June 1999		+ 28.9	
July 1999		- 19.0	
August 1999		N/A	

28.	In order to explain the reason for the dramatic change in the Smithfield’s fortunes in 1999 it is in my view instructive to consider the history of the CPO from the viewpoint of Mrs Cusack, who was in day to day control of trade at the property.  The scheme underlying the CPO started in 1995, when an urban regeneration plan for the Cathedral quarter of the city centre was first considered.  A public consultation exercise was undertaken and detailed design work followed.  The final design was submitted to the millennium commission - which was match funding the acquiring authority - and a reduced scheme was finally approved in November 1997.
29.	At a meeting with Mr Todd on 6 October 1998, if not before, the regional estates manager of Pubmaster Ltd was informed of the proposed CPO.  This information was not passed on to Mrs Cusack, however.  The first she heard of the CPO was when she was considering adding a new restaurant extension to the house.  She was advised not to do so by a planning officer, since a CPO was likely to be made.  It was only after that conversation that she was told by the claimant that, as a result of the acquiring authority’s proposals, the Smithfield would need to be sold. 
30.	Mrs Cusack said that, when she discovered that the Smithfield was going to close, she was extremely disappointed that the efforts which she had put into turning the business into a successful going concern would come to nothing.  She campaigned on local radio and appeared on Central Television News in an attempt to save the property.  Both she and her customers wanted the house to remain open.  A regular disc jockey went so far as to set up an internet site, where regulars could post messages of support and vote to keep the Smithfield open.  When it became clear that these efforts had failed, Mrs Cusack held discussions with Pubmaster Ltd.  It was agreed that she would terminate her tenancy early, so that the claimant could be in a position to offer up vacant position of the premises to the acquiring authority. The tenancy was in fact surrendered on 29 August 1999, terms having been agreed between Mrs Cusack and Pubmaster Ltd. in April 1999 and an alternative Mercury Taverns property found which could be leased to her.
31.	Mrs Cusack did not give oral evidence and her statement did not make clear precisely when she first became aware of the impending CPO.  Mr Day accepted, however, and I agree, that it was likely that her campaign to prevent the acquisition started before the CPO was made in May 1999.  Thus, in the period leading up to that date Mrs Cusack must have devoted considerable time and energy to those public relation efforts.  The amount of beer she sold in each month between October 1998 and January 1999 represented a very substantial uplift compared with the corresponding period twelve months earlier.  That uplift disappeared in February and March 1999 and, with one exception, the improvement was dramatically reversed in every month that followed.
32.	I have found that there was no unusual competitive activity in the area that would account for such a dramatic reversal of trading fortune.  In my judgment, the most plausible explanation for that reversal is that, after January 1999, Mrs Cusack’s attention was distracted from running the Smithfield, originally by her attempts to prevent the compulsory acquisition and, once those attempts had failed and she had agreed to surrender her lease, by her preparations to operate a different public house elsewhere.
33.	I therefore accept Mr Newby’s opinion that the pattern of trade at the Smithfield after March/April 1999 was adversely affected by the prospect of the compulsory acquisition and should be left out of account when assessing the property’s trading quality.  I have not overlooked the statement by Mrs Cusack that the last months of her tenure, with the CPO hanging over the business, were actually the best for trade, as people came to say their goodbyes to the house.  It is quite clear from the takings and barrelage figures, however, that Mrs Cusack’s recollection in that respect was simply wrong.  
34.	I now turn to the detailed valuations, and firstly the value to the freehouse purchaser, Mr Newby’s method 1.  Here the points in issue are the level of fair maintainable turnover, (“FMT”), the amount of the adjusted net profit, the figure of year’s purchase (“YP”) and the allowance for immediate repairs, the value of tenant’s fixtures and fittings having been agreed at £23,020.
Fair maintainable turnover
35.	The FMT is the turnover likely to be achieved by a competent operator.  Mr Newby’s estimate of FMT is £475,000 and Mr Day’s is £345,000.  In answer to a question from me, Mr Day said that his figure would increase to £468,000 if all trade carried on at the Smithfield after March 1999 had to be disregarded and if the property had suffered from no unusual competition.  I have found that that is indeed the basis upon which the property should be valued.  Thus, Mr Day’s assessment of FMT is within 1.5% of Mr Newby’s figure, which I accept.
Adjusted net profit
36.	Mr Newby considers that the adjusted net profit assumed by a freehouse purchaser would have been based on 27.5% of FMT.  This compares with Mr Day’s more detailed approach to operating costs, which results in a net profit of 26% of FMT.  Mr Newby said, and I accept, that the profit percentage enjoyed by houses with a very large turnover is significantly higher than for less successful houses, since many of the costs are fixed.  Mr Day’s estimate is based on an FMT which is significantly below what I have found to be the correct figure.  There is little difference between the percentages adopted by the two experts and, bearing in mind that Mr Day’s FMT is too low, I accept Mr Newby’s figure of 27.5%.  
Years purchase
37.	Mr Newby’s YP of 6.5 implies that a purchaser would require a return of 15.38%.  Mr Day’s 4.5 YP, on the other hand, is equivalent to a return of 22.22%.  Mr Day prepared his valuation on the assumption that the business of the Smithfield was suffering from exceptional competition and that the decline in trade after March/April 1999 should be taken into account.  In fact, I have found that these assumptions are not justified.  In my view, the differential between Mr Newby’s suggested return of 15.38% and Mr Day’s of 22.2% is not too great to reflect the considerable difference between the position assumed by Mr Day and what I have found to be the true position.  In consequence I accept Mr Newby’s YP of 6.5.  It is therefore not necessary for me to give detailed consideration to the limited number of comparables which were produced on this aspect of the valuation.
38.	Mr Newby makes a deduction of £25,000 to cover the cost of immediate repairs that were required to be carried out to the property.  Although Mr Day approaches this aspect on the basis of continuing annual expenditure rather than a single payment, he agreed that in practice his valuation probably incorporated the same allowance as that of Mr Newby.  Accordingly, I adopt Mr Newby’s figure.
39.	I have therefore accepted all the components of Mr Newby’s valuation method 1.  It is therefore not necessary for me to consider his alternative valuation, since he accepts that a pub company purchaser would be outbid by a freehouse purchaser.  Although Mr Newby’s valuation method 1 produces a total of £801,000, the claimant only claims £800,000 and I agree that any market negotiation would have been likely to result in agreement at that figure.
40.	I therefore determine that the amount of compensation payable to the claimant for its freehold and long leasehold interests in the Smithfield is £800,000.  The amount of compensation for disturbance has been agreed and is payable in addition.  The acquiring authority will also pay the appropriate surveyor’s fee on Ryde’s scale and the proper legal costs of transfer, unless such costs have been included in the agreed figure for disturbance.
41.	A letter on costs accompanies this decision, which will take effect when, but not until, the question of costs is decided.
					Dated: 17 April 2003

					(Signed) N J Rose
Addendum
42.	I have received written submissions on costs from the parties.  
43.	The claimant points out that it made repeated, generous attempts to reach a settlement of the dispute, both before it lodged the notice of reference and prior to the hearing, but these were rejected.  The valuation evidence put forward by its expert has been wholly accepted.  The general rule should therefore be followed and it should be awarded its costs.  
44.	The acquiring authority says that the barrelage figures, which were held by the Tribunal to illustrate the change in trading patterns at the Smithfield, were not produced until they were contained in the evidence of Mr Clarke dated 17 March 2003 and were again amended and evaluated during the course of the hearing.  This was despite requests to produce this information having been made by the acquiring authority in the previous two years.  The acquiring authority also refers to the late substitution of the claimant’s expert witness.  The claimant had originally chosen Mr Germaney, but then decided to replace him by Mr Newby.  The claimant should not have the costs of both experts, but should only recover the costs of issuing the claim and of Mr Newby’s evidence and the witness statements provided at the same time.  Alternatively, the claimant should only be awarded a proportion of its costs.  Given the duplication of experts and the late proof of its case, these should be in the order of half to two-thirds of the costs incurred.
45.	In its response to the acquiring authority’s costs submission, the claimant says that it is only in respect of the period following the notice of reference and up to the lodging of Mr Germaney’s response to Mr Day’s first report (when the barrelage figures and Mrs Cusack’s turnover details were provided in letter form) that the authority can claim with any justification that the claimant had not made clear the measure of its successful claim.  It therefore suggests that if, despite its primary submission, the Tribunal is minded to abate the acquiring authority’s liability then, at most, the claimant should be responsible for its own costs involved in the settlement of Mr Germaney’s first report and his response to Mr Day’s first report; or (in rough and ready fashion) that the acquiring authority should pay 80% of the claimant’s costs.
46.	It is agreed that the claimant should recover its costs, but the acquiring authority submits that those costs should be adjusted having regard to the special circumstances of the case.  I accept that submission.  Notwithstanding that, unusually, the evidence of the claimant’s valuer has been accepted in full, the costs of the reference were in my view unreasonably increased by the claimant’s decision to change its expert witness at a very late stage.  It is also possible that those costs were further increased by the delay in providing accurate details of barrelage and of Mrs Cusack’s takings until Mr Germaney’s second report.  With these considerations in mind, I order that the claimant shall recover from the acquiring authority 70% of its costs of the reference.  Such costs are to be agreed or, in default of agreement, assessed on the standard basis by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.
					Dated: 3 June 2003

					(Signed) N J Rose

Appendix 1

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Valuation Method 1
By P G Newby, FRICS, MCIArb

Freehouse Purchaser	£

Fair Maintainable Turnover (FMT)	475,000
Adjusted Net Profit @ 27.5%	130,625
Years’ Purchase	       6.5
		849,063
Less
Immediate Repairs	(25,000)
Tenant’s Fixtures & Fittings	 (23,020)
		801,043
		say   £801,000
		= 1.69 x FMT

Appendix 2

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Valuation Method 2
By P G Newby, FRICS, MCIArb

Pub Company Purchaser	£
Income Streams
1.	Tied Rental Value	46,500
2.	Wholesale Beer Discounts	55,250
3.	Landlord’s Machine Income Share	 10,000
	Total Income	111,750
	Years’ Purchase	       7
		782,250
Less Immediate Repairs	(25,000)
		757,250
		say   £757,000
		= 1.59 x FMT

Appendix 3

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Valuation Method 1
By S G Day, MRICS

Free House Basis

Gross Receipts	345000
Gross Profit	221685
Less Operating costs	117825
Operating Profit	103860
Less
All repairs/insurance	7000
Refurbishment/renewal	7000
			14000
		Net Profit	89860
		YP	4.5
			404370
			SAY   404000

Appendix 4

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Valuation Method 2
By S G Day, MRICS

9 Yr lease: FRI
Rental value	24000
Wholesale Profit
Beer		507 Brls @ 70 35490
Cider		53 Brls   @ 80 4240

50% Machine income	10000
			73730
			YP    5.25   387082
			SAY   390,000

Appendix 5

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Valuation Method 2
By S G Day, MRICS

3 Yr Tenancy: Internal Repairing

Rental Value	16000
Wholesale Profit	
Beer		507 Brls @ 110 55770
Cider		53 Brls @ 80 4240
50% Machine income	10000
			86010
Less
External Repairs/Insurance		 7000
			79010
		YP      5.5
			434555
			SAY    435,000

Appendix 6

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Summary of Takings during Mrs Cusack’s Tenancy

Figures Net of VAT	
1998		£	
May	5,658.36	
June	29,811.87	
July	30,072.58	
August	41,825.61	
September	32,062.80	
October	41,719.30	
November	40,388.22	
December	35,466.11	
1999		
January	43,972.25	
February	36,453.35	
March	35,935.93	
April	30,836.81	
May	37,815.03	
June	26,042.00	
July	36,327.82	
August	22,501.54	

Appendix 7

Smithfield Hotel, Hales Street, Coventry, CV1 1JB
Barrelage Figures

Oct 97	Nov 97	Dec 97	Jan 98	Feb 98	Mar 98	Apr 98	May 98	June 98	July 98	Aug 98	
31.15	31.84	68.19	31.23	54.17	73.00	63.69	48.44	41.60	45.94	N/A	
											
Oct 98	Nov 98	Dec 98	Jan 99	Feb 99	Mar 99	Apr 99	May 99	June 99	July 99	Aug 99	
53.51	66.77	87.44	41.84	54.43	72.00	46.28	34.81	53.64	37.21	31.44