MAGALIE MURIEL BOLAND v WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACQ/9/2003

UPPER TRIBUNAL

LANDS CHAMBER

ACQ/9/2003

Case No ACQ/9/2003

Between

MAGALIE MURIEL BOLANDApplicant

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCYRespondent

Before

P R Francis FRICS

Michael Boland for Claimant

in person for Claimant

with permission of the Tribunal for Claimant

Charles Parsley (instructed by Land Development and Legal Services, Welsh Development Agency) for Acquiring Authority

Venue Cardiff County Court, 2 Park Street, Cardiff, CF10 1ET

Date 3 May 2005

Hearing 1 & 2 March 2005

Property: Land at West Terrace, Penarth, South Glamorgan

Catchwords: COMPENSATION – compulsory acquisition – valuation – cleared site – planning permissions for housing association development and for elderly persons units – value of land – claim for loss of profit from prospective development – held compensation payable for value of land only - compensation £145,815.36

[1]This is a reference to determine the amount of compensation payable to Mrs M M Boland (“the claimant”) by the Welsh Development Agency (“WDA” or “the acquiring authority”) for the compulsory acquisition of 1,359 sq m land at West Terrace, Penarth, South Glamorgan (“the subject land”). The land, a cleared and vacant site, was acquired under the Land Authority for Wales (Land to the south-west of West Terrace, Penarth) Compulsory Purchase Order 1993 (“the CPO”) pursuant to an agreement between WDA and Hafod Housing Association (“HHA”). It was vested on 10 June 1997 (the agreed valuation date), and was subsequently developed by HHA with 10 sheltered housing units.

[2]The claimant argues for compensation in the sum of £1,500,000 made up as to £350,000 for the land and £1,150,000 disturbance for the loss of opportunity to earn profit from the claimant’s proposed development, both on the subject land and upon two other sites. WDA’s valuation of £155,000 is based upon its expert’s view that the site was most suited, in the open market, for a small development of no more than 10 private residential dwellings. No disturbance compensation is, in its view, payable. The issue for my determination is what, following a detailed analysis of the planning history, the subject land could have supported in development terms, and what price it could have been expected to realise in the open market at the valuation date.

[3]Mr Michael Boland appeared for his former wife. The solicitors that had been acting for her, Thomas Graham, advised the Tribunal during the week prior to the hearing that they were no longer on the record. Mr Boland said at the commencement of the hearing that the claimant’s former expert, Stephen Hattley Dip Arb FRICS of Christie & Co was no longer instructed and his report of 23 January 2004 was not being relied upon. He did call the claimant and Mr John Gould, a surveyor with the Jenkins Gould Partnership, her former architects, who both gave evidence of fact. Mr Charles Parsley of counsel appeared for WDA and called Graham Dickenson BSc (Est Man) FRICS, a chartered surveyor who gave valuation evidence. The Facts

[4]There was no agreed statement of facts or issues to be determined. However, from the evidence at the hearing and my inspection of the subject land, comparable sites and surrounding area, I find the following facts.

[5]The subject land comprised, at the valuation date, a relatively level, cleared site extending to 0.1359 ha (0.336 acre). It is located in a heavily developed residential area comprising, in the main, terraces of Victorian cottages and is about 350 metres from Penarth town centre. There are some commercial premises nearby and to the rear, together with a small school, a telephone exchange and St Joseph’s church. Occupying a rectangular, corner position, the land has a frontage to West Terrace, a return frontage to Grove Terrace and a further unnamed lane to the rear (serving the school, the telephone exchange and an open 2 recreation area). Vehicular access is thus available to three sides, with the eastern boundary formed by an end terrace house, 22 West Terrace. It is accepted that the surroundings are effectively the same now as they were in 1997.

[6]The land was acquired by the claimant in about 1980, at which time it was occupied by a number of ageing industrial buildings that were let to a variety of tenants. Uses included a laundry, tyre and exhaust fitters, motor repairs and a heavy transport depot. Subsequently, as tenants of several units vacated, the buildings were not re-let and fell into disrepair. Following repeated attempts by the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council to persuade the claimant to remove derelict and unsightly structures, action was taken under section 79 of the Building Act 1984, and the buildings were removed by the council in 1989. The costs incurred are registered as land charges and amount to £9,184.64.

[7]During the 1980 – 1989 period, the claimant sought planning permission for development on a number of occasions. Following refusals of applications in 1980 and 1981 for 20 and 17 terraced units on the grounds of over-development of the site, an application for 16 dwellings dated 2 December 1981 was also refused, but granted on appeal. Although still considered to be an over-development of the land, the inspector accepted that there was a need for starter homes (the type of development promulgated by the claimant in her appeal statement), and acknowledged that some relaxation of standards would be appropriate. That consent was not acted upon and allowed to lapse. An application for an elderly persons residence together with surgery and a flat made in 1989 was withdrawn, with a subsequent, amended application refused.

[8]On 9 March 1993, an application by HHA (who had been trying to acquire the land by agreement from 1991) for 14 two and three bedroom dwellings was approved. A separate application was submitted by the claimant on 19 January 1993 for 19 1 bedroom sheltered housing units and a 2 bedroom warden’s house. Permission was eventually granted on 9 May 1994 and was subject to a section 106 Agreement which would restrict the occupation of the sheltered units to persons of over 60 years, and prevent sales of the units to private purchasers.

[9]In furtherance of its need to bring forward sites for affordable housing, the Land Authority for Wales (“LAW” – predecessor to WDA) was empowered to acquire land for the purpose, and with the subject land having remained undeveloped by the claimant for over 13 years, and HHA having been unable to acquire the land by agreement, made the CPO which, following a public inquiry in 1994, was eventually confirmed in 1997. The land was vested in LAW on 10 June 1997, this being the valuation date for the purposes of this reference.

[10]Following grant of the claimant’s planning permission, a building regulations application was made to the council on 26 September 1994, and accepted on 30 September 1994. However, the builder employed by Mrs Boland was found to have commenced works on the footings for 8 of the proposed units “prior to 5 October 1994” (the date of detection) with no notice of commencement having been given, and foundations found to have been concreted with no opportunity for the excavations to be inspected. Notice of Failure to Comply with the Building Regulations was served on 13 October 1994. Subsequently, building works continued sporadically up until March 1995, further notices were served, summonses were 3 issued against the claimant (but service was not effected due to her being out of the country) and the builder. Eventually, the builder was fined for the contravention. The CPO inquiry, which took place in September and October 1994 resulted in a recommendation (dated 27 October 1994) to the Secretary of State for Wales that the CPO should be confirmed to enable the HHA development to proceed. Nevertheless, in the light of the fact that work on the claimant’s proposed scheme had commenced, the Welsh Office (notwithstanding the then alleged building regulation infringements) stated that time should be given for the claimant to complete her development, and advised that the matter would be considered further “on 1 September”. The development did not proceed, and the CPO was eventually confirmed in early 1997. The subject land was passed to HHA who subsequently proceeded with a development of 10 two bedroom houses grouped in 2 terraces, rather than the 14 for which permission had been received in 1993. Claimant’s Case

[11]Mrs Boland explained that in the 1970s her former husband’s family ran a well- established nursing home in Penarth. She said that during that period, there had been a significant increase in the number of residential care and nursing homes opening to satisfy the increasing demand for the care of the elderly. These homes tended to very institutionalised and were often conversions of large Victorian houses. The idea had come to her, in the late 1970s, that there would be a demand for a new style of retirement home that would bridge the gap between people remaining in their own homes and moving into such institutions. With the assistance of Mr John Gould of the Jenkins Gould Partnership (architects and building surveyors), her accountant and solicitor, she developed a plan to create enclaves of small 1 bedroom cottage style homes with an on-site or nearby warden permanently on call. Although based upon the concept of sheltered housing, Mrs Boland said that it would be more intensive with all meals provided from a central source, and cleaning and maintenance carried out. It was her view that such a community would allow residents a much greater sense of independence and dignity, and with assistance from friends and family, would enable them to maintain as normal a lifestyle as possible without feeling ‘locked away’.

[12]The site for such a development needed to be in a residential area, with easy access to local facilities, and as she was a Penarth resident and well known in the area, she wanted the first venture to be in the town. Mrs Boland said that the subject land, which was occupied by fully let commercial/industrial buildings, became available and, after she received encouragement from the local planning department who were keen to see the site tidied up, she acquired it in about 1980. At around the same time (between 1978 and 1980), she bought two other sites – one at The Limes, Cowbridge, and another at Penyfai near Bridgend for the same purpose, but, she stressed, she was strongly of the view that Penarth should be the first development. She also bought an existing terraced cottage near to the subject land which was to be available for a warden.

[13]Mr Gould had obtained planning permission on appeal in 1983 for 16 three bedroom cottages. Mrs Boland said that as tenancies and licences under which the industrial buildings were occupied fell in, the buildings were not re-let. However, it took a long time for the site to become completely vacant. Following a re-think, a further planning application was submitted for 19 1 bedroom cottages and a two-bedroom wardens house, and approved in May 1994 4 subject to a section 106 agreement. Mrs Boland said that a start was made on the first 8 units but soon afterwards, LAW started “hounding” her to sell the land. She said she told them the land was not for sale, but in due course a CPO was served. Following the Inquiry into the CPO, at which her husband objected, she said that because a start had been made on her development, the Secretary of State for Wales gave her permission, in a letter of 13 February 1995, to continue with the construction. However, she said she was later horrified to receive notification that the CPO had been confirmed, and that she was to lose the land.

[14]Mrs Boland said that the financial projections that had been prepared by her accountant indicated the development would have been exceptionally profitable, but she was unable to produce any supporting figures as he had died, and his former practice had been wound up. West Terrace was to be the first piece in the jigsaw of a much wider scheme that would have included the other two sites, but she felt uncomfortable contemplating the development of either Bridgend or Cowbridge before the market had been first tested by the scheme on the subject land, which was in her own home town. Also, she said her bank had not been willing to support alternative developments before West Terrace was up and running.

[15]In cross-examination, Mrs Boland accepted that the planning permission obtained in 1983 was for starter homes rather than elderly persons’ accommodation, but said she did not know why that was the case. As to the reasons why she had not completed the development upon which work had commenced in 1994, she said that with the CPO hanging over her, there was a risk that whatever was built would have to be knocked down. Mrs Boland did not accept the suggestion that the cottages as designed in the 1993 scheme (permitted in 1994) were impractical for elderly and potentially infirm residents in that there were stairs to climb with no chairlift, and doorways were too narrow to allow wheelchair access.

[16]When pressed over aspects such as the lack of any communal lounge, no guest/relatives accommodation and the costs of providing meals and other services, Mrs Boland admitted that her proposals never really got off the ground or progressed past the ideas stage, and no business plan had been prepared. She acknowledged that any claim for loss of business was entirely hypothetical and agreed that the land had been purchased speculatively.

[17]Mr Gould outlined his involvement with the claimant, who he first met in 1976, and with the subject land. He said that he was asked to survey the land to establish its suitability or otherwise for her proposed scheme, and to advise in respect of the steps needed to remove the tenants that occupied the various buildings. In his view, the site was ideal for the development envisaged and, furthermore, he said he told Mrs Boland about the existence of the Cowbridge and Bridgend sites, which she subsequently went on to purchase. His practice designed and submitted the application for 16 units that was granted on appeal in 1983. Mr Gould accepted in cross-examination that that scheme was for starter units rather than elderly persons accommodation, although he said that special care had been taken in the design to allow for the ambulant disabled, and also for people in wheelchairs.

[18]The Jenkins Gould Partnership had also prepared plans for elderly persons accommodation on the Cowbridge and Bridgend sites, although these had never been taken forward to the planning application stage. Although not personally involved in the revised 5 scheme on the subject land in 1993, Mr Gould said that his firm had prepared the application and building regulation drawings but these were passed on to another firm of architects who made the actual submission. He said that the revised application took into account the latest local authority, Fire Service and Social Services requirements, but acknowledged that the doorways in the proposed cottages may not have been wide enough to accept wheelchair access.

[19]Mr Boland made wide-ranging submissions to stress that the claimant had every intention of pursuing her proposed scheme on the subject land and that, indeed, construction works on the first 8 units had commenced before the LAW effectively “stole” the site from her. He said that it was important to his former wife that the Penarth site should be undertaken first, particularly because of her intimate local knowledge. In any event, her bank would not support a development of either of the other two sites before the scheme on the subject land had been completed. Therefore, the effect of the CPO was, he said, to prevent Mrs Boland not only from undertaking the Penarth scheme which her accountant had estimated would be extremely profitable, but Cowbridge and Bridgend also. Hence the substantial claim for loss of opportunity to earn profits.

[20]Mr Boland admitted that he had no evidence to support his claims either as to the value of the land, or as to the estimated loss of profit, and accepted that I can do nothing other than judge this case on the basis of the factual evidence presented. Acquiring Authority’s Case

[21]Mr Dickenson is a chartered surveyor who, since 2002, has been practising on his own account in Crickhowell, South Wales. He had been an associate director of Debenham Tie Leung, International Property Consultants, for the previous 13 years and prior to that had 17 years in the public sector with the Valuation Office, the majority of that time spent in the South Wales area. He produced a comprehensive report and two supplemental reports.

[22]He said that he had carried out a thorough investigation of the local market place at the relevant date, both in terms of development land values, and the achieved sale prices of new properties. As to the subject land, he said that, having vehicular access on three sides it allowed efficient, high density development without the need to construct on-site roads. The development that HHA had actually undertaken was in keeping with the surrounding houses and at 10 units allowed larger gardens and secure on-site parking for each of them than if the original permission gained by them, for 14, had been implemented. Even at 10 units, the development that took place equated to 30 houses to the acre. 14 units would be 42 to the acre, and the original 1983 permission would be 48 to the acre which, on anything other than sites for multi-storey flat developments, would have been serious over-development.

[23]Mr Dickenson said that, in his professional opinion, the site was most suited for the type of development that had actually occurred, which was attractive and well balanced. He had serious concerns over the viability of the claimant’s stated proposals particularly as not only had the idea not previously been tested, but in the permission obtained by her in 1994 there 6 was no amenity space such as on-site communal lounges or meeting rooms and there were no gardens which the residents would be able to enjoy. There was also inadequate on-site parking the result of which could be to cause congestion in the adjacent streets. Furthermore, the design of the 19 individual units was such that they were inherently unsuited for occupation by elderly and possibly infirm people. Not only did they have first floor bedrooms and narrow staircases that could not accommodate a chair-lift, but the doorways and turning areas were so narrow as to be impossible for wheelchair use.

[24]As to site value, Mr Dickenson said that whilst there was a shortage of direct comparable evidence for sites in Penarth, there were two transactions in the period leading up to 1997 that were informative. The first of these was a site of 0.91 acres at Woodland Place, about 250 metres from the town centre. It was acquired by J R Smart (Builders) Ltd in 1995 for £405,000 – equating to £445,000 per acre. 22 houses were built, 18 of which were 2 bedroom units in small terraces of 3 to 5 houses with the remainder either detached or semi-detached larger houses. There was only a short access road; all had on-site parking, but few had garages. They all sold readily, and the development was completed in 1998. The second was a former large house in Earl Road previously used for student accommodation on a site of 1.6 acres about 800 metres from the town centre. It was acquired by Homes by St David in August 1996 for £600,000, or £375,000 per acre. 19 detached and 3-storey town houses were built and all had driveways and garages.

[25]Mr Dickenson also looked at land transactions over a wider area, including Cardiff and the recent Cardiff Bay regeneration area and Penarth Haven, an extensive waterside development and marina. Prices ranged between about £170,000 and £305,000 per acre but it was acknowledged that some of these were in inferior areas and, particularly in respect of waterside developments, infrastructure costs would be much higher. Overall, Mr Dickenson concluded that Woodland Place was the best comparable. Based upon this, and making adjustments for the much more restricted plot/unit size on the subject land, he came to a range of values of between £142,200 and £165,700. Making a slight further allowance for anticipated costs of dealing with contamination, he said that a fair open market value would be £140,000. This was based upon 10 units, as developed. He acknowledged that planning permission had originally been achieved for 16 units, although these were very small starter homes and that would have been reflected in resale prices achieved. It was also accepted that HHA had obtained planning permission for 14 units, before amending the proposals to 10. Again, such a development would have been extremely cramped, but giving the claimant the benefit of the doubt on every possible aspect, including the fact that a purchaser may have seen an opportunity to achieve a higher profit than might be achieved on 10 units, Mr Dickenson concluded that compensation should be paid in the sum of £155,000. This equated to £465,000 per acre – more than had been achieved on any other site.

[26]As to the claimant’s arguments that the site had a higher value for her proposed development, Mr Dickenson said he could not agree. The success of such a scheme would depend upon offering a high degree of quality and dependable service to persons of some means. It was a fact that the claimant was not intending to sell the units in the open market – indeed the section 106 agreement prevented this occurring. The sort of rental levels at £550 to £600 per week that Mrs Boland was assuming she could achieve was equivalent to the weekly cost of the highest quality nursing or residential home that offered 24 hour care. The cramped 7 development that was being proposed, with no proper communal facilities, could not possibly, in his view, command such charges. Furthermore, the start-up costs of such a proposal were extremely high, and no account had been taken of void periods. Indeed, Mr Dickenson said, no proper costed proposals or business plan had been prepared. At the relevant date, there was an over-supply of warden assisted property and the units in the nearby Westwood Court development (that, as with all others, had accommodation all on one floor, and full lift access) were not selling.

[27]In closing, Mr Parsley said that the claim for disturbance was wholly misconceived. The claimant’s proposals had never got off the drawing board, let alone off the ground, and no business plan had been prepared. The valuation of the land prepared by Mr Dickenson was generous, and was to be commended. Finally, he said the outstanding land charge of just over £9,000 should be deducted from any compensation awarded. Conclusions

[28]The land is to be valued as it was at the valuation date, as a cleared site, on the basis of the planning assumptions set out in sections 14 to 16 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (“the 1961 Act”). Section 14(1) provides that, for the purposes of assessing the value of the relevant land, such of the assumptions in sections 15 and 16 as are applicable to the relevant land shall be made. Section 14(2) provides that any planning permission which is to be assumed in accordance with any of the provisions of those sections is in addition to any planning permission which may be in force at the date of the service of the notice to treat.

[29]The situation here was that both of the planning permissions – the claimant’s for 19 elderly persons dwellings and warden’s accommodation, and the HHA scheme for 14 two and three bedroom dwellings – were still extant, and the parties have founded their valuations on these provisions. The purpose of the compulsory acquisition was to provide for the implementation of the HHA scheme, so that the permission to be assumed under section 15(1) adds nothing; and there is no suggestion that any permission that might fall to be assumed under section 16 would add anything either.

[30]The claimant produced no evidence to support the contention that the land had a value of £350,000. Both that figure and the alleged loss of future profits seemed to me to have been purely plucked out of the air. On the other hand, I found Mr Dickenson’s reports and evidence to be comprehensive, well presented and helpful. I am persuaded by his opinions regarding the unsuitability of the design and layout of the 19 proposed elderly persons cottages, and the reasons why he considered Mrs Boland’s ideas to be unworkable. Also, I have taken into account the fact that there was an over-supply of warden assisted accommodation in Penarth (albeit that Mrs Boland’s proposals were for a slightly more sophisticated business) and that the rentals that she was proposing were not based upon any comprehensive market research, and did not appear at all realistic. I conclude therefore that there is no evidence to suggest that the land may have had any value over and above that which applies for a residential development scheme of the type for which HHA had obtained permission. 8

[31]From my inspection of the subject land, the two Penarth sites specifically referred to by Mr Dickenson, together with Westwood Court, the surrounding area in general, and Penarth Haven I am satisfied that the development that was eventually undertaken by HHA is both appropriate to the area and for the site in particular. Whilst I have no doubt that another 4 to 6 units might have been accommodated on the site, I take Mr Dickenson’s point that subsequent resale values would have been affected. Nevertheless, I do accept that he has, if anything, been generous in applying a value that equates to £465,000 per acre, and in my view that more than compensates for the fact that it could perhaps be argued that a valuation based upon 10 units did not fully reflect ultimate development opportunities on the site. In my judgment, the Woodland Place transaction and subsequent development provided an ideal comparable and at a transaction equating to £445,000 per acre, that alone fully supports Mr Dickenson’s opinion. I therefore conclude that the value of the land at 10 June 1997 was £155,000.

[32]I now turn to the claim for loss of future profits. In my judgment Mrs Boland’s disturbance claim is misconceived, and, as I have already said it was apparent to me that the figures promulgated by Mr Boland had no basis in fact. The relevant law is set out in Section 5, rules (2) and (6) of the 1961 Act which states:

“(2) The value of the land shall… be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise; (6) The provisions of rule (2) shall not affect the assessment of compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of the land;”

[33]Loss of profits derived from business carried on upon the land would normally be assessed as a separate head of claim under rule (6). However, where the business comprises development of the land with a view to realisation of future profits, the potential for that profit is properly reflected in the value of the land (rule (2)) – see Ryde International plc v London Regional Transport [2004] RVR 60. In this case, there is no loss of profit derived from a business carried out on the land, as the development that was intended to earn those profits had not even commenced. As to future profits (and, here, the claim also alleges loss of future profit from the intended but frustrated subsequent development of other sites) the claimant has produced no evidence whatsoever to support her arguments.

[34]In Mr Boland’s view, whether the claim is split between value of the land and disturbance or not, the compensation to which his former wife is entitled is £1,500,000. He said that had it not been for the CPO, Mrs Boland would have completed the development and would have then proceeded with similar developments at Cowbridge and Bridgend. However, in my view, the evidence which was produced by the acquiring authority clearly establishes that that would not have been the case. The CPO inquiry was adjourned specifically to allow the claimant an opportunity to proceed with, and complete, the development that had been commenced on the site. That opportunity was not taken – indeed it is clear to me that not only did she not proceed, but the initial start that had been made was not in accordance with building regulation requirements and either her, or her builder’s failure to comply, resulted in proceedings being initiated with a subsequent heavy fine being imposed. Such a background does nothing to persuade me that Mrs Boland had any serious intention of completing that project, let alone those that were proposed on the other two sites – for which I also note that no planning permission has ever been sought or achieved. 9

[35]It will be clear from the above that I consider there to be no entitlement to a disturbance payment under rule (6), and as I have already said, I do not think there is any enhancement to the value of the land over and above any value that pertains for the proposed HHA development. I therefore determine that the compensation to be paid to the claimant by the Welsh Development Agency for the freehold interest in the subject land shall be £155,000 from which shall be deducted the outstanding land charge of £9,184.64. This concludes my determination in this reference which will become final when the question of costs is decided. A letter is enclosed in that regard. DATED 18 March 2005 (Signed) P R Francis FRICS 10 ADDENDUM

[36]I have received submissions on costs from the parties. The claimant said that she believed the council should pay all of her costs and disbursements as the land had been taken against her will, and being deprived of her land had already caused significant financial loss. She also said that the compulsory purchase breached Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. That Article states “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest …”. In Mrs Boland’s view the reason for the land being compulsorily acquired was for the benefit of the acquiring authority and HHA, and was not in the public interest.

[37]The acquiring authority said that, in the light of the determination, and the fact that it had made a sealed offer to the claimant in the sum of £165,500 as long ago as 10 July 2003, it should have its costs. Furthermore, it invited me to consider the claimant’s conduct in deciding whether or not it is appropriate for an award of costs to be made on the indemnity basis.

[38]Strenuous efforts had been made by the council and its expert to agree compensation with the claimant, following confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order. However, agreement had not proved possible and the claimant left it for almost 6 years before lodging the Notice of Reference to the Lands Tribunal. Having dispensed with the services of her former expert valuer, Mrs Boland sought two extensions of time for the submission of an expert’s report because of her failure to appoint a replacement in a timely manner. Further adjournment applications were made, and directions for disclosure set down at the pre-trial review were not, in the event, complied with.

[39]As it transpired, the claimant subsequently dispensed with the services of her second expert and those of her former solicitors. This resulted in her not being professionally represented at the substantive hearing, there had been no formal agreement as to facts and issues, and it had fallen upon the acquiring authority to prepare the trial bundle. The claimant, the council said, had set out to be vexatious and obstructive in a way which was calculated to demonstrate contempt for the process.

[40]The general rule is that the successful party ought to receive his costs (see Lands Tribunal Practice Directions of 4 January 2005) para 20.3, with particular rules applying in respect of claims for compensation by virtue of section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 relating to sealed offers. In this case, the council made an unconditional sealed offer, which exceeded my determination by some 12%, only 4 months after the Notice of Reference was lodged. In effect, therefore, by awarding the acquiring authority its costs from the date of the offer, it will recover the vast majority of the expense it has incurred.

[41]Whilst I have considered the council’s claim for costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis, I am satisfied that an award on the standard basis is more appropriate. 11

[42]I am also satisfied that the claimants rights under Article 1 have not been breached in that the compulsory acquisition of her land was clearly in the public interest. The claimant must accordingly bear all her own costs and pay the compensating authority’s costs from 10 July 2003, such costs if not agreed, to be subject to a detailed assessment by the Registrar on the standard basis. DATED 3 May 2005 (Signed) P R Francis FRICS 12