TRUSTEES OF THE 2ND SIDCUP (ST JOHNS) SCOUT GROUP v LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY ACQ/83/2003

UPPER TRIBUNAL

LANDS CHAMBER

ACQ/83/2003

Case No ACQ/83/2003

Between

TRUSTEES OF THE 2ND SIDCUP (ST JOHNS) SCOUT GROUPApplicant

LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEYRespondent

Before

P R Francis FRICS

Mr D S Webb (Chairman of the Trustees for Claimant

Mr B Rushen (a Trustee) appeared for Claimant

Mrs V Williams for Respondent

solicitor to London Borough of Bexley for Respondent

Legal Services for Respondent

appeared for Respondent

Venue 48/49 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JR

Date 21 November 2003

Hearing 18 November 2003

Property: 30/31 Grassington Road, Sidcup, Kent, DA14 6BY

Catchwords: COMPENSATION – scout hut and premises – compulsory acquisition of a private right of way – loss – compensation awarded: nil

[1]This is a decision, heard under the Simplified Procedure (Rule 28, Lands Tribunal Rules 1996) to determine the amount of compensation, if any, payable to The Trustees of the 2nd Sidcup (St Johns) Scout Group (“the claimants”) by the London Borough of Bexley (“the respondent”) pursuant to the compulsory acquisition, under the London Borough of Bexley (Grassington Road, Sidcup) Compulsory Purchase Order 1998 (“the CPO”) of a Private Right of Way attaching to 30/31 Grassington Road, Sidcup, Kent, DA14 6BY (“the subject property”).

[2]Mr D Webb (Chairman of the Trustees) and Mr B Rushen (a Trustee) appeared on behalf of the claimants. Mrs V Williams, solicitor to London Borough of Bexley, Legal Services, appeared for the respondent and called Mr J S Wilkinson BSc (Hons) FRICS who gave expert evidence. FACTS

[3]From the claimants’ statement of case and the evidence provided by the acquiring authority, I find the following facts:3.1 The subject property comprises the headquarters of the claimant Scout Group and includes modern brick and tiled buildings (described on the relevant Ordnance Survey sheet as ‘Scout Halls’) together with a courtyard and drive in area to the front (large enough to accommodate 3 vehicles) enclosed by close boarded fencing which incorporates steel framed and mesh gates on the front (road) elevation.

3.2 The property lies close to Sidcup town centre, on the north side of Grassington Road which, prior to the development for which the CPO was made, was a through road between Church Road to the east, and Elm Road to the west.

3.3 The conveyance of the subject property dated 6 January 1921 made between A Goddard (vendor) and G P Baker and others (purchasers) contained the clause:

“To hold the same unto and to the use of the Purchasers as joint tenants in fee simple subject nevertheless to (a)….(b) all rights of light drainage or other easements or quasi-easements affecting the said premises but otherwise free from encumbrances with the full right and liberty in common with all other persons who have or may hereafter have the right at all times with or without horses carriages whether laden or unladen to go pass and repass along Grassington Road.”

It also said (at para 8): “The purchasers shall keep one half of Grassington Road in good order and condition so far as the same is co-extensive with the property until the road is taken over by the local authority.” 2 Mr Webb said, and I accept, that it was under that conveyance that the Scout Group commenced occupation of the subject property and benefited from the right of way referred to above. 3.4 The CPO was confirmed by the Secretary of State on 17 August 2000, and the council made a General Vesting Declaration on 4 January 2002 stating that all the land which was the subject of the CPO would vest in them from 2 February 2002. That is the valuation date for the purposes of this reference. The right of way that the subject property had previously enjoyed was included in the schedule of land comprised in the order as “Approximately 2218 square metres comprising part of adjacent highways Grassington Road and Elm Road, Sidcup, Kent.” 3.5 The CPO was made to ensure the assembly of all the land needed for a major commercial town-centre redevelopment scheme which was to include a large supermarket (Safeway), underground and ground level parking and associated highway works including a new pedestrian mall and unit shops. It also involved stopping-up Grassington Road at its junction with Elm Road creating a cul-de-sac, although there is still pedestrian and cycle access to Elm Road. A new turning head was formed in Grassington Road, immediately adjacent to the subject property to allow vehicles to turn around and exit back onto Church Road. 3.6 The new development was completed and opened in April 2003. 3.7 Grassington Road was made up and adopted by the Urban District of Chislehurst and Sidcup (the predecessor to the acquiring authority) in approximately 1958. Claimants’ Case

[4]In their statement of case and their letter of claim to the council dated 3 November 2001, the claimants’ said the loss of the private right of way through and along the entire length of Grassington Road would manifest itself in compensatable terms in a number of ways. Firstly, daytime parking restrictions (between 09.00 and 17.30) would prevent parents stopping, parking and entering the scout headquarters for the purposes of speaking to the scout leaders before or after meetings. This could, they said, result in parents removing their boys from the group, and taking them to other groups where there were better parking and dropping off facilities. The potential loss in fees (at about £100 per scout member) was estimated at £5,000.

[5]Secondly, parking would be a problem for the scout leaders themselves, as they would in future have to pay to park in one of the nearby public car parks, and would have to carry their equipment from there to the premises. This might result in leaders resigning, and the cost of training new ones was at least £2,000. Thirdly, there are occasional needs for mini-buses or coaches to park outside to collect and drop off members of the group in connection with outside activities such as District or County events and camps. There would be parking and turning problems and, most importantly of all, the junction with Church Road is particularly hazardous, especially for coaches that would have to turn left, due to proposed width restrictions in the nearby Green. This third point could not be quantified in monetary terms but there were risks of injury and to the safety of the members and leaders. 3

[6]Finally, the sum of £297 that had been paid by the scout group in June 1958 under the Private Street Works Act 1892 towards the making up of Grassington Road was being claimed. In all, the claimants said that they felt suitable compensation for all the losses that the loss of the right of way could occasion would be £25,000 – that being, in their view, about 10 per cent of the value of the subject property as a whole.

[7]In response to questions from the acquiring authority and from me, Mr Webb said that scout meetings were normally held on Monday and Friday evenings between 18.00 and 21.00 hours, and there were no parking restrictions in Grassington Road applicable during those times. Any restrictions that might be imposed in connection with parking were made under the Traffic Management Orders, and it was accepted that as such, any inconvenience or losses that might stem from them were not a matter for compensation in connection with the CPO and were not related to the loss of the right of way.

[8]Mr Webb said that access to the headquarters was available and sometimes required during the day, but it was accepted that the newly provided public car park was slightly closer, following the completion of the development, than the old one had been. He also accepted that there was room for at least 3 vehicles to be parked within the curtilage of the subject property, and that loading and unloading could be undertaken there. However, parking of any vehicles (including those of the scout leaders) on the premises was discouraged on meeting nights, for safety reasons.

[9]It was admitted that no coaches had been used since the development had been completed, but if the group did need one, it would have to reverse along the road from the Church Road junction as, indeed, did the council’s refuse collection vehicles. There was no problem, he said, in turning mini-buses around. It was also acknowledged that since Grassington Road had become a cul-de-sac, it was used by less traffic, which, in terms of the safety of the users, was a benefit. However, he did stress the group’s concerns over the junction with Church Road.

[10]As to the concerns over the potential for loss of members, Mr Webb said that, to his knowledge, none had moved to other groups since the scheme was opened in April 2003. Acquiring Authority’s Case

[11]Mr Wilkinson is a chartered surveyor, and employed as a Principal Valuer with the acquiring authority. He has 21 years experience of CPO matters working with local authorities, and has been involved with the Sidcup town centre redevelopment since 1996. He stressed that nowhere in the claimants’ case was there any evidence of loss and in any event, none of the points of claim related to the right that had been taken. That was a right to pass and repass along Grassington Road but, for example, was not a right to park.

[12]Parking restrictions were independent of the CPO process (as had been accepted by the claimants) and are not related to land acquisition. Nevertheless, it was a fact that Grassington Road was subject to parking restrictions prior to the scheme, covering less of the road but for 4 longer hours. Notwithstanding that the claim relating to the alleged effects of parking restrictions was not something that the council could consider, it was a fact that parking facilities are now no worse, and with the closer proximity of the new car park, probably better than they were.

[13]Mr Wilkinson said that, in terms of usage of the road, a distinct benefit was that it could no longer be used as a ‘rat-run’, which had been the case prior to the development taking place. It was only now used by a much more limited number of vehicles and that must have advantages in terms of safety for the users of the subject property. The payment made in respect of the making up of Grassington Road was not something for which compensation could be paid. Conclusions

[14]The parties agreed that an inspection by me of the subject property and the surrounding area was not required.

[15]Under rules (2) and (6) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 I have to determine the value of the interest acquired from the claimants under the CPO, and any consequential loss that may have occurred as a result of that acquisition. The easement that was acquired – the private right of way - could only have value for the owners of the dominant hereditament - the Trustees. The proper measure of value under rule (2) will be the difference in the value of the subject property with and without the easement. Rule (6) compensation deals with disturbance losses that the claimants have suffered, or may expect to suffer (such as loss of profits), together with any additional costs incurred arising from the loss of the easement.

[16]The first question to be answered, therefore, is what was the value of the easement? Whatever value it may have had when it was granted in 1921, in allowing access to the subject property, would have depended upon whether Grassington Road was a public highway. It is known that it was a private street, maintainable at the expense of the frontagers, but no evidence was adduced in respect of the highway aspect. Such evidence was not necessary, as it is the value at the valuation date that I am concerned with, and not any earlier value. In February 2002 Grassington Road had been made up and adopted by the local authority, and full rights to pass and repass, with or without vehicles along the whole of its length therefore existed. The existence of the easement was by then no longer necessary to gain full access to the property from Grassington Road. In other words, the claimants’ rights under the easement added nothing to the rights of highway that they enjoyed at the valuation date.

[17]However it is, according to the claimants, a consequence of the acquisition that, with the stopping up of the junction with Elm Road, the former right to pass and repass along the whole length of the road with or without horses and carriages no longer exists, and they say they are inconvenienced by that fact. The ability, under the former easement, to enter and exit Grassington Road with vehicles from Elm Road has therefore been interfered with and, they say, they anticipate losses as a result. These were not quantified, other than through arbitrary estimates of potential loss of income and re-training costs, and an overall affect on value of the subject property of about £25,000. 5

[18]In my view, if that partial stopping-up (access and egress by pedestrians and cycles is still possible) had reduced the value of the subject property, or had other consequences in terms of loss, this would be properly reflected by compensation. However, I am not satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the loss of a right, and thus the ability, to enter or leave Grassington Road from Elm Road has caused any such loss. The only real anticipated problem was if a coach needed to pick up and drop off members and leaders in connection with outside events. Access for large vehicles would be much more difficult as they could not turn within the newly formed cul-de-sac – the turning head not being large enough. Also, it was stated, the exit onto Church Road in a northerly direction was hazardous. Nevertheless, Mr Webb admitted that no coaches had been required since the new development opened in April 2003, and there was no problem for mini-buses.

[19]It seems to me that the complaints about parking restrictions and the potential for loss of members and scout leaders could not be associated with the loss of the easement, and there is no evidence to support what the claimants contend. No members have been lost to other groups, and no scout leaders appear to have left because of their inability to park. If anything, it appears that now the road is a cul-de-sac, and no longer used as a rat-run, together with the fact there is a newly provided turning head right next to the subject property, the claimants are probably better off now than they were.

[20]I conclude that no loss in value of the subject premises has occurred, and the claim for anticipated losses is not proved. I therefore determine that no compensation is payable to the claimants under either rule (2) or rule (6) of the Act. As to the claim for reimbursement of the £297 paid towards the cost of making up the road in 1958 this is not, in my view, a compensatable head of claim. In any event, the making up and subsequent adoption of the road has served to relieve the claimants of their previous liabilities to maintain half the width of the road in front of the property.

[21]The matter having been heard under the Simplified Procedure, no offer having been made by the acquiring authority, and no application for costs having been made by either party, I make no award as to costs.

[22]This determines the substantive issues in this case. 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 21 November 2003 (Signed) P R Francis FRICS 6