Adrian Philip Glasspool v London Borough of Southwark

Introduction

1. The claimant is Mr Adrian Glasspool whose leasehold interest in a ground and first floor maisonette at 49 Cuddington, Deacon Way, London SE17 1SR (“No.49”) was compulsorily acquired by the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) under the London Borough of Southwark (Elephant and Castle No.1) Compulsory Purchase Order 2012. The Council took possession of the property under a general vesting declaration on 6 November 2013 which is agreed to be the valuation date.

2. There are two issues in dispute: (i) The open market value of No.49; and (ii) Disturbance.

3. The claimant says the open market value of No.49 is £300,000 and the Council says it is £235,000. The parties agree that the claimant is entitled to a home loss payment of 10% of the open market value.

4. The claimant seeks compensation for disturbance in respect of (a) the value of specified items that were left in No.49 at the valuation date (£2,725); and (b) the future costs of acquiring an alternative property (estimated at £7,470). The Council says the claimant agreed not to retain any items he had not removed from No.49 by the valuation date and that he did not want to incur the cost of their storage or disposal. Furthermore the Council says there is no evidence in support of the claimant’s figure of £2,725 and that the claim for future losses is hypothetical.

5. The claimant appeared in person and called Mrs Penny Veness, BA, FRICS, a consultant to Edward Payne & Veness, as an expert valuation witness.

6. Mr Jon Abbott, Head of Regeneration North within the Council’s Chief Executive’s Department, appeared for the Council and called Mr Mark Warnett, MRICS, FAAV, an associate partner of Carter Jonas LLP, as an expert valuation witness.

7. The reference was heard under the Tribunal’s simplified procedure. Facts

8. No.49 was located on the Heygate Estate immediately to the east of the Elephant and Castle area of the London Borough of Southwark. It was bounded by New Kent Road to the north, Rodney Place to the east, Heygate Street to the south and Walworth Road to the west. The estate was completed in 1974 in the brutalist style of architecture and was constructed using the Jespersen 12M pre-cast concrete panel system. It contained 1,212 dwellings.

9. Four imposing tower blocks were located around the perimeter of the main part of the Heygate Estate. These blocks surrounded a central area containing 10 four-storey blocks of maisonettes. The maisonettes on the top two storeys were accessed by a gallery at second floor level. The lower maisonettes each had small front and rear gardens. A Council brochure based on the requirements of the original planning brief for the Heygate Estate said that the tower blocks would contain two and three person flats while all the dwellings for larger families were grouped in the central maisonette blocks. A system of walkways were said to be the major pedestrian routes for the area so as to avoid the need for residents to walk on pavements or along roads. Exhibited as appendix 11 to the claimant’s statement of case.

10. There was a strong emphasis on the landscaping of the central area with the inclusion of a series of formal geometric spaces and the provision of a large number of trees. The said brochure states at paragraph 4.4.3: “Generous provision of tree planting is regarded as essential. In view of the need for immediate effect and rapid establishment, semi-mature trees … are proposed.” Photographs of the estate exhibited in evidence show that it was heavily wooded by mature trees at the valuation date.

11. No.49 was located in one of four maisonette blocks in the northern section of the middle part of the estate, to the south of, and at right angles to, the tower block facing New Kent Road known as Ashenden. It was a ground and first floor maisonette situated towards the south of the terrace comprising Nos.41-62. The block was faced with brick at ground floor level with concrete panels above. A gallery walkway ran along the length of the block at second floor level (above No.49) to give access to the upper level maisonettes.

12. The experts agree that the gross internal area of the reference property was 100m 2 . The accommodation comprised a kitchen/breakfast room, store and living room at ground floor level and three double bedrooms, a bathroom with WC and wash basin and a separate WC on the first floor. There was double glazing to the ground floor and single glazed metal framed windows to the first floor. There was a front and rear garden. All mains services were available.

13. The estate was served by a district heating and hot water system. Following what the Council described as “a major burst” this system was permanently switched off on 23 April 2010. The Council said alternative forms of heating and hot water would be supplied as soon as possible. In the absence of such an alternative being provided the claimant notified the Council on 28 September 2010 that he would install his own gas central heating boiler. The Council did not respond and so the boiler was installed and certified safe on 15 October 2010.

14. The Council first resolved to review the Elephant and Castle and surrounding areas in June 1998. The “general proposal” included the plan that the Elephant and Castle would become one of the major generators of wealth creation within Southwark and “a model of high quality urban living”. The Council said the major asset it had to offer was its significant land holding and that better use of this land was the key to the development of the project. The Council’s Housing Committee identified the Heygate Estate as a being a suitable candidate for its “capital receipts initiatives”. The Council acknowledged that “even raising such matters” could create difficulties for existing estates. The claimant submitted that the blighting effect of the scheme started at this time in 1998. I do not understand the Council to dispute this in terms although Mr Warnett focused upon the Council’s decision to demolish and regenerate the Heygate Estate as set out in the 2004 Southborough Unitary Development Plan.

15. The Council stopped re-letting tenanted properties on the Heygate Estate on a permanent basis in the early part of 2001. It resolved to make a CPO on the Heygate Estate in July 2007, the area of which was revised in February 2010. Negotiations to acquire all the leasehold interests by agreement having failed the council made the CPO on 14 August 2012. The CPO was confirmed by the Secretary of State on 23 July 2013 following a public inquiry. A general vesting declaration was made on 25 September 2013 and possession of the reference property executed by the Sheriff of London on 6 November 2013.

16. The claimant held a leasehold interest in No.49. The lease was for a term of 125 years from 3 February 1986 at a fixed ground rent of £10 per annum and had some 97.5 years unexpired at the valuation date.