2 Kensington Park Gardens, London W11 3HB LON/00AW/OCE/2024/0093

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No LON/00AW/OCE/2024/0093

Between

2KPG LimitedApplicant

(1) Mr Paul Hubbard (2) R&H Trust Co (Bermuda) Ltd As trustees of the Vector TrustRespondent

Before

Judge S Brilliant

Mr R Waterhouse FRICS

Mr Mark Loveday of counsel for the Applicant

Date 3 December 2024

DECISION

Summary of the Tribunal’s decision The appropriate premium payable for the acquisition of the freehold of the House is £2,129,688. Background

[1]This is an application made by the applicant RTE company pursuant to section 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the Act”), for a determination of the premium to be paid for the acquisition of the freehold of 2 Kensington Park Gardens, London W11 3HB (“the House”).

[2]By a notice of claim dated 22 December 2023, served pursuant to section 13 of the Act, the applicant exercised the right to acquire the freehold of the House.

[3]The applicant proposed to pay a premium of £759,687 for the freehold.

[4]On 17 March 2022, the respondent freeholders served a counter-notice admitting the validity of the claim and counter-proposed a premium of £4,107,550 for the purchase of the freehold. The application

[5]The applicant duly applied to the Tribunal for a determination of the premium of the House.

[6]Originally, there was a difference between the parties as to other proposed terms of the transfer, but those matters have now been settled.

[7]Directions were given on 22 July 2024. The hearing

[8]The hearing in this matter took place remotely on 19 November 2024. The applicant was represented by Mr Mark Loveday of counsel. The respondents were represented by Mr Anthony Radevsky of counsel.

[9]Neither party asked the Tribunal to inspect the House and the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to carry out a physical inspection to make its determination.

[10]The applicant relied upon the expert report and valuation of Ms Paulina Reade MRICS, dated November 2024. The respondents relied upon the expert report and valuation of Mr Jeremy Dharmasena MRICS, dated 08 November 2024. Location and description of the House

[11]The House is a five-storey period mid-terrace building converted into four self-contained flats. The building is of un-rendered London brick, with bowed full height bays to either side and a double height central entrance bay. The entrance has a wide staircase leading to a double front door at raised ground floor level. The common parts of the building are in reasonable condition. There is not a passenger lift in the House. There is no off street parking.

[12]The House is the central house in what has been described as triplex villa (1,2 and 3 Kensington Park Gardens). It was the initial part of the Ladbroke Grove development designed by Thomas Allason in 1849/1850.

[13]The House is located on the corner of Kensington Park Gardens with its junction to Kensington Park Road but the road noise from the latter is shielded by 1 Kensington Park Gardens. It is approximately 300 metres from Notting Hill Gate Underground Station (Central line and Circle and District lines). Holland Park Underground Station (Central line) is also situated within a short walk. The open spaces of Holland Park and Hyde Park are within a 10-minute walk and the area is well served by local buses, together with the many various shopping and restaurant facilities. The famous Portobello Market operates close by.

[14]There are four flats in the building, one on the ground and lower ground floor levels (Flat 1), and one on each of the first (Flat 2), second (Flat 3) and third floors (Flat 4). The front and rear gardens are demised with Flat 1.

[15]Flat 1 alone has direct access at the rear to Ladbroke Square Gardens, one of the largest (seven acres) and finest of the London private communal squares. The other Flats have access, but not directly.

[16]The House has a shallow pitched and tiled roof. Description of Flat 1

[17]The ground floor consists of:(a) entrance hall;

(b) main reception room with bow window and balcony to the rear;

(d) principal bedroom with en-suite bathroom.

[18]The lower ground floor consists of:(a) large kitchen/ breakfast room;

(b) bedroom 2 with en-suite bathroom;

(d) bedroom 4 with en-suite shower room;

(e) guest WC;

(f) storage beneath the main entrance hall;

(g) rear access to split level patio garden, and direct access to the communal gardens.

[19]The ground floor appears particularly grand, with large rooms and good ceiling heights. The lower ground floor suffers from poor natural lighting.

[20]The House is in a good and modernised condition and well decorated.

[21]Cosmetic improvements could be made. The state of condition is not of considerable importance regarding properties in this area, as those able to afford to live there are likely to want to redecorate and refurbish according to their tastes, regardless of the existing condition.

[22]The GIA (gross internal area) of Flat 1 has been agreed at 3,705 sq ft. Agreement between the experts

[23]The valuation date is agreed as 23 December 2023.

[24]The GIA of each flat is agreed as: Flat 1. 3,705 sq ft Flat 2. 1,728 sq ft Flat 3. 1,557 sq ft Flat 4. 1,651 sq ft

[25]The remaining term of each flat is agreed as: Flat 1. 47.15 yrs Flat 2. 158.93 yrs Flat 3. 136.60 yrs Flat 4. 46.33 yrs

[26]The ground rents are agreed as: Flat 1. £75 pa, rising to £100 pa on 18 February 2038 Flat 2. Peppercorn Flat 3. Peppercorn Flat 4. £75 pa, rising to £100 pa on 22 April 2027

[27]Relativity is agreed as: Flat 1. 70.05% Flat 3. 69.36%

[28]The deferment rate is agreed at 5%.

[29]The capitalisation rate is agreed at 6%.

[30]The value of the appurtenant land is agreed as £5,000.

[31]The freehold value of Flats 2, 3 and 4 are agreed as follows: Floor GIA £/sq ft FHVP Flat 2. 1st 1,728 sq ft £2,495 £4,300,000 Flat 3. 2nd 1,557 sq ft £2,149 £3,350,000 Flat 4. 3rd 1,651 sq ft £1,762 £2,900,000 The remaining issues

[32]Three issues remain for us to decide.

[33]The first issue is the freehold vacant possession value of Flat 1, described in paragraphs 17-21 above (“the freehold value of Flat 1 issue”). The applicant says the correct figure is £7,000,000, based on £1,880 per sq ft. The respondents say the correct figure is £9,250,000, based on £2,500 per sq ft.

[34]The second issue is whether the value of the House should include the ability to charge a premium for allowing the wall between 1 Kensington Park Gardens and the House to be broken so as to join the two buildings (“the access licence issue”).

[35]The respondents propose a figure of £165,000. The applicant denies that such a premium is payable.

[36]The third issue is whether hope value should be included in the price to reflect the ability to charge a premium for the creation of a roof terrace above Flat 4 (“the roof terrace issue”).

[37]The respondents propose a figure of £14,350. The applicant denies that such a premium is payable. The freehold value of Flat 1 issue: the comparables

[38]The following comparables were provided by Ms Reade only, with adjusted £/sq ft. These are summarised at page 186 of the bundle: Flat 5, 14 Dawson Place. £1,792 Flat E, 22 Clanricarde Gardens. £1,637 Flat 1, 8 Stanley Crescent. £1,990 Lower floors, 76 Ledbury Road. £1,839 Flat A, 35 Colville Terrace. £1,653 Flat A, 156 Westbourne Grove. £1,972

[39]The following comparables were provided by Mr Dharmasena only, with adjusted £/sq ft. These are summarised at page 567 of the bundle: Flat A, 4 Ladbroke Gardens. £1,637 Flat 18, 18 Campden Hill Square. £3,227 Flats 1 & 5, 26 Holland Park. £2,361

[40]The following comparables were provided by both valuers, with adjusted £/sq ft. These are summarised at pages 186 and 567 respectively of the bundle: : Applicant Respondents Flat 3, 88 Kensington Park Road. £1,354 £2,227 Flat 2, Colville Square. £1,516 £2,178 Flat 1, 10 Horbury Crescent. £3,224 £3,774 Flat A, 26 Ladbroke Gardens. £1,989 £2,722 Flat 1, 19 Pembridge Square. £2,123 £2,870 Flat A, 57 Ladbroke Road. £1,806 £2,354 Flat A, 48 Blenheim Crescent. £1,525

£2,321

[41]All the comparables were on the lower two floors of the respective buildings. The Tribunal is conscious of the arguments of the respective valuers regarding the micro markets. In particular, the Tribunal received submissions on several areas of adjustment including quantum, lateral and layout, access to own outside space, access to communal grounds and quality.

[42]All the applicant’s comparables ranged from £1,354 per sq ft to £2,123 per sq ft, with the exception of Flat 1, 10 Horbury Crescent valued at £3,224 per sq ft.

[43]The respondents’ comparables ranged from £1,637 per sq ft to £2,870 per sq ft, except for two flats. These are Flat 1, 10 Horbury Crescent and Flat 18, 18 Campden Hill Square valued respectively at £3,774 per sq ft and £3,227 per sq ft.

[44]The received valuation wisdom is that the smaller the property the more value it is per sq ft. This is shown in cases of studio flats, one-bedroom flats and two-bedroom flats. There may be specific markets where a larger unit may be more valuable than its smaller equivalent. Also, that a comparable is more reliable the less adjustments are needed to be made when compared with the subject property.

[45]The Tribunal has recourse to two comparables supplied by Mr Dharmasena, which are similar in size to Flat 1. The Tribunal has concerns with these comparables. Flat 18, 18 Campden Hill Square and Flats 1 & 5, 26 Holland Park are relatively close geographically but are part of the area known as Holland Park.

[46]The Tribunal considers the comparables are drawn from a different micro market, and so it devalues their ability to be used as an indicator of quantum.

[47]The Tribunal considers, given the micro markets, that the focus of the comparables should be restricted to geographical proximity. The Tribunal accordingly focuses on the following comparables.(1) Flat 1, 8 Stanley Cresent [floor plan page 309].

(2) Flat A, 26 Ladbroke Gardens [floor plan page 357].

(3) Flat 1, 19 Pembridge Square [floor plan page 374].

(4) Flat A, 4 Ladbroke Gardens [floor plan page 586].

(5) Flat 1, 10 Horbury Crescent [floor plan page 610].

(6) Flat A, 57 Ladbroke Road [floor plan page 670].

(7) Flat 3, 88 Kensington Park Road [floor plan page 591].

[48]Considering each comparable:(1) Flat 1, 8 Stanley Crescent This property comprises 1,892 sq ft. It has its own garden and front patio and in addition has direct access to communal gardens. It owns a share of the freehold. It sold in 14 June 2024 for £4,160,000, time adjusted to £4,183,009. This equates to £2,211 per sq ft. Ms Reade adjusts this for quantum to £1,990 per sq ft. This property was sold after the valuation date, and so would not be known to the parties. But as evidence it carries the weight of confirming or otherwise the general levels of value, at or around that date.

(2) Flat A, 26 Ladbroke Gardens This property comprises £1,425 sq ft. The lease has 155 years unexpired. There is direct access to communal gardens. It sold on 29 March 2023 for £2,975,000, adjusted to £3,008 for share of freehold and to £2,983,473 for time. This equates to £2,094 per sq ft. Ms Reade applies adjustments as follows: (a) a small garden plus 2.5%, (b) quantum less 10%. Ms Reade’s analysis is £1,989 per sq ft. Mr Dharmasena’s analysis is £2,722 per sq ft. He makes adjustments, for time, condition and “ other”, the latter resulting in a 35% adjustment. The Tribunal considers the approach of a multitude of adjustments wrapped up in others to be complex and the more adjustments needed the less reliable the approach. The Tribunal prefers Ms Reade’s approach. This sale is before the valuation date and so would, in theory, be known to the parties.

(3) Flat 1, 19 Pembridge Square This property comprises 1,582 sq ft. The lease has 981 years unexpired plus a share of the freehold. There is direct access to communal gardens. It sold on 22 August 2023 for £3,660,000, adjusted for time to £3,630,049. This equates to £2,295 per sq ft. Ms Reade applies adjustments as follows: (a) location plus 2.5%, (b) a small patio plus 2.5%, (c) quantum less 10%. Ms Reade’s analysis is £2,123 per sq ft. Mr Dharmasena’s analysis is £2,870 per sq ft. The Tribunal considers the approach of a multitude of adjustments wrapped up in others to be complex and the more adjustments needed the less reliable the approach. Again, the Tribunal prefers Ms Reade’s approach. This property was sold before the valuation date.

(4) Flat A, 4 Ladbroke Gardens This property comprises 2,070 sq ft. The lease has 80 years remaining. It sold on 23 August 2023 for £2350,000, adjusted for time to £2,341,775. Mr Dharmasena makes various adjustments resulting in a figure of £,1637 per sq ft. This property was sold before the valuation date. There are narrow bedrooms on the ground floor, and we disregard this comparable because the layout is so very different.

(5) Flat 1, 10 Horbury Crescent This property, geographically close, comprises 1,905 sq ft. It sold on 8 June 2023 for £5,600,000. Mr Dharmasena valued it at £3,774 per sq ft. Ms Reade valued it at £3,224 per sq ft. These figures are considerably outside the range demonstrated by the most of the comparables. The Tribunal considers this to be an outlier and disregards it.

(6) Flat A, 57 Ladbroke Road This property, located close by and to the South, comprises 1,387 sq ft. It was sold on 9 March 2023 for £2,350,000. Ms Reade valued it at £1,806 per sq ft. This produced an analysis by Mr Dharmasena of £1,682 per sq ft, which was then subject to an “other” adjustment of 45% and a condition adjustment of £15%, resulting in a valuation of £2,354 per sq ft. The Tribunal is concerned that the significant number of adjustments and their magnitude detracts from the reliability of his approach.

(7) Flat 3, 88 Kensington Park Road This property comprises 1,270 sq ft. It was sold 28 June 2023. The lease has 80 years remaining, and the condition is unimproved. It was sold on 28 June 2023 for £1,611,000. Ms Reade valued it at £1,354 per sq ft. Mr Dharmasena makes a number of adjustments including a 50% final adjustment, resulting in a valuation of £2,227 per sq ft. Whilst the property is close, the number and magnitude of adjustments made by Mr Dharmasena renders his valuation an unreliable comparable. In any event, the Tribunal considers this to be an outlier and disregards it.

[49]In summary, the Tribunal has three comparables before the valuation date: Flat A, 26 Ladbroke Gardens, at £1,989 per sq ft, Flat A, 57 Ladbroke Grove at £1,806 per sq ft and Flat 1, 19 Pembridge Square, at £2,123 per sq ft. There is one comparable after the valuation date which the Tribunal uses for guidance as to the accuracy of the three pre valuation date comparables. This being Flat 1, 8 Stanley Crescent at £1,990 per sq ft. The average of the three before the valuation date is £1,973 per sq ft. The comparable Flat 1, 8 Stanley Crescent is postdating the valuation date, but the evidence indicates some months later an approximate small variation; this is not outside the bounds of reasonableness in the view of the Tribunal. The freehold value of Flat 1 issue: valuation

[50]Applying £1,973 per sq ft to the agreed area of 3,705 sq ft over the ground and lower ground floors gives £7,309,965.

[51]The rates for the other floors in the building have been agreed at(a) first floor £2,495 per sq ft,

(b) second floor £2,149 per sq ft and

(c) third floor £1,762 per sq ft. Standing back and looking, a suggested rate of £2,167 which combines the areas of the ground and lower ground floors appears in line with the rates agreed for the remainder of the House.

[52]However, on has to go on further to consider the question of lateral interruption and the layout.

[53]There was much discussion over whether(a) the large central communal staircase for the House and

(b) the direct access of a bedroom from the living room detracted from Flat 1’s value. The Tribunal considers these two matters do so detract. We accordingly make an allowance of 2.5% for these matters. This results in a value of £7,309,965 less 2.5% which gives £7,127,215.

[54]The extent of the accommodation within the ground and lower ground floors was also considered. Whilst exact areas where not agreed, experts both felt that the lower ground floor was marginally larger than the ground floor. The total agreed area for the combined lower ground and ground floors in nominal terms was 3,705 sq ft. The comparables do not show any marked difference from this position, so the value applied is considered implicitly to take this into account and the Tribunal makes no further adjustments.

[55]The ceiling height of the ground floor is considerable and the ceiling height in the lower ground, whilst not restricted, is less than that of the ground floor. The Tribunal considers the differing magnitudes of ceiling height in the floors off set each other, and no further adjustment is needed.

[56]So, the figure for Flat 1 as calculated above is £7,127,215, say £7,127,250. The access licence issue

[57]The current owners of Flat 2 have previously indicated that they might wish physically to combine Flat 2 with the house next door to the east at 1 Kensington Park Gardens, London W11 3HB (“No 1”).

[58]Support for this proposition was that enquiries had been of the local planning authority, which indicated that planning permission was not required to combine the two units.

[59]A witness statement was admitted of Mr Mark Wordsworth, at the relevant time an employee of the current owners who advised them on personal, business and property matters. His evidence was to the effect that his then employers were special purchasers and were prepared to pay over the odds to secure the purchase of Flat 2. Although he was not cross examined he cannot, of course, give expert evidence as to value, so his evidence does not really assist on that.

[60]Mr Dharmasena produced a valuation which supported his assertion that such a proposal would produce a positive economic outcome and hence a source of funds for a licence fee to undertake the work. His figure came to £165,000.

[61]Upon questioning by the Tribunal, he explained that in his view the market of buyers would include individuals who would have projects carried out that might or may not produce an economic benefit. In some cases, the main driver was amenity value and so a project might take place that improves the amenity value for a particular person but not necessarily an economic benefit.

[62]Mr Dharmasena supports his prognosis that there is value in a licence to permit the physical merging of the two properties. The valuation is based on a high level development appraisal where the value of houses in the area and, in particular in this road, is compared to the value of flats. He seeks to show from his valuation that there is an uplift from such a proposal for Flat 2. He believes that attaching a flat to a house will result in the flat appreciating in value to that of the house. No such evidence that this would occur was presented. The counter factual, being that the linking the house to a leasehold may reduce the value of the house element, was not explored.

[63]In his valuation he sought to explore the cost of refurbishment of Flat 2 in order to bring it up to the condition of No 1. He accepted he was not a development surveyor, so did not have detailed experience, but felt 300 per sq ft was about right. Ms Reade also accepted that she was not a development surveyor and suggested the costs of conversion might be higher, potentially £600 per sq ft plus.

[64]The table at page 1007 prepared by Mr Dharmasena, from which the freehold comparable is derived, does not have supporting information and so the weight the Tribunal can place on it is less than that of the comparables used for the value of Flat 2 which are supported by extensive material.

[65]Given that the Tribunal received no evidence from suitable professionals and the cost of the works is unsubstantiated, little weight can be put on it.

[66]Having said this, the Tribunal accepts that such a proposal may be of interest to the owner of No 1, and so making the best it can of the valuation date, adjusts accordingly.

[68]The Tribunal takes a more straight forward approach. The value of Flat 2 is taken as £2,745 per sq ft (agreed figure of £2,495 plus 10% for new condition giving £2,745). The House is valued at £3,386 per sq ft from Mr Dharmasena’s analysis. The uplift is therefore £641 per sq ft.

[69]Applying this to the GIA of Flat 2 which is 1,728 sq ft, on arrives at a figure of £1,107,648.00. As we said, Mr Dharmasena estimates the cost of undertaking the works at £300 per sq ft. Ms Reade says £600 per sq ft. The Tribunal prefers £600 per sq ft, given the nature and location of the property. When applied to the whole 1st floor accommodation of 2,617 sq ft (first floor of No 1 and first floor of Flat 2). This gives a figure of £1,570,2000.

[70]This creates a negative value. There is no rational economic argument for carrying out this work. That is not to say an individual would not still carry out such work for an amenity value. This alternative approach, given the desire of the owner of No 1 to have this breakthrough, would see a payment for the licence to carry out such work. Given the nature of the work, the Tribunal considers a spot figure in the order of £100,000 would be reasonable. The roof terrace issue

[71]Mr Dharmasena asserts that there is value in the prospect of the installation of a roof terrace where the roof of the House currently is. He submits that such a proposal will attract an additional premium for the freehold value of £14,925.

[72]The Applicant has in turn submitted papers showing that a pre-application protocol was undertaken with the local planning authority to explore whether an alteration of the roof to make a mansard was likely to be well received and acceptable under its planning policy. The response was that such a proposal would be unlikely to be met with permission.

[73]The nature of the works that Mr Dharmasena is putting forward to support the claim for additional value of the freehold is not an alteration to the roof in the form of a mansard, but the creation of a roof terrace, effectively replacing the existing slate pitched roof.

[74]Whilst there are no formal drawings demonstrating such a proposed scheme, Mr Dharmasena referred to the presence of a similar scheme on the roof of 3 Kensington Park Gardens. Such a scheme would see the removal of the existing slate and pitched roof. Given the resistance of the local planning authority to the alteration of the existing roof, noting the building is listed and in a conservation area, it seems to the Tribunal likely that a more radical scheme, that of the removal of the pitched roof, would be met with even greater resistance. The Tribunal draws the conclusion from the planning evidence that such a scheme is almost inevitably destined for failure at the planning stage. A proposal without permission has no value and as such would attract no increased premium.

[75]If the Tribunal is wrong on this point, then the scheme’s viability depends also on the ability of the structure to support such a flat roof. No evidence has been brought forward to suggest what structural alterations would be needed or their cost. Given the adjoining neighbours and interference with the structure of the buildings, there are likely to be multiple party wall issues to be resolved also. Given this level of uncertainty, it is unlikely that such a scheme would be viable leading to no additional premium.

[76]A further point is this. Given the value being determined here is that of the freehold, the only potential beneficiary of the roof terrace would be the leaseholder of Flat 4. Given the size and nature of Flat 2, it is conceivably possible that such leaseholder might be interested in such a roof terrace. However, given the sheer magnitude of such a task, it is likely to be outside the reasonable reach of a single leaseholder as such, and in the absence of evidence of demand the Tribunal finds that no value attaches to this proposal. Conclusion

[77]We are grateful for the professionalism and efficiency of the experienced counsel, solicitors, and experts which, together with the excellent trial bundle, enabled the hearing to be completed in just one day.

[78]We have stated the premium at the commencement of this decision. Our calculations are set out in appendix A attached. Name: Judge Simon Brilliant Date: 03 December 2024 Appendix: Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Subject property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the subject property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Schedule 6 Calculation of Premium for Collective Enfranchisement Property: 2 Kensington Park Gardens, London W11 Valuation Date: 23/12/2023 Expiry Date of Leases Unexpired Term Flat 1 (LG & G Floor) 17/02/2071 47.15 Flat 2 (1st Floor) 30/11/2182 158.93 Flat 3 (2nd Floor) 31/07/2160 136.60 Flat 4 (3rd Floor ) 21/04/2070 46.33 Valuation of Freeholder’s Existing Interest Ground Rents £ £ £ £ Flat 1 75 Years purchase 14.16 years@ 6.00% 9.362 702 Review at 18/02/2038 100 Years Purchase 33.00 years @ 6.000% 14.23 Defer for 14.16 years@ 6.00% 0.438262 624 1,326 Flats 2 & 3 0 0 Flat 4 75 Years Purchase 13.33 years@ 6.00% 9.002 675 Review at 22/04/2037 100 Years Purchase 33.00 years@ 6.00% 14.23 Defer 13.33 years@ 6.00% 0.4599 654 1329 2655 Reversion to Freehold Vacant Possession Value on 18/02/2071 Flat 1 7,127,250 Defer for 47.15 years@ 5.00% 0.100194 714,108 Reversion to Freehold Vacant Possession Value on 30/11/2182 Flat 2 4,300,000 Defer for 158.93 years@ 5.00% 0.000429 1,844 Reversion to Freehold Vacant Possession Value on 01/08/2160 Flat 3 3,350,000 Defer for 136.60 years@ 5.00% 0.001275 4271 Reversion to Freehold Vacant Possession Value on 22/04/2070 Flat 4 2,900,000 Defer for 46.33 years@ 5.00% 0.104318 302,522 1,022,745 Hope Value in respect of potential future lease extension Tenants Proposed Interest Landlords Current Interest Tenants Current Interest Marriage Value Landlords Share @ 50% 70.05% Flat 1 7,127,250 715,434 4,992,638 1,419,178 709,589 709,589 69.36% Flat 4 2,900,000 303,852 2,011,440 584.708 292,354 292,354 c/f 1,001,943 Access Licence between no 1 and 2 KPG 100,000 Appurtenant Land 5,000 Value of Freeholders Existing Interest £2,129,688 Total Premium Payable: £2,129,688